Good morning All
Look, am I missing something here ? The question was [quote, RD1]
"Do you believe that everyone is a Sikh?" and not whether everyone practiced
Sikhi. Where the former a "noun" [Sikh] the latter a "verb" [Sikhi]. And, just as head and tail are two different sides of the one coin so is Sikh n Sikhi. The owner of the thread has "specifically" requested to know the "sikh" side and not Sikhi per se. In other words, the "particular" from the "general" [formal logic].
In answering the question, I said,
"Both HKJ and Sukh are right in their estimation of what is a "sikh". From an academic perspective it would follow that since Sikhism is a system of belief, which is supported and implemented by institution everyone is not a Sikh, only those who believe n follow are Sikhs. From an ideological perspective and by definition [Sanskrit] everyone is a Sikh since learning is intrinsic to human nature".
I offered an affirmative and consistent an answer [above] to the case in point and Harkiran Ji, quite rightly raised the following:
"But, I don't think that the 'learning' that qualifies one as being a Sikh, is just any old learning..."
To which, I responded, thus
" ..much of what makes us human is cultural, passed from generation to generation through a process called "learning" [sikhya]. It's from within this perspective I generalised the term "sikh" to embrace humanity on the whole, but insofar the unique n particular construction of the word "sikh" is to effect distinctive vocabulary then I concur with your observation above".
I now turn to the live debate that is relevant to the case in point [Is everyone a Sikh, note, not Sikhi. No offence intended].
If we can call every human a Sikh then we need a term to use to differentiate those who follow Sikhi.
..human nature has many facets. For example, intellectual, moral, social, political, religious, etc. And, from within the scio-religious sector, Sikh the "particular" [believers of Nanak's satnam] from the "general" [world at large] suffices for that very reason [formal logic]. Accordingly, those that believe in Nanak's "satnam" tick the corresponding box [Sikh] on their statutory declarations.
Not all those who follow Sikhi are Khalsa / Amritdhari.
..correct !
Some are Sehejdhari, some are Kesdhari, but they still follow Sikhi.
..correct !
Those terms on their own do not define a 'follower of a particular belief system' such as Sikhi.
..they are "relative" pronouns, meaning, they are connected in some respect to the "absolute" noun, Sikh. Take the word football for example; it has two syllables, foot n ball. Together they make football. Ball on its own is no more a physical object like the rest of inanimate matter unless it gets kicked about and played as a sport, football [true nature of the game football crystallising]. By the same analogy, Sehejdhari and Keshdhari are empty words unless they'd be associated to an ideology to effect meaning. And, just as the players of the game are called footballers so are the followers of Nanak's school of thought, called Sikh [true nature of the spiritual human].
..I do indeed, and a valid one - thank you ! I've made an attempt addressing the same for clarification.
Good day !
