Why Can't Sikhs Excommunicate Patit Sikhs? | Page 4 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Why Can't Sikhs Excommunicate Patit Sikhs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

palaingtha

SPNer
Aug 28, 2012
270
295
89
I've read SRM and Damdami maryadas. Your point?

And how exactly do you propose to atone for your continuing sin of carrying on conversation with us Patit Sikhs? Are you going to start ignoring our posts? Or is it ok when YOU talk to patit Sikhs but others can't? Or is it ok to talk with them online but just not face to face? How are you going to tell who has their hair and who doesn't?

I'm a supporter of common sense, I could care less about patit or not patit.
My reply:-

I am not sharing with you anything. I am saying on the internet that a patit sikh is an outcast as far as Sikhism is concerned. I don't know you whether you are patit or not as I don't know you personally.
You are showing that you are over smart. I started a topic on SPN why can't Sikhs excommunicate Patit Sikhs and I received some replies supporting the Patits.
You say you are supporter of common sense. You want to say you don't support what SRM says. With your view you are alleging that SRM is authored and published by people who have no common sense. That is the difference between a patit and a Sikh. That is the reason why Sikhs are not allowed to interact or have relations with patits.
 

Ishna

Enthusiast
Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,248
5,180
With your view you are alleging that SRM is authored and published by people who have no common sense.
In fact I'm alleging that you have no common sense. ;)
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,178
51
I believe in equality, inclusion, love, compassion, empathy, lack of ritual, lack of rules and that God exists in everything around us.

As painful as it is for me, Palaingthaji is correct, he did not write the SRM, he is merely pointing out what its content is.

I cannot accept this man made document, I cannot accept the leadership, I cannot accept the way that Sikhism is presented or run. I guess I am just an atheist who agrees with the Sikh way of life as detailed in the SGGS.

I am indebted to you for pointing this out to me, thank you
 

palaingtha

SPNer
Aug 28, 2012
270
295
89
I believe in equality, inclusion, love, compassion, empathy, lack of ritual, lack of rules and that God exists in everything around us.

As painful as it is for me, Palaingthaji is correct, he did not write the SRM, he is merely pointing out what its content is.

I cannot accept this man made document, I cannot accept the leadership, I cannot accept the way that Sikhism is presented or run. I guess I am just an atheist who agrees with the Sikh way of life as detailed in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

I am indebted to you for pointing this out to me, thank you
My reply:-

Now you get my point.
If you are a believer in GGS Ji will you please accept the quotes from GGS ji regarding Black magic and Rebirths?
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,178
51
I have better things to do than continue this, sorry, but if it makes you feel better, yes, I accept anything you say, as you are Sikh, and I am not.

I leave you with a quote that has always been very dear to me throughout my life

I do not wish to belong to a club that would have someone like me as a member
Groucho Marx
 

palaingtha

SPNer
Aug 28, 2012
270
295
89
I have better things to do than continue this, sorry, but if it makes you feel better, yes, I accept anything you say, as you are Sikh, and I am not.

I leave you with a quote that has always been very dear to me throughout my life


Groucho Marx
My reply:-

You with your beliefs. We Sikhs will always go by SRM.
Thanks for bringing down the argument curtain once for all.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,178
51
We Sikhs will always go by SRM.
before you get too comfortable in your 'we sikhs', you have not answered my question about the SRM and magic, you are no more Sikh than me, worse, you pass yourself off as one, when you clearly are not

I look forward to your reply, if you have one
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
The thread starter is all too mixed up.

There is no usage of the word "EXCOMMUNICATE" in SRM. He is unfortunately creating his own translations and showing biases based on possible self purity or claim to fame of perfection. Anyone can check this through the SGPC site in the following URL which has English translation,

http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikh-dharma-manual.asp

When challenged here below he decided not to address so far,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/29260-what-does-term-excommunication-mean-light-3.html#post173916

There is no place for Religious vigilantism in Sikhism in any guise. Matters of serious nature and impacting the panth/community can be taken up with Congregations and if need be with Akal Takhat Sahib as so stated in SRM. He is violating the spirit of the SRM in this dialog and basically misguiding having picked a pet peeve or a subject that probably gave him some visibility, glory or satisfaction in his long life.

Plain and simple: Mr Palaingtha or anyone else as an individual has no rights to excommunicate anyone let alone less than perfect Sikhs. If he wants to discriminate against certain people he needs to justify to self and a true Sikh will not play on words but rather seek inner self and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji guidance. If such is truly sought he will soon realize the folly of his ways.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited:

palaingtha

SPNer
Aug 28, 2012
270
295
89
before you get too comfortable in your 'we sikhs', you have not answered my question about the SRM and magic, you are no more Sikh than me, worse, you pass yourself off as one, when you clearly are not

I look forward to your reply, if you have one
My reply:-

No comments for silly questions
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,178
51
Ok, how about commenting on the below,

CHAPTER X

Article XVI - Living in Consonance with Guru's Tenets (Gurmat Rehni)

A Sikh's living, earning livelihood, thinking and conduct should accord with the Guru's tenets. The Guru's tenets are:
a) Worship should be rendered only to the One Timeless Being and to no god or goddess.
b) Regarding the ten Gurus, the Guru Granth Sahib and the ten Gurus' word alone as saviours and holy objects of veneration.
c) Regarding ten Gurus as the effulgence of one light and one single entity.
d) Not believing in caste or descent untouchabililty, Magic spells, incantation, omens, auspicious times, days and occasions, influence of stars, horoscopic dispositions, Shradh (ritual serving of food to priests for the salvation of ancestor on appointed daysas per the lunar calendar), Ancestor worship, khiah (ritual serving of food to priests - Brahmins - on the lunar anniversaries of death of an ancestor) (Two words, shradh and khiah, occuring in this clause connote what appears to be the same thing - the ritual serving of food to the priests (Brahmins)​
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,178
51
What Harry veerji is trying to tell is that SRM is litmus test for oneself, not our neighbours and fellow Sikhs in the Sangat. Perhaps :D
In my view the highest authority in Sikhism is the SGGS. The SRM has been written for those that maybe do not have the time to read the SGGS themselves, and offers a summary of the pertinent points as understood by the academics of the time, and given the information available. I am sorry to say that I believe parts of the SRM fail the litmus test completely, however, you are correct, I believe that it is up to the individual to feel how close or far they measure up. I would like to think the SRM was not written to act as a big stick to beat others with, however, who knows...............
 

palaingtha

SPNer
Aug 28, 2012
270
295
89
The thread starter is all too mixed up.

There is no usage of the word "EXCOMMUNICATE" in SRM. He is unfortunately creating his own translations and showing biases based on possible self purity or claim to fame of perfection. Anyone can check this through the SGPC site in the following URL which has English translation,

http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikh-dharma-manual.asp

When challenged here below he decided not to address so far,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/29260-what-does-term-excommunication-mean-light-3.html#post173916

There is no place for Religious vigilantism in Sikhism in any guise. Matters of serious nature and impacting the panth/community can be taken up with Congregations and if need be with Akal Takhat Sahib as so stated in SRM. He is violating the spirit of the SRM in this dialog and basically misguiding having picked a pet peeve or a subject that probably gave him some visibility, glory or satisfaction in his long life.

Plain and simple: Mr Palaingtha or anyone else as an individual has no rights to excommunicate anyone let alone less than perfect Sikhs. If he wants to discriminate against certain people he needs to justify to self and a true Sikh will not play on words but rather seek inner self and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji guidance. If such is truly sought he will soon realize the folly of his ways.

Sat Sri Akal.
My reply:-

I surfed the SGPC website and the relevant para therein has been translated as here under:-

"You must not associate with a Sikh who had uncut hair earlier and has cut it"

Now the 20th Century English dictionary gives the meaning of Excommunicate
as "to expel from or put out of communion, excommunication etc." It is right to say that Sikhs should "excommunicate" Patit Sikhs.
If you do not accept "You must not associate with a Sikh who had uncut hair earlier and has cut it" to mean that Sikhs must cut off all relations (or excommunicate) with such Sikh who has cut his hair then you are contradicting your own belief in the translation of SGPC.
Regarding you other two paras they do not worth any consideration since you are giving your opinion on personal matters.
I HAVE NOT MADE ANY PERSONAL ATTACK ON ANY ONE BUT CALLED A SPADE IS A SPADE, VIZ. A Patit is a Patit, (and therefore Sikhs must not associate with him or in other word excommunicate him)
It is an accepted fact that when a person has no reasonable answer or reply he takes recourse to mean tactics of making personal attacks. And that is what some of SPN members are doing. I am not making any judgement but giving references of SRM in connection with "Why can't Sikhs Excomm........"
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,178
51
I HAVE NOT MADE ANY PERSONAL ATTACK ON ANY ONE BUT CALLED A SPADE IS A SPADE
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You write too much irrelevant things. Probably confused.
I don't want to waste my time with a person like you who is a bundle of superiority Complex.
You are showing that you are over smart
I have seen many people whose ego is over inflated nearly to bursting point. But not great an egoistic like you
You are nobody to judge what I am or not. How the hell are you concerned about me.
Any reply out of these subjects will be treated as RUBBISH
I have seen many people whose ego is over inflated nearly to bursting point. But not great an egoistic like you
I could have gone on, but I got bored...............

Actually I do not see what the fuss is all about, if Mr Sikh Taliban here does not wish to associate with Patit types, that is his right, if he wants to believe in Imps and pixies and witches, ditto. Maybe he trawls the SRM looking for types of Sikhs to excommunicate, who knows, but fundamentally it is his right.

What scares me is this book you have written, somehow I cannot see it being full of love and inclusion, could I have a signed copy?

something like 'to my dear friend Harry, whom I am not supposed to associate with' would be great lol lol lol
 
Last edited:

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
Palaingtha ji thanks for your reply. Some thoughts for your consideration. I take your first post and embed in blue some comments.
In Sikhism the most important (FALSE, all Kuraehats are stated without differentiation ) of the five Kakkars ( Cutting or dishonoring Kesh is a Kurehat and as such has little to do with Kakkars per se for Amritdhari Sikh) is "one will never cut,trim or remove hairs of his body (KESH is hair on your head and not your whole body) ".And any Sikh guilty of this part of ethic is a PATIT, i.e. a fallen one (concept of PATIT is for Amritdhari Sikhs and no one else and relates to viloation per a Kurehat) . Nowadays Sikhs especially in Punjab villages are cutting off or have already shorn their hairs of head. In Punjab it is due lack of SIKHI PRACHAR. When a Sikh attains prosperity in life he sheds his hairs of his head sending Sikh ethics to the winds. Guru Gobind Singh Ji has strictly prohibited (FALSE as Guru ji created complete Sikhs but did not say anything of those incomplete. Remember Sikhism is not based on vengeance or debasing human beings even if they fail in any way including ways Sikhi.) Sikhs to have any contact with a Patit Sikh (Guru ji created complete Khalsa but did not create Khalsa to hate others whether Patit or not).

When we retain relations with a Patjt Sikh we should ask ourselves "Are we obeying Guru's Hukam" (You are using the word correctly per SRM but it does not translate into creating a so called class at your whim of Excommunicated Ones. Sikhism does not teach you to shun anyone.)?
Let us now test the history and possible implementations of your so called “Excommunicating” principles.

1. Year 1932

First draft of SRM. Little mobility of people. You have close neighborhoods and families where basically you will recognize most if not all your neighbors be it Sikh, Hindu or Muslim.

If a Sikh cut his hair all will know. So you know who not to associate with even though SRM is not in force. The person will be considered a fallen one needing support and help.

2. Year 1947

Neighbors killing neighbors with venom created by religious zealots and mostly instigated by Hindus and Muslims. Sikhs get tricked by Hindus into believing a better life if were to join India. Stupid Sikh leaders. Sikhism declines from the day India becomes Independent and the decline enshrined in the constitution of the Republic of India where Sikhs are treated as Hindus and Punjabi is displaced.

3. Year 2012

a. India and Punjab

For an ordinary person no way of knowing without investigating whether a Sikh without Kesh is so because his hair were cut when he was under the guardianship of his parents. How would you declare a child to be Patit given actions of parents if this was the case? Other than to willy nilly start excommunicating all, you will need to create a registry of those who became patiti, when and what identifies them so that all may not associate with them.

This shows the foolishness of your proposed approach.

b. Outside India like UK, Canada, USA, etc.

A person born into a Sikh family lineage is without kesh. If such a person was born in one of these countries, the likelihood is 99%+ that his hair were cut when he was a child and under the guardianship of his parents. Now suddenly as he becomes of age you are going to declare him/her patit! Seriously you cannot do more harm to Sikhism than anyone else without question if you were to do so. The future of Sikhism rests as much with such people outside of India and they need to be nurtured, supported, encouraged, etc. They don’t need to be made outcasts, shunned, so called excommunicated by people like you with little thought of practicality and realities of how things are.

Veer ji Sikhism deserves better thinking from people like you. A sharing of experiences if your stated age is valid as at 81 years old. You should provide a perspective and a constructive one. Everyone can read the SRM but experiences and coaching comes from care, love and effort. Rest is too easy. You have taken even a greater easier approach which is based on and driven by fault finding, by re-stating rules and even coloring such with your own fire brand thoughts violating the framework and essence of SRM.

Sat Sri Akal.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
 
Last edited:
Apr 12, 2007
351
262
I can see in the future, not in my life time, but I am sad to say this. These hard-liners and liberals in Sikhism, fighting it out as these hard-liners think they control the religion and the liberals just want to get on they are not bothered what the hard-liners do, but the hard-liners seem bothered about what the liberals do and so this leads to oppression and quiet honestly with history as an example oppression never lasts. Have rules and conducts but things that propose love for humanity without dis-positioning another person just because they behave differently to you! This will not unite you and you will lose a failing thought position. Look at history at the process of thinking or should I say policy you are peddling Mr palaingtha! "Divide and Conquer", "United they stand but divided they fall"
 
Last edited:

palaingtha

SPNer
Aug 28, 2012
270
295
89
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I could have gone on, but I got bored...............

Actually I do not see what the fuss is all about, if Mr Sikh Taliban here does not wish to associate with Patit types, that is his right, if he wants to believe in Imps and pixies and witches, ditto. Maybe he trawls the SRM looking for types of Sikhs to excommunicate, who knows, but fundamentally it is his right.

What scares me is this book you have written, somehow I cannot see it being full of love and inclusion, could I have a signed copy?

something like 'to my dear friend Harry, whom I am not supposed to associate with' would be great lol lol lol
My reply:-

You have already brought down the curtain on the issue. Why take trouble and collect what I have written to others and bring it up as if I have addressed the same to you.
 

palaingtha

SPNer
Aug 28, 2012
270
295
89
Palaingtha ji thanks for your reply. Some thoughts for your consideration. I take your first post and embed in blue some comments.Let us now test the history and possible implementations of your so called “Excommunicating” principles.

1. Year 1932

First draft of SRM. Little mobility of people. You have close neighborhoods and families where basically you will recognize most if not all your neighbors be it Sikh, Hindu or Muslim.

If a Sikh cut his hair all will know. So you know who not to associate with even though SRM is not in force. The person will be considered a fallen one needing support and help.

2. Year 1947

Neighbors killing neighbors with venom created by religious zealots and mostly instigated by Hindus and Muslims. Sikhs get tricked by Hindus into believing a better life if were to join India. Stupid Sikh leaders. Sikhism declines from the day India becomes Independent and the decline enshrined in the constitution of the Republic of India where Sikhs are treated as Hindus and Punjabi is displaced.

3. Year 2012

a. India and Punjab

For an ordinary person no way of knowing without investigating whether a Sikh without Kesh is so because his hair were cut when he was under the guardianship of his parents. How would you declare a child to be Patit given actions of parents if this was the case? Other than to willy nilly start excommunicating all, you will need to create a registry of those who became patiti, when and what identifies them so that all may not associate with them.

This shows the foolishness of your proposed approach.

b. Outside India like UK, Canada, USA, etc.

A person born into a Sikh family lineage is without kesh. If such a person was born in one of these countries, the likelihood is 99%+ that his hair were cut when he was a child and under the guardianship of his parents. Now suddenly as he becomes of age you are going to declare him/her patit! Seriously you cannot do more harm to Sikhism than anyone else without question if you were to do so. The future of Sikhism rests as much with such people outside of India and they need to be nurtured, supported, encouraged, etc. They don’t need to be made outcasts, shunned, so called excommunicated by people like you with little thought of practicality and realities of how things are.

Veer ji Sikhism deserves better thinking from people like you. A sharing of experiences if your stated age is valid as at 81 years old. You should provide a perspective and a constructive one. Everyone can read the SRM but experiences and coaching comes from care, love and effort. Rest is too easy. You have taken even a greater easier approach which is based on and driven by fault finding, by re-stating rules and even coloring such with your own fire brand thoughts violating the framework and essence of SRM.

Sat Sri Akal.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
My reply:-

I am replying as far as my question was,i.e."Why can't Sikhs......"
Now the reason behind the SRM dictates was that a Sikh one time having hair on his head cuts them off will want himself to prove that he has not done any wrong and thereby try to influence other Sikhs. With this reason in mind Guru Sahib wanted his Sikhs not to associate (not to carry on Roti beti da rishta) with such Sikh who has cut his hair.
You must have heard the story of a dog trapped in a Hunter's snare and while struggling hard to get free it cut it's tail in the process. Now all other dogs laughed at it's condition. Then this dog explained that it was done for some benefits and advised the other dogs to get their tails cut like it.
So likewaise a Patit Sikh would like others follow suit.
 

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,178
51
My reply:-

You have already brought down the curtain on the issue. Why take trouble and collect what I have written to others and bring it up as if I have addressed the same to you.
actually most were addressed to me.

Why take the trouble?

Because everytime you post something, you answer nothing but merely contradict yourself.

I have to say my interaction with you has been hugely beneficial for me in more ways than you could possibly understand. You have taught me that wisdom does not automatically come with age, that an 18 year old can have more foresight and experience than an 81 year old, that views based on rumours and stories can never be given any grounding, so so much.

In all honesty, I feel sorry for you, and I am not being sarcastic, I truly, from the bottom of my heart feel a pity for you. Your take on Sikhism is divisive, and like most of your generation it is because you never asked questions, you never said 'why?', you accepted handed down stories as fact and based your life and your thinking on it. Of course in those days there were no internet, no communication, just old men and women spewing the same garbage that was spewed to them. Sikhism became different, each family had its own version, thats how things were then.

Now we have the internet, now we are not afraid of the elders any more, now we question, we debate, we discuss, we try and find the truth through the fog.

When I started my interest in Sikhism again after many years living the light fantastic, the first question people asked me was 'Will you grow your hair now', which I thought was a strange question, as if that was the only facet to being a Sikh. Nothing is ever said about the thinking, the contemplation, the actions of being a Sikh, it is always the hair.

Your writings betray your views, your views belong in a different age, an age long gone now.

I beg you to take a good hard look at your thinking and try and find some truth before it is too late, surely you do not wish to leave this world relying on those sakhis, believing that all it takes to be a Sikh is hair, wake up my dear friend, it is the 21st Century, we should help and embrace each other, we should be lobbying for a change to the SRM to be in line with the 21st century, so that it does not make a mockery of Sikhism. Frankly under the SRM as it stands, you would be hard pressed not find some rule or wording that did not make patits out of all Sikhs. I have already several times brought your attention to your fascination with magic and witches, which is clearly stated as being anti Sikhi, yet you refuse to be drawn on this topic.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
palaingtha ji thanks for your answer. I appreciate that you have shared a phrase that I have not heard for a long time and it actually conveys the essence very well.

So I say, with the following line you have come around to what I have tried to say in many posts. I have highlighted the key words as well as described the "Punjabi Phrase" for the English readers of this forum.
...... Sikhs not to associate
If you take the (s) out in Sikhs I will agree that the SRM so directs an Amritdhari or complete Sikh at a personal level.

(not to carry on Roti beti da rishta) with such Sikh who has cut his hair......
  • not to carry on ... Roti .....
    • Not to associate for creating a relationship for earning the avails of living
  • not to carry on ... beti da rishta
    • Not to associate through relationship in marriage. For example your daughter marrying such a non-Keshadhari/"hair-shorn" person
Right or wrong I see that SRM so says as guidance to individual Amritdhari Sikhs. By the way even if one did this, the SRM suggests that one at own initiative seek forgiveness from the congregation, if it is bothering one. In SRM the initiative to redress violations that bother you internally is upon you and not some "Patit"" hunting or enforcement police.

Sat Sri Akal.mundahug
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

These are saloks of Sant Kabir ji. They appear on Ang 1369. There is no rehao. The translation is by Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa. spnadmin

ਕਬੀਰ ਮਨੁ ਪੰਖੀ ਭਇਓ ਉਡਿ ਉਡਿ ਦਹ ਦਿਸ ਜਾਇ...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top