curious seeker
SPNer
- Feb 25, 2010
- 138
- 104
- 76
Sehajdhari Sikh Federation! Comments, Please
- Thread starter curious seeker
- Start date
- Replies 94
- Reads 21K
-
- Tags
- comments federation sehajdhari sikh
Re: Comments, Please
ballym ji
Thanks for your insights. My quick read of the homepage and also the second level pages led me to come to a similar conclusion. The photo gallery consisted of pictures that looked like political gatherings, rallies and public relations shots. There were a lot of "Sants" listed among the leadership. Strange. The home page commentary seemed to be specifically aimed at judicial controversies where it was important to define a "Sikh" for political reasons that were limited to constitutional issues within India. But I am not certain.
ballym ji
Thanks for your insights. My quick read of the homepage and also the second level pages led me to come to a similar conclusion. The photo gallery consisted of pictures that looked like political gatherings, rallies and public relations shots. There were a lot of "Sants" listed among the leadership. Strange. The home page commentary seemed to be specifically aimed at judicial controversies where it was important to define a "Sikh" for political reasons that were limited to constitutional issues within India. But I am not certain.
curious seeker
SPNer
- Feb 25, 2010
- 138
- 104
- 76
Re: Comments, Please
Hi Ballym
Thanks for replying! I was more interested on some of the things said.
For ex,
'In 1699, all Sikhs were invited (not ordered) to become Khalsa. It is reported by the emperor’s own spies that 20,000 out of 80,000 able-bodied men, and some women took up the offer. The great Guru did not curse, criticize or condemn those who did not take up the offer! The Guru was just asking of His followers to take the fight to the Muslim rulers. He loved them all, Khalsa or not. And if you think about it properly, Guru Gobind Singh Ji had actually raised an army of Khalsa to defend, yes, the Sikhs, the folks who HAD NOT taken the Panj Kakari Amrit. ...''
It seems that the writer is saying that the Khalsa, was to be a special grade or order of Sikhs, Saint Soldiers who are specially called to an army of Saint Soldiers, called indeed, to fight evil in any way, but more than just spiritually.
He also goes on to say:
'' The Khalsa were the Knights of the Guru’s table. The Khalsa, and not the Sikh, was required to wear the 5 K’s, their uniform, as an outward display of their status in society, and their will to fight state sponsored terrorism.''
And:
'' This clearly means that anyone who believes in the above, without any reservation, is a Sikh of the Guru. Notice, that there is no mention of turbans or long hair. Notice also that there is no mention of any requirement to wear kakaars. That specifically is the code for a Khalsa, and clearly, that cannot be disputed. To be a Khalsa, one must bear all 5 kakaars. But to be a Sikh, one only needs to satisfy the three conditions listed above. ...''
Now coming from different traditions, I have to tell you that if there is no direct call in the SGGS, or well and clearly attested, by the living Gurus, for the final goal of all Sikhs to be Khalsa, then, most Non-Sikhs, and most non-Punjabis, will believe that the Khalsa was not meant for every one, and that attempts to present it otherwise, are based on other than scripture and will be considered to be fanaticism.
Thus my intention was for Sikhs to comment on the specifics of what was said in the article.
Blessings
Curious
Hi Ballym
Thanks for replying! I was more interested on some of the things said.
For ex,
'In 1699, all Sikhs were invited (not ordered) to become Khalsa. It is reported by the emperor’s own spies that 20,000 out of 80,000 able-bodied men, and some women took up the offer. The great Guru did not curse, criticize or condemn those who did not take up the offer! The Guru was just asking of His followers to take the fight to the Muslim rulers. He loved them all, Khalsa or not. And if you think about it properly, Guru Gobind Singh Ji had actually raised an army of Khalsa to defend, yes, the Sikhs, the folks who HAD NOT taken the Panj Kakari Amrit. ...''
It seems that the writer is saying that the Khalsa, was to be a special grade or order of Sikhs, Saint Soldiers who are specially called to an army of Saint Soldiers, called indeed, to fight evil in any way, but more than just spiritually.
He also goes on to say:
'' The Khalsa were the Knights of the Guru’s table. The Khalsa, and not the Sikh, was required to wear the 5 K’s, their uniform, as an outward display of their status in society, and their will to fight state sponsored terrorism.''
And:
'' This clearly means that anyone who believes in the above, without any reservation, is a Sikh of the Guru. Notice, that there is no mention of turbans or long hair. Notice also that there is no mention of any requirement to wear kakaars. That specifically is the code for a Khalsa, and clearly, that cannot be disputed. To be a Khalsa, one must bear all 5 kakaars. But to be a Sikh, one only needs to satisfy the three conditions listed above. ...''
Now coming from different traditions, I have to tell you that if there is no direct call in the SGGS, or well and clearly attested, by the living Gurus, for the final goal of all Sikhs to be Khalsa, then, most Non-Sikhs, and most non-Punjabis, will believe that the Khalsa was not meant for every one, and that attempts to present it otherwise, are based on other than scripture and will be considered to be fanaticism.
Thus my intention was for Sikhs to comment on the specifics of what was said in the article.
Blessings
Curious
Re: Comments, Please
Very amusing ... must say that. That is what happens when a way of living is chained with some '...ism'. (!)Logical(!) minds putting definitions around different words as per their limited understanding...
Guru sahib has ready given the definition of sikh in the shabad - Guru Satguru ka jo sikh... http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/14247-gur-satgur-ka-jo-sikh-akhai.html
With Regards, Arvind.
Very amusing ... must say that. That is what happens when a way of living is chained with some '...ism'. (!)Logical(!) minds putting definitions around different words as per their limited understanding...
Guru sahib has ready given the definition of sikh in the shabad - Guru Satguru ka jo sikh... http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/14247-gur-satgur-ka-jo-sikh-akhai.html
With Regards, Arvind.
Sehajdhari is also one of those terms which is UNIQUE to Sikhs . Are there Sehajdhari Muslims , Sehajdhari Christians , Sehajdhari Jews . This term is totally misleading , mischiveous & wholly constructed with some AGENDA in mind . Those RODAS , GHONA-MONAS whose only aim of life is EAT,DRINK & MAKE MERRY are out to control Sikh institutions & avail other minority benifits but CRIB at the very mention of KEEPING HAIR have devised this new platform . I may dare them just to leave Sikhs & Sikhi alone , we will be happy to be in a minority in Punjab but never compromise with the principles & beliefs .
curious seeker
SPNer
- Feb 25, 2010
- 138
- 104
- 76
Re: Comments, Please
Hi Arvind ji
Thank you very much, I did check out the thread and sure enough, just like I thought, the men of God do not divide men, men that don't know God do ...
Blessings
Hi Arvind ji
Thank you very much, I did check out the thread and sure enough, just like I thought, the men of God do not divide men, men that don't know God do ...
Blessings
Last edited:
Curious Seeker ji,
Apart from the political aspect, the article does raise some questions which cannot be brushed aside.
However IMHO every Gursikh's desire definitely is to be baptised as Khalsa. So the journey from so called "Sehajdhari" to Khalsa is a continuum. Some may reach it and some may not but that does not make them any less beloved to the Guru.
Again in my humble opinion the task of a Sikh, a "Sehajdari" or otherwise is continuous self improvement and sevice to mankind which includes protecting the weak against tyranny, "Vand Chak" and propagation of the concept of Simran or Naam Jap irrespective of caste, creed or religion. And ofco{censored} as Khalsa the same aims are pursued more passionately.
In light of above, the conept of Khalistan being limited to a tiny geographic region appears absurd. For Khalsa the whole Earth is Khalistan.
However for the purpose of governance in India, a Sikh needs to be Keshdhari as per the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana high Court.
Apart from the political aspect, the article does raise some questions which cannot be brushed aside.
However IMHO every Gursikh's desire definitely is to be baptised as Khalsa. So the journey from so called "Sehajdhari" to Khalsa is a continuum. Some may reach it and some may not but that does not make them any less beloved to the Guru.
Again in my humble opinion the task of a Sikh, a "Sehajdari" or otherwise is continuous self improvement and sevice to mankind which includes protecting the weak against tyranny, "Vand Chak" and propagation of the concept of Simran or Naam Jap irrespective of caste, creed or religion. And ofco{censored} as Khalsa the same aims are pursued more passionately.
In light of above, the conept of Khalistan being limited to a tiny geographic region appears absurd. For Khalsa the whole Earth is Khalistan.
However for the purpose of governance in India, a Sikh needs to be Keshdhari as per the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana high Court.
Dalbirk ji
We humans have nature to mold religions to suit ourself.Because ours is Young Religion that's why people have difficulty to accept sehajdhari form.
Prophet mohammed in one of Hadith's clearly said That he has no connection with people who shave their beards.Hijab is recommened in Quran.Still we see large percentage of muslims without Hijab and Beard .So in other word majority of muslims are sehajdhari muslims.It is just their leaders don't force community (barring Talibans ) to wear it.
At present hoping that 100% sikh community will keep uncut hair is like day dreaming.The more we force them the more people we loose to other carbon copy Dera's and religions.This will result in Final extinction of sikhism
I think it is important as harbhansj ji helped explain that this issue of sehajdhari is complicated by the contexts in which the word comes up. It is actually very complicated --almost like a ball of yarn that has become tangled up over time and different cats having been playing with it.
1. Originally the sehajdhari were "friends, followers, disciples" of our Gurus who were on the path to sehaj - tranquility of God consciousness. It is not clear from history whether at that point there was a distinction related to kesh.
2. The term later came to mean those sikhs who were not baptized and therefore did/did not keep hair.
3. At some point the distinction sehajdhari, keshdhari (keeps hair but is not baptized) , amridthari (baptized) emerges. That is the point where the idea of a "continuum" or degrees of adherence to the 5 kakkars begins to be voiced.
4. The Sikh Rehat Maryada is written and adopted. (1931)
Sikh Reht Maryada, The Definition of Sikh, Sikh Conduct & Conventions, Sikh Religion Living, India
In this document it is stated that a Sikh should keep hair. However that is not included in the first part where a Sikh is defined -- i.e., the importance of kesh is discussed later on in the document. Rather the definition of a Sikh includes "belief" in Sikh baptism, though it does not say in that particular spot a Sikh must be baptised to be a Sikh. That idea is also developed later in the document.
5. The legal and political questions which have surfaced recently come from the particulars of government and politics in India. The question Who is a Sikh increasingly has been defined for purposes of allocating funding, reserving benefits, or resolving disputes in terms of keeping hair as per the Sikh Rehat Maryada.
Point number 5 has virtually no importance for those living outside of India. The other points persist as areas of controversy.
What I find interesting about the web site is that it rises from India and has a very clear bias in favor of "sehajdhari" as a way to define all of us. Now go back and look at the photo gallery and you will see why. The group, according to its own agenda, saw some benefit in wading through muddy water. So it churned the bottom of the pond.
1. Originally the sehajdhari were "friends, followers, disciples" of our Gurus who were on the path to sehaj - tranquility of God consciousness. It is not clear from history whether at that point there was a distinction related to kesh.
2. The term later came to mean those sikhs who were not baptized and therefore did/did not keep hair.
3. At some point the distinction sehajdhari, keshdhari (keeps hair but is not baptized) , amridthari (baptized) emerges. That is the point where the idea of a "continuum" or degrees of adherence to the 5 kakkars begins to be voiced.
4. The Sikh Rehat Maryada is written and adopted. (1931)
Sikh Reht Maryada, The Definition of Sikh, Sikh Conduct & Conventions, Sikh Religion Living, India
In this document it is stated that a Sikh should keep hair. However that is not included in the first part where a Sikh is defined -- i.e., the importance of kesh is discussed later on in the document. Rather the definition of a Sikh includes "belief" in Sikh baptism, though it does not say in that particular spot a Sikh must be baptised to be a Sikh. That idea is also developed later in the document.
5. The legal and political questions which have surfaced recently come from the particulars of government and politics in India. The question Who is a Sikh increasingly has been defined for purposes of allocating funding, reserving benefits, or resolving disputes in terms of keeping hair as per the Sikh Rehat Maryada.
Point number 5 has virtually no importance for those living outside of India. The other points persist as areas of controversy.
What I find interesting about the web site is that it rises from India and has a very clear bias in favor of "sehajdhari" as a way to define all of us. Now go back and look at the photo gallery and you will see why. The group, according to its own agenda, saw some benefit in wading through muddy water. So it churned the bottom of the pond.
N.kaur ji
The fact is sehajdhari form is accepted then 99% of Young sikh males will opt for sehajdhari form.majority of Humans prefer simple route rather than tough one.Tell why will a young sikh man will wear turban when he sees daily spending 1/2-1 hour in turban tying beard tying,then looking different ,then some people making fun of him,then facing rejection from girls particularly because of turban and beard.Moreover If he has dream of going outside then facing higher risk of racial attack,can't be eligible for some jobs like pilot.
In All the above circumstances I doubt whether 1% will be opt or not
The fact is sehajdhari form is accepted then 99% of Young sikh males will opt for sehajdhari form.majority of Humans prefer simple route rather than tough one.Tell why will a young sikh man will wear turban when he sees daily spending 1/2-1 hour in turban tying beard tying,then looking different ,then some people making fun of him,then facing rejection from girls particularly because of turban and beard.Moreover If he has dream of going outside then facing higher risk of racial attack,can't be eligible for some jobs like pilot.
In All the above circumstances I doubt whether 1% will be opt or not
Hi Curious
It is interesting how self identity is also political identity. The "home" tab on that site clarifies that this is not just a spiritual movement. In fact it has always been a part of the Sikh agenda it would appear, reading about the oppression in the past. Can Sikhism ever be separated from self identity?
What I find most liberating and beautiful is that one is constantly reminded in SGGS to look beyond the name and form which can lead us astray, as there beyond lies the ultimate truth.
:meditation:
It is interesting how self identity is also political identity. The "home" tab on that site clarifies that this is not just a spiritual movement. In fact it has always been a part of the Sikh agenda it would appear, reading about the oppression in the past. Can Sikhism ever be separated from self identity?
What I find most liberating and beautiful is that one is constantly reminded in SGGS to look beyond the name and form which can lead us astray, as there beyond lies the ultimate truth.
:meditation:
No doubt! This irritates me no end though I do try to overcome my negativity. When someone decides to take the path of sehajdhari and they make up a fairly large group, then why all of this resentment toward keshdhari who tie dastar? That is the direction that I personally observe. I rarely see or read a keshdhari or amritdhari sikh, for that matter, taking the time to stir up controversy in order to say that person x or y is not a Sikh. :advocate: Yet sehajdhari accuse keshdhari of doing it, saying they are made targets of bigotry. You can read it in that web site, and it is not unusual.
Narayanjot Kaur ji & Kanwardeep Singh ji,
Sehajdaris who are so from birth have been treated with considerable warmth by Keshdaris, a fact which they cannot deny.
Keshdharis do sometimes show resentment towards apostates who were earlier Keshdharis but have shed their Kesh for perceived "advantages" but still insist on being known as Sikhs and demand all the "benefits" of being a Sikh!
This obviously is unacceptable.
Sehajdaris who are so from birth have been treated with considerable warmth by Keshdaris, a fact which they cannot deny.
Keshdharis do sometimes show resentment towards apostates who were earlier Keshdharis but have shed their Kesh for perceived "advantages" but still insist on being known as Sikhs and demand all the "benefits" of being a Sikh!
This obviously is unacceptable.
N.kaur ji
The dispute between sehajdhari and Keshdhari is quite an old one.Earlier many Hindu's as well as sikhs never considered sikhism as separate religion.
The people who used to keep hair were considered as sikhs while those who Don't were considered as Hindus.there was hardly any concept of sehajdharis
As a growing up I had seen many Hindu families who had so much faith and
dedication towards Gurdwara's.They use to go to more to Gurdwara than mandirs,use to do paath , sewa in Gurdwara,even use to celebrate Gurpurabs .by lighting their home's.Stilll by doing all these things they called themselves Hindus.
Yet on the another hand these people also use to crack 12 o clock jokes and in turbulent times never stood for sikhs for their political cause.It is only turbaned sikhs from past many years are fighting for sikh cause.
The above are the one of the main reason that why sehajdhari's were never considered as part of sikhism because they are considered as part of Hinduism.
I am sorry harbans ji but in this age this logic is not going to work.One has to wear turban or keep hair just because he/she is born in sikh family.A person
born in Hindu or any other religion can enjoy all the benefit of sikh spirituality
and still call himself/herself sikh.While a person born in sikh family even he is non religious or Don't want to practice sikhism for time being should keep hair
Kanwardeep Ji ,
IMHO if we accept Roda ( clean shaven ) as a Sehajdhari then I feel Sikhs will be history in next 50 years . A study of Hinduism clearly tells that you do anything in the name of spirituality , you can still be called Hindu . The Muslims & Christians differ from Sikhism due to the fact that their Mecca & Vatican lie outside India , which chalk out various programmes & also these are much older religions . Sikhs have their SGPC , Golden Temple & all Gurudwaras in India as such they are affected by majority practices , politics like we have seen in Nanakshahi Calender , Sikhs visiting temples , Pirs , astrologers, practicising Castism , fasting , Graves & whole lot of other superstitions . In addition to Article 25 ( B) there are many hurdles in independent identity of Sikhs . The idea that it takes 30 minutes to tie beard & turban is not applicable to some like me who do these chores in average less than 5 minutes in daily routine which is much less time than consumed in shaving & gelling hair . So a SABAT SOORAT Sikh identity is our only hope for independent identity as well protection of our beliefs , practices , philosophy , ideology . Any compromise with this will bring us to near extinction not otherwise .
IMHO if we accept Roda ( clean shaven ) as a Sehajdhari then I feel Sikhs will be history in next 50 years . A study of Hinduism clearly tells that you do anything in the name of spirituality , you can still be called Hindu . The Muslims & Christians differ from Sikhism due to the fact that their Mecca & Vatican lie outside India , which chalk out various programmes & also these are much older religions . Sikhs have their SGPC , Golden Temple & all Gurudwaras in India as such they are affected by majority practices , politics like we have seen in Nanakshahi Calender , Sikhs visiting temples , Pirs , astrologers, practicising Castism , fasting , Graves & whole lot of other superstitions . In addition to Article 25 ( B) there are many hurdles in independent identity of Sikhs . The idea that it takes 30 minutes to tie beard & turban is not applicable to some like me who do these chores in average less than 5 minutes in daily routine which is much less time than consumed in shaving & gelling hair . So a SABAT SOORAT Sikh identity is our only hope for independent identity as well protection of our beliefs , practices , philosophy , ideology . Any compromise with this will bring us to near extinction not otherwise .
Dalbirk ji
With due respect the present form sikhism is already a lost case.The backbone of any community live's in rural area and we all know that rural sikhs were the first one to discard identity.Then very strong pillar of community are women again
here we see how they are running with non sikh men .So whom we are trying to protect.Handful of urban sikhs allover India?
or the handful of sikhs outside India who suddenly rediscover their identity after doing all the worldly things
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
