Hindu Or Sikh?

[BhagatSingh]

Although, I am not exactly sure where the quarrel is, I felt that I should further clarify that the ego is: "The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves." and that to notice this in yourself, intuitively is very difficult. This is what I meant when I said:

your being "atheist" stems from your ego, which has a need to always search for its identity.

I can apply this to myself and say that me being a Sikh stems from my ego, and a search for my own, individual identity and a further collective identity with other Sikhs. This is "haumai", as Spnadmin ji points out. "Me-ism" as used by Tejwant Singh ji.

Seeing oneness is switching that default ego, me-ism off.

I did not mean to say that Caspian ji had :"a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit.b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem." This would be "hankar", pride, and it was not what I meant by ego.

 

[findingmyway]

I wanted to know something that's been in my mind for quite a while:

Before guru Nanak Dev ji was born and the khalsa panth was created were his parents hindu's...... were the majority of people hindus at that time and was it them who started converting to sikhism after it came around.... also were the panj piare also Hindu's?

I know its a random question But I would just like to know the answer.
Thanks in advance and sorry if I have made any mistakes.

What difference does it make? Jesus was born into a Jewish family but it doesn't mean anything. Likewise a Guru's past or a Sikh's past means nothing. It is the life they choose to lead that matters

 

[Ambarsaria]

What difference does it make? Jesus was born into a Jewish family but it doesn't mean anything. Likewise a Guru's past or a Sikh's past means nothing. It is the life they choose to lead that matters

findingmyway ji, I do believe we need to encourage questions and provide complete and specific answers as much as we know. Otherwise like all humans seeing a defensive line people will assume oh there must be something wrong that people don't want to answer. We should try not to discourage questions specially from the young.

Of course in the same vein we don't need to waste time on trolls or just turd disturbers. It is so easy to spot the same so easily and spnadmin ji is expert at that if we miss sometimeswinkingmunda

Having provided the answer, we can of course elaborate on the question or the answer.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[findingmyway]

findingmyway ji, I do believe we need to encourage questions and provide complete and specific answers as much as we know. Otherwise like all humans seeing a defensive line people will assume oh there must be something wrong that people don't want to answer. We should try not to discourage questions specially from the young.

Of course in the same vein we don't need to waste time on trolls or just turd disturbers. It is so easy to spot the same so easily and spnadmin ji is expert at that if we miss sometimeswinkingmunda

Having provided the answer, we can of course elaborate on the question or the answer.

Sat Sri Akal.

Ambarsaria ji,
I completely agree and in my reply I did not say it was a bad question or it shouldn't have been asked. When asking questions, it is also important to understand why you are asking the question and what you hope to gain from it (or maybe that is the scientist in me as I have been reading far too many journal papers lately!). If my response came across as defensive, I apologise. I was only trying to state my point of view just as everyone else has and present another way of thinking for consideration.

If Mannii ji is asking to establish her family history or understand where some practices have come from then it is a very pertinent question. If the question is from curiosity, fair enough. However, if the question will shape belief then it is not a positive direction to go in as it will cause much confusion.

Knowing Guru Nanak Dev ji was born into a Hindu household does not improve our understanding of his philosophy as he rejected Hindu practices from a very early age. He was very vocal against all practices of the time that were wrong (Hindu and Muslim) and presented a unique viewpoint. If the past was relevant, why would Guru Nanak Dev ji appoint Bhai Lehna as Guru Angad Dev ji? If the past mattered why is conversion allowed? There are Sikhs from all backgrounds including Panjabi, non-Panjabi, Hindu, Muslim, Christian and even Atheist. They are all Sikhs. They have all chosen to leave behind their baggage and move on. If the past mattered, why isn't Jesus labelled as a Jew?

Mannii ji has every right to ask the question. My answer remains unchanged. I also respect the answer you presented earlier in the thread.

Regards.