Why Can't Sikhs Excommunicate Patit Sikhs?

[Harry Haller]

They were never Sikhs.
We are discussing about Sikhs who once had long hair which they had cut them and become Patits.
The heading of the relevant topic is "Why can't Sikhs excommunicate Patit Sikhs". Confine you threads to this only.
Thanks.

The Definition of Sikh :

Article I

Any human being who faithfully believes in

i. One Immortal Being,
ii. Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Sahib to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib,
iii. The Guru Granth Sahib,
iv. The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and v. the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh​

<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" cols="2" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]</td></tr></tbody></table>oh dear, your beloved SRM is once again contradicting your own lopsided thinking.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Harry Haller ji and many others so frustrated by illogical demagoguery demonstrated by the thread starter.

If we were to extend the logic of palaingtha ji then many would be disbarred as Sikhs if they were around today. Let us look at Sikhi family tree and roots that all Sikhs of all types are branches, buds, leaves and flowers of,

According to palaingtha ji they would all be patit other than Guru Gobind Singh ji. I find such logic abhorrent and plain and simple stupidity. Remember I have not mentioned Baba Farid ji, Bhagat Kabir ji, etc., who were considered Sikh enough by our founding Guru ji to have some of their writings included. They were not treated as patit. Further, I believe patit is a concept of SRM and from my understanding it is not a concept of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but I stand corrected. My understanding being that the concept of patit is a communal concept to protect the smaller number of Sikhs that we have always been from failing within. It is a noble concept but the tone or adoption of it as taken by some is demeaning, toxic and fundamentally violates the foundations on which Sikhism came to be in the first place.

I believe palaingtha ji is confusing between a Sikh non-amritdhari (Sikh) and the ones so practicing having taken amrit (Khalsa). All Sikhs can become Khalsa and it is a worthwhile and important goal to put into complete practice. Who is Sikh, see above post and it is a belief driven definition (http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...-excommunicate-patit-sikhs-12.html#post174129). Who is Amritdhari Sikh with Panthic/communal role model or meeting such objectives is well defined in the SRM as well. They co-exist and are like two parts of the same family. One so called slow learner (I believe Randip Singh ji uses it for sehajdhari or non-hair keeping Sikhs) and the other tiar-bar-tiar/"Ready as they come" who are fully amritdhari practicing Sikhs with inner and outer values as in SRM.

I am much ashamed at seeing the exclusion logic and hypocrisy displayed in some of the communication in this thread.

Sat Sri Akal.

PS: I will be starting the Occult thread to review some of the secondary assertions and double speak in some of the posts.

 

[palaingtha]

Palaingtha,

What does this part of the SRM mean:

A Sikh's living, earning livelihood, thinking and conduct should accord with the Guru's tenets. The Guru's tenets are: ... {snip}
<SNIP>
d) Not believing in caste or descent untouchabililty, Magic spells, incantation, omens, auspicious times, {snip}...<SNIP>

​

Lucky,

To 'flog a dead horse' is an euphemism for 'continuing on with something that is futile, i.e. this argument will get no where so why keep at it?

My reply:-

We are at present discussing the topic of " Why can't Sikhs excommunicate Patit Sikhs?
So let us discuss on the main issue. The issue/s you have raised could be discussed later
What do you say about the Patit Sikh in consideration of SRM View?
You are side tracking the issue in discussion. Be honest and admit in SRM it is there "That a Sikh with hairs on his head cuts his hairs is not to be associated by any Sikh." Stop beating about the bush and admit like a sensible person that the authors and the Publishers of the SRM wanted that Sikhs do not associate with those Sikhs who have cut their hairs.

 

[palaingtha]

The Definition of Sikh :

Article I

Any human being who faithfully believes in

i. One Immortal Being,
ii. Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Sahib to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib,
iii. The Guru Granth Sahib,
iv. The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and v. the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh​

<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" cols="2" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]</td></tr></tbody></table>oh dear, your beloved SRM is once again contradicting your own lopsided thinking.

My reply:-

The SRM dictates come under para iv of the above article.
A dishonest man will never see the reason and will always try to side track the issue.
You are saying that SRM dictates do not apply to you. And the SRM do not accept you as a Sikh and for that matter all Sikhs who have cut their hairs of their heads(SIRGHUMS).
All SIRGHUMS want to justify their anti Sikh stance and have ganged up to side track yhe issue and attack me.
The Gur Sikhs are MUTE SPECTATORS. I wonder why????/
This is my last and final post on the issue I raised "that why can't Sikhs excommunicate Patits."
If anybody replies to the said issue any further he could not be considered a sensible man.

 

[Ishna]

Yep, that's what it says in black and white. You better get ready to stop reading and replying to my posts because my own hair is on the chopping block in the next couple of weeks. Where does that put you in relation to me? Or is it ok, because this is the internet? Would it only be a problem if you saw me in the street, or in your gurdwara?

Luckily, since a good 80% of the Sikhs I attend gurdwara with have cut hair I don't anticipate getting any more of a cold shoulder than usual.

Then again, I don't know too many amritdharis. Maybe the gyaniji will stop talking to me. *shrugs*

At the same time I beg to differ that hair is required in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, but perhaps that is also off-topic, since we're talking about the SRM in this thread.

And please, I beg you, indulge us all in this thread: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...ccultism-rejection-sikh-reht-maryada-srm.html and tell us about how you rationalise the fact that the SRM says not to believe in magic yet you insist on believing in it, hence setting a double-standard and reducing your credibility on the hair topic at hand.

 

[Harry Haller]

The SRM dictates come under para iv of the above article.

The above article, which defines a Sikh is reproduced in its entirety, it has no other paras, clearly you may not know the SRM as well as you think you do

A dishonest man will never see the reason and will always try to side track the issue.

Not at all, I am just trying to figure out what it is you are trying to say. I have a feeling even you are not sure what you are trying to say. The above clearly states what a Sikh is. I assume you mean a Sikh to be a Amritdhari Sikh, rather than a Keshdhari Sikh, but then I really am not sure. I am a Sikh, but not Amritdhari, so does this concern me? I would be grateful for your answer. Am I petit or not?

You are saying that SRM dictates do not apply to you. And the SRM do not accept you as a Sikh and for that matter all Sikhs who have cut their hairs of their heads(SIRGHUMS).

I have read this several times and have no idea what you are trying to say.

All SIRGHUMS want to justify their anti Sikh stance and have ganged up to side track yhe issue and attack me.
The Gur Sikhs are MUTE SPECTATORS. I wonder why????/

No one has attacked you, I think you generate a great deal of sympathy, I certainly feel very very sorry for you. To be so bitter at your age is a huge shame.

This is my last and final post on the issue I raised "that why can't Sikhs excommunicate Patits."
If anybody replies to the said issue any further he could not be considered a sensible man.

Well hooray to that, you are doing more damage with your views than you could possibly know.

 

[Admin]

Admin Note: Thread is now closed. If anybody has something really constructive to add to the discussion then s/he may start a new topic while referencing to this topic. Closed.