The Janeus We Wear

Are some of us back to wearing janeus (the Hindu sacred thread) that the child Guru Nanak had refused to don even at the tender age of seven?

By the look of the rituals performed everyday at Harmandar Sahib, for example, it seems that we are. In order to express my viewpoint, I would like to first share what I see Sikhi to be.

First and foremost, Sikhi is the only religion amongst the six world faiths that is not personality-based, but idea-based. Islam (Mohammed), Christianity (Jesus), Judaism ("Messiah in coming"), and Hinduism (Ram Chander ji, Krishan ji, and many other deities), all had their respective embodiments personified as having and proclaiming a direct link to the Almighty. The sixth, Buddhism, intrinsically revolves around Gautama Buddha.

If Sikhi was to be one more religion based on personalities, then Guru Granth Sahib would have only had the compositions of the Sikh Gurus, instead of the current formulation: the teachings of six Gurus and thirty-one saints from other religions, including Hinduism and Islam. And, our Gurus would have been worshipping each other, rather than Ik Ong Kaar.

If Sikhi was based on personalities, then Harmandar Sahib - the most sacred shrine in Sikhi - would not have had four doors to welcome all mankind, nor would a Muslim have been asked to lay its foundation stone. If it was based on personalities, we would not have the sangat and pangat concept of breaking bread with everyone and anyone from any hue, creed or background, in Guru ka Langar.

While growing up in Ferozepore, Punjab, my family and I used to visit Harmandar Sahib often, as it is only sixty miles away. During one of these journeys, I remember my mother, who we lovingly called Ammi ji, explaining to me the beautiful ritual of carrying Guru Granth Sahib from the Akal Takht to Harmandar Sahib in a huge and ornate palki of gold. I was about ten then. She said that it is common knowledge that when people carry the palki for prakash in the early hours of amrit vela, it is very heavy ... as if the Gurus were actually sitting in it; but when they bring it back empty, it is disproportionately lighter.

About ten years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Harmandar Sahib and participate in the same ritual by taking turns in offering my shoulder to carry the Palki Sahib to and from the sanctum sanctorum every morning for a full week.

The first bewildering realization was that no women were allowed to participate in this ritual; sadly, it remains true, even today.

The event reminded me of Ammi ji's story from thirty years earlier. All of a sudden, I became very alert and was ready to observe the sudden loss of weight of the Palki Sahib, while carrying it back to the Akal Takht. I did not feel any difference in weight while carrying it empty. I did this for one week and felt the same. However, everyone I talked to who participated in the procession never ceased talking about feeling the sudden loss of weight, describing it with great reverence.
I never understood why we Sikhs feel the need to take on this psychosomatic belief in order to believe in the existence of Ik Ong Kaar in a "physical" form.

I would like to expand this further through Gurbani.

Ik Ong Kaar is neither a deity nor a "physical" embodiment, but Creative Energy, as explained beautifully by Guru Nanak in the Mool Mantar that we recite several times a day. So, now the question arises, how shall a Sikh tap into that Creative Energy?

We read every day in the Jap-ji:

Gaviaey suniaey munn rukhiaey bhao, dukh purhar sukh ghar lae jaey("By singing, listening, contemplating and putting gurmat in practice, we can find true happiness".)

We perform the first part very well when we know the words of the shabad and start singing along with raagis. Unfortunately, we stop at the first one. We do not even contemplate what "suniaey" and "munn rakhiaey bhao" would bring us.

This is where, our Gurus have indicated, dwells the nectar of Sikhi. The singing, in itself and without anything more, becomes a mere ritual, the same as cleaning off the non-existent dust from the inner sheets of the Guru Granth, washing the palki with milk and, last but not least, touching the chaur to our foreheads every time we pretend to whisk a fly or two ... and the many other acts we perform daily so mechanically.

It is also worth noticing that at Harmandar Sahib, the most sacred shrine of the Sikh panth, not even a single female Sikh chants the savaeaey that are recited every day when Guru Granth Sahib's prakash takes place. I have not seen an all-female raagi jatha performing there either. I hope there are some. The ironic part is, that this beautiful hymn from Asa di Vaar is recited every morning:

So kion manda akhieay jin jamaey rajaan

("How can we denigrate the very one who gives birth to kings?")
And, no female Sikh is found anywhere among the sevadaars or the granthis.

The whole essence of Sikhi is that it is based on ideas. We, in our everyday lives, play with ideas. The good ones we embrace and put into practice to make our lives better, the bad ones we discard. Guru Granth Sahib is our sacred book of Gurmat ideas that need to be put in practice through rehat.

Gurmat challenges our thought processes so that we can discard the rituals that contradict it, and embrace those that complement it.

So, in order for us to separate the "janeu" rituals from the meaningful ones, we have to try to understand and work with the tools bestowed upon us by our Gurus via Gurbani. Only by living up to these ideals can we tap into the heart and soul of Sikhi.

Tejwant ji,

Excellent thoughts. Beautifully expressed!

Here s a similar view..this time from a Muslim living in Malaysia a Muslim country by majority population...and they too seem to be saying the same things...


Art Harun describes himself as a non-governmental organism, intent on infecting the conscience.


Kahlil Gibran’s ‘Give Me The Nay’

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/art-harun/39889-kahlil-gibrans-give-me-the-nay

OCT 9 — I have always observed that to most of us, being religious is more important than embracing the spiritual aspect of our faith. Being religious, after all, entails ritualistic observance of whatever is decreed by our faith.
And so, the Muslims fast and we pray and we pay zakat. And the Christians would go to the church on Sundays and wear a necklace with a cross pendant. The Hindus would swim in the Ganges River and break coconuts in the morning before going to work. And so on and so forth.
What our faith brings us is the least of our concern. What our ritualistic observance turns us into does not matter. As long as we perform the rituals religiously; we are, after all, religious. And God asks us to be religious.
Or does He?
I have always related this story to my friends. And I am going to tell it here. And let me preface it with a statement. I am not telling this story to insult or to belittle Christianity or Christians.
I used to live near one of the most active churches — if not THE most active and wealthy — in Kuala Lumpur. I have no qualms with that. That church was very active. It organised speeches and sermons almost every other night. The church-goers were known to donate up to 15 per cent of their monthly income to that church. And every time they did that, the place would be full of cars, parked everywhere.
Many drivers of the cars would try and make a three-point turn in front of my house. That was okay by me. But out of 10, one or two would invariably knock on my gate. Of course it was unintentional. My gate lock would be bent. I had to repair that lock many times. And then the next week it would happen again.
In all the six years I was there, this happened many, many times. However, there wasn't a single person who had stopped to ring my bell to say sorry. Nor anyone who left a note to say so. It was a small matter to me. And it was not a big deal to me.
But the thing that bothered me was this. It would appear that all the nightly sermons and speeches and all the monthly donations had done nothing to improve common courtesy among all those who had knocked my gate. And sometimes I pondered have we all ever thought what all this religiosity had done to us? Has it made us any better?
And now, at the current moment in this country, we have people who shout and scream about jihad this and jihad that. About caning a woman. About shutting up people who dare to question. About throwing the Sedition Act against some parties who are just raising awareness. What has happened to all of us? To our faith? Is our faith just about ritualistic observance of some rules and regulations?
Sometime I think we are living in a very unforgiving society. Do we blame teenage girls who abandon their babies in a drain at the back of a school? Or even kill their babies? In a moment of lust, they could have succumbed to human temptation and they are pregnant.
What do they do? Tell their pious father and mother about it? What would happen? They would be chased away from home? Or caned? Or even kicked and ridiculed by the whole neighbourhood? Nowhere they could go without being talked about or whispered about. Oh she is so immoral! Look at her. That young immoral {censored}! And what will happen to the baby when he or she is born? ******* child! Anak haram. That's what he or she is. He or she can't even have his or her father's name on his or her birth certificate. That is how unforgiving all of us are. How cruel we are. How nasty we are.
And what choice is left for the teenage girl other than to hide the pregnancy and suffer alone. And what could she do to avoid the ignominy of being stamped "immoral and unwanted"? Are we surprised then to see so many babies are abandoned or even killed? Does our faith implore us to be such creatures?
How often do we pray for forgiveness when in fact we are unable to forgive? Why do we seek compassion when we ourselves are unable to be compassionate? Have we ever, ever prayed for love? Why would we seek mercy when we are, as human beings, merciless?
Take the Palestinian issue. When the Israelis were bombing Palestine some time ago, there were text messages and e mails going around asking Muslims to pray for the destruction of Israel. And for the Jews be killed. We shed tears when we see a Palestinian mother wailing away holding her dead toddler covered with blood on the face in front of a crumbled house. And then we pray for all Jews to be killed. How about the innocent ones? How about their children? Do we laugh and smirk in satisfaction if we look at a picture of a Jewish mother wailing while holding her dead toddler? Is that okay just because that child is Jewish? Where do we go from here?
Has our faith taught us to be heartless, cruel, cold and vicious? The God that we worship and pray is to is the Most Compassionate and Merciful. And yet we, His followers are the exact opposite.
What has happened to justice and fairness? Why is it wrong has become right and right has become wrong? Has our faith taught us to forgive some and punish others? Or has our God blinded us because He is tired of our antics?
Perhaps, when Kahlil Gibran wrote "Give Me The Nay", he was referring to us in Malaysia now. Perhaps he had a vision of what was going to happen here now. And he wrote:
"With man, religion is a field
Tilled only by those who sow it with selfish
prayers —
whether preachers hoping for eternal happiness
or ignorant men who fear the flames of hell.
Without the penalty of Judgement
Man would not have worshipped any Lord
And without the promise of reward he would
have blasphemed,
as though religion were a business matter
devotion to its cause will bring him gain;
neglect, loss.
In the forest there is no religion,
no hideous blasphemies;
for when the nightingale sings
he is not saying: ‘This is just.’
The religion of man appears
like a shadow, then disappears.
After God and the Messiah
there is no religion on earth.
Give me the nay and sing,
for song is the pearl of prayers;
the laments of the nay will reach
far beyond the fading of Life.
If they heard talk of it, justice on earth would
make the jinn weep;
and if they could see it, the dead would laugh.
For those who commit a misdemeanour are
reserved prison and death;
and those who commit great crimes earn
prosperity and fame.
The man who steals the flower is censured and
scorned,
while he who robs the fields is a daring and
fearsome hero.
He who murders the body is condemned to
death,
while he who murders the soul remains
unknown to all.
In the forest there is no justice,
nor even punishment.
When the willow’s shade lengthens over the ground,
the cypress does not say: ‘What sacrilege!’
The justice of man is like snow —
once the sun sees it, it melts.
Give me the nay and sing,
For song is the justice of hear

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/art-harun/39889-kahlil-gibrans-give-me-the-nay

Gyani ji,


Guru fateh.

Thanks for posting this great article.

It depicts in an honest manner the beautiful and naked truth about the mechanical rituals we stick to hoping for some kind of miracles to occur, no matter which religion we belong to.

As we talked about about pilgrimages people go to in another thread, I was reading somewhere that some obese Sikhs died while climbing to Hemkunt Sahib. People higher other people to carry them up there which shows the true pilgrimage is only for those who carry other people up the mountains.

And then when we get home, we tell our friends that is the nth time we have gone on this pilgrimage, not what we have learnt in these innumerous journeys of ours. How has it changed us? How this change has affected others we come in contact with?

This can not become the part of the equation because then it will build some thought process which puts in the danger of shattering these rituals which have been built for years with love, care, money and a whole lot of Me-ism.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant Singh said:

Gyani ji,


Guru fateh.

Thanks for posting this great article.

It depicts in an honest manner the beautiful and naked truth about the mechanical rituals we stick to hoping for some kind of miracles to occur, no matter which religion we belong to.

As we talked about about pilgrimages people go to in another thread, I was reading somewhere that some obese Sikhs died while climbing to Hemkunt Sahib. People higher other people to carry them up there which shows the true pilgrimage is only for those who carry other people up the mountains.

And then when we get home, we tell our friends that is the nth time we have gone on this pilgrimage, not what we have learnt in these innumerous journeys of ours. How has it changed us? How this change has affected others we come in contact with?

This can not become the part of the equation because then it will build some thought process which puts in the danger of shattering these rituals which have been built for years with love, care, money and a whole lot of Me-ism.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Click to expand...

Religion can exist with out rituals. The real question is why do we support the religion that is based on rituals? Because we are week. We believe if we don’t do the rituals the god will be angry with us. So to save our self we have to do the stupid rituals. Persone who believe in religion can not analyze the rituals. He/she think if he speak up against he/she will be out casted.
As for the Sikhi of Nanak there is NO RITUAL at all. Nanak never said to do any rituals. In fact he condemns all the rituals and we do then in his name. How stupid he died in vain. Every thing we do in gurudaras are rituals Nanak condemned. All the gurudawaras are to make money nothing else.
I have seen at the sees ganj gurudwara the sevadar will not let the beggars in to the langar. Is it not the langar is for the needy? Who would be needier then the beggar?

As far for the hemkund, this is totally wrong place to go. It has no ties to any guru at all. It is stupid to go there. I am surprised that the writer has called it hemkund sahib. It is myth that that guru Gobind did the meditation there in his last birth. If we believe it ( which have no proof of the last or future birth). Guru was yogi of hindu religion. Many Sikhs are adamant that Sikhs are not Hindus. Then why so called Sikhs go the the Hindu yogi’s meditation and death place? There are thousand and one rituals Sikhs are doing and will keep on doing till the end of time.
In Canada and USA and maybe in other counties we are forced to sit on floor to eat langar. We are told that it was started by the guru that every one should sit on same place. There she be no more higher then the other. If we all sit ( as it use to be) on chairs are we not on equal level? In India people could sit on floor very easly but in the west people have problem sitting on floor and eat. I seen people take the langar to home after the sermon is over. At their home those Sikh sit on chairs to eat the same langar, why is that?

Why we are not at peace? Because of the teaching of the bhai ji mualn brhaman. That teaches us to hate not to love the fellow human. To be spiritual do we need religion that teach us hate?

First we kill the teacher then when he is dead we will worship him. That’s what we are worshiper of dead.

seeker

Did Nanak really not wear janeo as a child? Big question? I know almost all Sikhs believe that he did not wear it. Logically it doesn’t make sense. I know there is no place of logic in religion. I always believed that Sikhism was logical. At least Nanak always used logic.
As a child he may have asked the question of the impotence of the janeo. But no child of that time can refuse the parent. What ever parent want to do that was right. Child can not question and can not argue with parent. He wore the janeo but he has taken it off when he grew up. His marriage was arranged by his parent. That shows he was obedient child.
He would not have done any thing to the contrary. There is nothing about the other gurus. Did they take it off? Next gurus were Hindus and they must have worn janeo. How come there are no comments about any of them removing janeo?

seeker

Seekr 3 ji..
Guru Angad ji was a HINDU ?? As Bhai lehnna ji he used to go to Naina Devi pilgriamge every year without Fail..after becoming a SIKH of GURU NANAK..He STOPPED and NEVER went again. By what logic do you say he is HINDU ??
Same for Bahi Amardass Ji..he used to go to Hardwar and other Teeraths..but stopped once he became a SIKH.
There is no proof that even Bhgats like Kabir ji, namdev Ji, etc ever wore any Janeaus..if they did they threw them away soon after realising futility. NO SIKH ever wore any janeaus..ever..:happysingh:

Every one that time were Hindus. You can not understand the logic.
Let's leave at that

seeker3k said:

Every one that time were Hindus. You can not understand the logic.
Let's leave at that

Click to expand...

OH i see. Ok.
In that I am a Hindu too.

Here is a fundamental problem with this idea that Sikhs are Hindus. The label does not work and the analogy only barely works if the Sikh in question is of Indian ancestry, and then it is a stretched, convoluted, worn-out theory, full of political innuendo. I am a Sikh -- but no Indian blood in my veins nor collected Hindu thoughts in my heritage. Even the Indian government would not know what to do with me, because I live here and not there, and am not covered by the Indian constitution. :}{}{}: I don't fit into any box but a Sikh box. So now what?

Do you have to be/have been a Hindu to be a Sikh?:shifty:

What was the point Guru Nanak was trying to make? :whisling::whisling::whisling:

Yes Narayanjot ji,

Sikhs not belonging to Indian origin chose to be Sikhs because of the ideas propounded by Sikhism such egalitarianism, non discrimination based on gender or race and upliftment of the deprived and these are in perfect sync with the later day liberal Western thought.

This has nothing to do with the complex Hindu thoughts which to the Western educated mind sometimes appear bizarre and contradictory. It is precisely because of this that some Hindu thinkers like Radhakrishnan coined the phrase that Hinduism is a "way of life". Organisations like RSS quickly picked it up and equated being Indian to being Hindu. There is no clarity among themselves as to what exactly constitutes Hindu or Indian culture. So we see sporadic attacks on Christians, and Muslims. They are absolutely sure that Sikhs are Hindus and some of them need only gentle pursuasion or coersion to fall into line. Covert and overt attempts are made to infilterate into the functioning of Sikh institutions and manipulte the basic and simple philosophy of the Gurus.

Guru Nanak ji and other Gurus being of Indian origin, naturally did first try to address the shortcommings of the society in their immediate environment. Hence the several referaces to Hindu mythology and culture. These are then taken out of context to show that the Sikh Gurus were practioners of Hinduism.

In the Indian context, (in my opinion) I will again say that Hinduism and Sikhism are different BUT their relationship can be defined as that of a finger nail embedded in in the flesh and skin of the finger. Try to seperate them and there will be agony but the nail will regrow in the same environment.

It is not the question of you is Hindu or I am Hindu. It is we using logic or not.
We Sikhs are making with deal about that Nanak refused to wear it. As I said Nanak may have question it. But he has to wear it. Parent would not hallowed him not to wear it
Can you remember any thing about you when you were child that parent let you do what you wanted when it contradicts with their faith. How many boys don’t want to keep their hairs and want it cut? But parent will not let them cut your hair.

Kabir said it in his poems about the janeo very forcefully. He said to Hindus the so called sacred “janeo” you are talking about it is made in our (delit’s) home. He said the same thing to Muslims if Allah wanted me to have sunnet then I should have been born with it. Kabir said these things long before Nanak. Nanak read Kabir’s poems and was very impressed by his views. This is the story attached with Nanak to glorify him nothing more. There many stories attached with Nanak. They are not true but we believe it because they all glorify our Guru. We can not question them. All the stories like snake, panja. Milk from roti and making reetha sweet. There are many myths associated with Hindu avtars so people made up stories and attached with Nanak. Because Nanak is our Guru(avtar) he can not be any less then Hindu avtar. We have to look at what Nanak preached not the so called miracle.There is rituals that Nanak approved. Show men any that Nanak told us to do?
What did Amardas did at Gobindwal? He built the gurdwara with 84 steps going down to water. You can see what became of that. People reading path on each step then go down take a dip in water then comes up and do the path on the 2nd stap and so and on. This way one’s 84 lives will be eliminated. Is this not the same thing Hindus doing going to Ganga to eliminate their sins.
What is gatra we wear? Hindus use to have sword long ago. They were forced to remove the sword. It came down to janeo as a symbol. I have asked here and many other Sikhs whay we have 6” dagger? It was 3’ sword what Gobind Singh gave. No one is able to give me the answer. Now I will tell you why it became 6”
It was the British when they wanted to ban the sword and it was not practical in the army.
Instead totally banning the sword they propose the 6” as a symbol. British are gone but we still keep the 6” and we call it sword. Now no one have the guts to change it back to the 3” long sword. But we are glorifying that Nanak Janeo is as important to Hindu as the gatra is for us. They both are symbol and have nothing to do with the religion. Same thing when Gobind Singh said on Sikh can fught with 125,000 it is not mean latterly. No one can fight with 125,000 but person can have the courage to fight till he die. Sikh will not be afraid of death. But people are people many will be afraid of death Sikhs or Hindus alike. And people will be tartars Hindus or Sikhs. We all have seen it. Not only Sikhs are brave and Hindus are cowards or weak.
It is not my intension to put down the gurus I am only trying to show people to use logic.

seeker

Although I cna see the logic...are you aware that theere was a KIRPAN MORCHA by the same Akali Sikhs who had Morchas to win their Gurdwaras ? This KIRPAN MORCHA was against the LIMIT imposed by the British on the KIRPAN. This MORCHA like the ones against mahant Control of Gurdawras was WON. There was even an Award called KIRPAN BAHADUR in this honour. TODAY there is NO LAW that LIMITS the KIRPAN..and ALL SIKHS May carry a THREE FOOT KIRPAN.
Only places where "security" issues arise..airports etc and in Indian Parliament..Kirpans are not allowed...and Simranjit Singh mann refused to enter Parliament in Delhi wehn his Kirpan was not allowed in.. In the WEST..democracies are allowing Sikh Children even to have the Kirpan in schools and public places...its the sikhs themsleves who dont carry it...and many want it REDUCED to a JANEAU type of symbol simply becasue THEY PERSONALLY have COLD FEET. I have a Friend in Tapoban in Canada who carries a 3 ft Kirpan/an arrow 3 ft long, a spear and chakars on his dastaar and huge 2 kg Karras serrated edges on his wrists...no one bothers him...and he is Lawful citizen..not a goonda.

seeker3k ji,

I do not understand why you do not believe that Guru ji refused to put the janeo. He must have been old enough by then say about 12 or 13. And he was a child with extraordinary intelligence far above what we consider as genius.

I will tell about an incidence personally known to me. I have a friend of much above average intelligence and conviction. His father was a well known public figure and a Union Minister. His parents took him to Rishikesh for the janeo ceremony when he was 13. There he revolted and said that he will not put on a useless thread. His parents took to a well known and wise sage of Rishikesh whose name was Swami Sivananda. Swamiji who was sitting in a congregation asked him if he was unwilling for janeo. He just nodded. He then asked him to tell the congregation why he was refusing to wear the janeo. My friend was just tongue tied and he could not utter a word. Swami ji just patted his back and told him not to worry, he would not force him to wear it!

So I do not think it was impossible for Guru ji to have refused it.

Harbans Ji,

I have no problem what you believe. It is the truth for you and no one can prove you wrong. I don’t know how old you are now. Your friends must be your age I think. This happened when he was 13 and must been 13 or so then. They was you told the story it showed that you were not there when it happened. You only believe what he told you. What really has happened no one knows?
No one knows what age was Nanak when this happened. Most believe he was 7. There is not of difference in 7 and 13. If you do not want to use logic that is your choice. I beleve that Nanak was intelligent person. All his writing tell us that he used logic and common sense. But we are not using common sense any more. We just blindly believe what what uneducated bhai ji tell us. And there is no proof who wrote this story. There is autobiography or any one from his time who wrote Nanak’s life story. The so called sakhis are written in 1900’s not at the time of Nanak. So how much truth is in these stories. All the religions flourish because people do not use logic. That is the reason new religion comes in. And all of the founders claim they are the real guru. Radhasuami Narankari and so on.

I am not here to change you or any one. I am just sharing what I know. It may not be the truth.
You forgot to tell me what rituals Nanak told us to do?

seeker

Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji,

You are much more intelligent then me You know more about the Sikhim The I do. I am just an student always learning. I did not way it is against the law to have 3’ kirpan. O know Sikhs can have 3’ kirpan and khanda. What happened in the case of Simranjit Singh’s care. Did he take the sword in to the parliament? I know that person in Canada. I live in Canada.
My question to you was and is who started to give 6” at the amritpan to the Sikhs? Why the Sikhs accepted it and why all the Sikhs are happy with 6” dagger? Is that what Gobind Sing wanted? Are we not abandoning his Hukam? I think I read it some where that. Sikh pyara nahi, rehat pyari mujh ko.
If it was ok for some one to change the 3’ to 6” then why not some other changes? Far as I can understand guru also gave the bara of blue dress which the Nahang’s are wearing. Why not all the Sikhs who take amrit wear that dress. Because it don’t look good and not practical in daily living.
So the change has happened and there should be more changes as time evolve.
6” gagger is symbol the symbol can be of any martial. It don’t have to be steel can be plastic wood.

I don’t understand you and all other Sikhs reject janeo because it is just a symbol have no use in the daily living. Then why not treat the 6” dagger the same?

I know it very well that no is going to change to what I am saying.
Every one knows the story of the rope and snake. No one want to know the truth.

seeker

Seeker3k,

Guru Fateh.

I know this question has nothing to do with the topic being discussed but can you please share with us your religious background and what religion do you follow now so I can understand where you are coming from?

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh

Seeker Ji..are you referring to the same person..
My friend is Gyani Jasbir Singh Khalsa and he is Granthi Sahib of Tapoban Gurdwara Brampton. He is from MALAYSIA...and a long time friend and colleague....and when he visited me recently he also carried the same shastars and karras etc and he wore the Blue Banna Nihung Style. IN Malaysia you very seldom see any Amrtidharee Sikh wearing the Kirpan - even the 6" ones...only the Granthis and a few sikhs wear them (INSIDE) thier shirts.:happysingh:

seeker Ji,
Have you read Guur nanak Jis Bani about the Janeau. Do you seriously think an ordinary child scared of his father could write such Gurbani ?? I put it thta Guru nanak ji is no Ordinary Child at all...so we cannot compare HIM to ourselves...