Judging

[Archived_Member1]

jasleen _ Kaur ji

I pointed out his views in context of Harjas Kaur Khalsa, I also thanked him for pointing out uncalled for commentry by her( his questioning in context of Harjas Kaur Khalsa). Sorry to know that you misunderstood the whole thing. I just wonder !

i see, yes, i'm quite stupid. thank you for helping me to understand.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Well, actually I wasn't talking about your posts. Some of the things you say are similar to many of the things I've been hearing, yes. But frankly, this is something that has been on my mind for a while and I'm sorry if you thought I was directing my post at you but I think if you ask around you'll see that some of us have touched on this before I even saw any of your posts.

Sorry -- I really don't know what you're talking about here...

I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I was not aware that you had said they were not accepted.

Again I apologize but I really don't know what you're talking about. As for the quotes of comments I made in another thread, please don't take things I've written out of context and try to insert them into another discussion. It's really not fair and doesn't make any sense.

What is Gursikhi parchaar? I had not idea that Sikhism actually excommunicated people! And please -- you "disgust" me? Where in the WORLD did you get THAT? My dear sister -- please get some sleep!

Well to tell the truth, if I expected Sikhi to be the same as Christianity I'd probably just have gone ahead and stayed a Christian.
I knew full well I was being presumptuous and said so from the beginning. But I needed to hear some opinions and get a few answers. Mainly I wanted to know if I was alone with my thoughts and found out I was not. That helped a lot. But again, please pardon my presumptuousness.


Actually, my post was not an answer to you at all. I posted my answers to you in the appropriate thread. This post was a general question for the whole forum and it sprang from many interactions I had before I ever even knew you existed. Again, pardon me for saying this but you've blown it way out of proportion and taken it on as an attack on you when the things you said had a very small part in my feelings at all. I admit that some of the things you say sound more like things I heard in my prior religion and I disagree with you on a lot of things, but trust me -- my post was not some underhanded, passive aggressive attack on you.

I disagree. Although I do find Guru Nanak's message similar to that of Jesus Christ's message. I do not confuse them. And although I do find disturbing similarities between the orthodoxy I see in Sikhism and many other organized religions -- I do not confuse them.

Thank you.

Well I can see the difference now that you mention it but I truly have no idea what the connections is between this and my post. That's probably because you're mistakenly assuming I'm reacting to something you wrote that I haven't even read.

No need to apologize. I don't put much stock in the Rehit Maryada anyhow.

Thank you.

Yes I do realize that and had addressed that in the original post as well. I do apologize but I'm glad I chose to be open about my feelings because many of the replies I got her helped me a lot.

Probably not, unless you were trying to put me in my place. Which you'd have a right to do.

Guru has been my beloved for many years -- long before I ever heard of Sikhi. And I think I took the first step to placing my head in his hands about 20 years ago when I prayed, "God, I am going on a quest to find the truth about You -- if you send me to Hell for it then I will go, because I'm willing to go to hell if that's the price I have to pay for seeking out the truth about you."

That is beautiful but it's not my experience with my True Guru.

ਢੂੰਢਤ ਡੋਲਹਿ ਅੰਧ ਗਤਿ ਅਰੁ ਚੀਨਤ ਨਾਹੀ ਸੰਤ ॥
dtoondtath ddolehi andhh gath ar cheenath naahee santh ||
Searching, the mortal stumbles like a blind person, and does not recognize the Saint.
~SGGS Ji p. 1377​

So true.

My sister, I am so sorry you took my post as a rebuttal to you personally. Obviously, it was not since I was not even aware of some of the things you said. So much so that I was quite confused by some of your references. Yes, we disagree on several points and seem to have different philosophies about some things. I think that is because God chooses how he will reveal himself to each person according to his plan. You don't have to believe the same way I do and I don't have to believe the same way you do. I am a Sikh for reasons that you may not even be aware of. I believe there are a lot of Sikhs in this world that have never heard of Sikhi. But that is just me.

And I guess I can believe any way I feel like believing since I'm not amritdari I can't be excommunicated anyhow.

Hope you get some sleep. And thank you for your commitment and devotion to Sikhism and Sikhs.

was that commentary really as snide and sarcastic and rude as it came across? or was this another case of writing not conveying the full intent of the words?

sorry to ask, but it really felt rude to me.


by the way, prachaar is "teaching" or "preaching" (i put teaching first because it's not the same as preaching in the christian sense of "you're going to hell" and all that). Gursikhi is living as a Sikh of the Guru, meaning following Guru's hukam, not picking and choosing of his teachings.

and yes, Akal Takht can excommunicate people. again, it's not excommunicate in the catholic sense of condemning them to hell, but more of a social boycott... instructing other sikhs not to interact with them because their teachings or beliefs are Anti-Gurmat (contrary to Guru's teachings) and could be dangerous to the panth as a whole.

 

[S|kH]

um, just a note... Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Gobind Singh ji were the same Jyot. how is it even possible for them to contradict one another? both spoke the words as God mad them speak it. there can be no contradictions in Guru ji's words, no matter what form he was in when he spoke them.

The same Jyot? Seems like a refuge the believers will take to claim they all were "one in the same" They were different people, never in the history of man have people from different genes ever been related or shared memories. That is an illogical assumption to assume the Gurus had power beyond science, when they never claimed so. In fact, I believe some of the reason why the Gurus did NOT select their children as the successors was to destroy any belief that there was a "common light" that could be passed down, instead it was supposed to be an "enlightened individual" that they trusted deeply. They made a point by not selecting their children that the followers would not deem the genetic blood-line holy, but instead the ability to reach that mind-state as "holy". Guru Gobind furthered the thought and said anyone can reach this level of intelligence by creating the Khalsa and then becoming "The Khalsa's follower".

For someone to believe that there was an actual commonality passed down through either genes, God, or some other super-natural method that allowed all the Gurus to share the same memories, message, thought, and being is a bold statement that will get directly challenged by science. They were different human beings, with different thoughts.

Let's assume they were the same "Jyot" ... what is the basis for Guru Gobind to create a holy book then instead of passing the "Jyot' onwards indefinitely? Matter of fact, if it was passed ten times successfully (Thats 2 centuries, and quite a few generations, a LONG time)...why did he choose to end it, or pass the jyot to a scripture that can never pass it onwards? A lot of people cite that Guru Gobind foresaw the eventual corruption of the Guru-hood and had compiled what was then a perfect document (SGGS) to lead the followers instead of taking chances in another human. I believe Guru Gobind was an amazing individual, and very intelligent. In order to come to this conclusion, he must have either realized the GuruHood can not be passed on in human form forever without eventually becoming corrupt .... or dare I say, he must have seen a few errors in his predecessors judgment that made him think it's merely not possible for another human to carry the throne, and whoever he selected would lead to mass chaos amongst the various sects which had newly embraced Sikhism. (Hence Panj Pyares -- genius idea! ... get all the leaders of the warring tribes to unite in front of you to prevent internal chaos and rift)

the original rehet were the instructions given by the Gurus to their followers. for example, Guru Nanak Dev ji told Bhai Mardana not to cut hair, to wake at amrit vela and do simran, and to do seva for travelling devotees of God.

every Guru gave instructions to his follwers, whether through their Bani or through individual conversation. these have been collected from SGGS, Sakhis, the writings of Bhai Gurdas ji and Bhai Nand Lal, even the 52 Hukamnama of Guru Gobind Singh ji ( which says not to commit adultry, by the way, as well as saying a Sikh should marry a Sikh. )

When followers write down the details that the Guru told them, it will differ, it's never exact word. Look at the Bible. What makes you believe the same sort of errors can never happen amongst the Sikhs? See my above quote from sikhism.com with the classroom whisper example. (And that was only a 30 minute test, imagine if people had to try to remember and write down the whisper over a course of many years...)

As per the Rehat ... I do know it currently states not to commit Adultery. I am saying, at one point in time, I had read, or heard... that the initial version clearly stated Do Not Marry Muslim Women (Sikhs were at war with the muslims). I even extrapolate the historical relevance of such taboos and claim the same reason as to why Sikhs shouldn't eat halal meat. Genius way to keep Sikhs and Muslims separated. Do not let them share a meal together at anytime. Do not let your kids go to their house and be hospitable by Muslim parents. Keep Muslim children away from yours, do not let them eat your food. You have to think in a historical relevance -- Why ban one type of meat as opposed to the other, and it just so happens to be a ban on the community the Sikhs were at war with... Oh, because of the way the animal is slaughtered? We know for a fact that Guru Gobind hunted game (debatable if he ate the meat or not), but he did hunt. A Bow and arrow from a distance considered better than a slit to the throat? And then Sikhs changed the story, and claimed the ban was issued because the Muslims prayed to God for forgiveness while killing.

Most people(Sikhs) have a misconception of Halal meat and claim that we are allowed to eat Jhakta meat because of the way it's prepared. They claim Halal meat tortures the animal ... if you ask any muslim, or read any encyclopedia entry .. it claims the exact opposite :

Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all animals excluding fish and most sea-life per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. The objective of this technique is to more effectively drain the body of the animal's blood, resulting in more hygienic meat, and to minimize the pain and agony for the animal.[1] The precise details of the slaughtering method arise largely from Islamic tradition, rather than direct Quranic mandate. It is used to comply with the conditions stated in the Qur'an:

Minimize pain and agony. Clearly defined. Why is there a ban then to eat Halal Meat? Sikhs then started claiming that it's okay to kill an animal, but to never kill in God's name (pray over the slaughter of an innocent). My question is then ... why only hold that standard to animals? not plants? or other humans at war? "Bole So Nihaal, SAT SIRI AKAL" and swords would rise, and the war would begin. Most of the time there was a Gyani in the back holding the SGGS and reciting for the troops ... is that not praying to God over death...and even worse than animals ... it was against humans? You call God, and then you slaughter a human?

The only logical explanation is the historical relevance of banning halal meat because we were at war with the Muslim community. History gets re-written, and you were lied to by the religious institution.

It is learnt that on October 9, 1938, then MLA Sampooran Singh, who was also a member of the SGPC, had moved a resolution in the Punjab assembly that all SGPC members must support the Jhatka Bill.

Ninety-six SGPC members in the House had unanimously supported the resolution.

Encyclopaedia of Political Parties ... - Google Book Search
Encyclopedia of Political Parties in India, Pakistan ... talks about Sampooran Singh.

the compilation of all of this material into the Panthic Maryada took several years, many respected scholars, and is accepted by the vast majority of Sikhs as Law.

of course, you're free to follow or not follow as you choose.



it really bugs me when pepole say Guru ji was "inspired" by Kabir ji. Guru ji spoke the words as God put them in his mouth. read Kabir ji's writings that are NOT bani and you will see why Guru ji could not have been inspired by him. the bani of bhagats and bhatts was included because the words they spoke were in perfect harmony with Guru ji. God's words flowed from their pens and tongues.

If a message was written before you exist, and you read the message and place it in what you revere as your holiest text, it's an obvious assumption to claim that you were inspired by that text. If a lot of what you write comes in perfect harmony with text that is already published and written prior to your existance, and you realize that it has already been written ... it's called an inspiration. If the Guru added everything Bhagat Kabir had wrote, then Bhagat Kabir would be the first known leader of the Sikhs...but only a few passages of his were selected, ones that inspired Guru Nanak and led him to create a new message. (This is a technicality on the term anyway).

i think you took that statement WAY out of context.

I wrote that sarcastically, because Harjas Kaur posed that example of the bullets a few times in relation to the most minuscule events in rehat.

"You question the Rehat that claims you need to wake up at 4am to pray on days that you go to sleep from a hard day of work at 1am ... what will you do when bullets whizz passed your head at 3am in the middle of the Golden Temple? Only the true followers will survive and not question the Guru"

 

[carolineislands]

Sikh ji
I really appreciate your logical questioning. Carolineislands just tried to share what was felt while reading contradictory opinions on this site as a new Sikh. I dont think that carolineislands's post really deserves any uncalled for commentry. Thanks.

Thank you pk70. But I think SiKh's post was a reply to another post -- not mine.

 

[carolineislands]

was that commentary really as snide and sarcastic and rude as it came across? or was this another case of writing not conveying the full intent of the words?

sorry to ask, but it really felt rude to me.

I have a bad habit of blurting out something silly when the seriousness of a situation starts to get tedious. It was just meant to be a lighter comment poking fun at ourselves as humans and how silly we can get with our imaginary separation lines. The underlying feeling was that the lines are things we've created out of our imagination as silly humans when really we are all the same. It was meant to point out our commonalities by poking fun at some of the things we do that keep us focusing on our differences. Sometimes my husband and I do this with jokes about our differences. Like when he asked why the birds are not coming to the feeders I said it's probably because they're afraid of Haitians. He laughs and chases me around the house. Then the next time he'll make a siimilar comment to me. My comment was made in a similar fashion to my comment about Haitians. The purpose was to try to laugh a little at ourselves and maybe realize our commonalities in the process.

Guess it didn't work very well. Sorry about that.

by the way, prachaar is "teaching" or "preaching" (i put teaching first because it's not the same as preaching in the christian sense of "you're going to hell" and all that). Gursikhi is living as a Sikh of the Guru, meaning following Guru's hukam, not picking and choosing of his teachings.

Thank you for this explanation. It helps to have some of the language interpreted. Otherwise I have to keep a tab opened to google just to read some of these posts. LOL

and yes, Akal Takht can excommunicate people. again, it's not excommunicate in the catholic sense of condemning them to hell, but more of a social boycott... instructing other sikhs not to interact with them because their teachings or beliefs are Anti-Gurmat (contrary to Guru's teachings) and could be dangerous to the panth as a whole.

Hmmm. My own opinion is that it's probably misguided and maybe even self defeating in terms of creating peace and understanding between factions, but it's good to know and I appreciate the explanation.

I do apologize for any offensiveness of my opinions. All I can do in my search for truth is to pray and learn. I think it's also important to be true to what we believe -- as you have done. So I hope that we can respectfully disagree as sisters. I will try not to judge your convictions and I hope you will do the same for me. I think that is in keeping with the teachings of Guru Nanak, and would honor the one Creator of us all.

I'm sorry for the times I come off biting. My sense of humor doesn't always translate over the internet. And my opinions are sometimes offensive to people. I have spent many years keeping certain of my thoughts to myself for fear of people's reactions but I have decided it's not a good way to learn. Now I am learning to say what I believe and ask questions in a way I can find out what I am longing to know, but to do it in a way that does not offend.

I am in the learning process -- no doubt about it. And I appreciate your patience and compassion more than you may know.

Respect!

 

[Archived_Member1]

The same Jyot? Seems like a refuge the believers will take to claim they all were "one in the same" They were different people, never in the history of man have people from different genes ever been related or shared memories. That is an illogical assumption to assume the Gurus had power beyond science, when they never claimed so. In fact, I believe some of the reason why the Gurus did NOT select their children as the successors was to destroy any belief that there was a "common light" that could be passed down, instead it was supposed to be an "enlightened individual" that they trusted deeply. They made a point by not selecting their children that the followers would not deem the genetic blood-line holy, but instead the ability to reach that mind-state as "holy". Guru Gobind furthered the thought and said anyone can reach this level of intelligence by creating the Khalsa and then becoming "The Khalsa's follower".

For someone to believe that there was an actual commonality passed down through either genes, God, or some other super-natural method that allowed all the Gurus to share the same memories, message, thought, and being is a bold statement that will get directly challenged by science. They were different human beings, with different thoughts.

so the majority of the sikh panth is simply believing the wrong thing, because you say so? why would Guru ji call himself NANAK in every body? how could Guru Gobind Singh ji speak the entire contents of SGGS to his scribes without ever referring to paper, unless he knew it already, because he had written it all before?

Ten Gurus Of Sikh, The Sikh Gurus, Guru Granth Sahib, Das Sikh Gurus, Sikh Saints, Sikh Holy People, Gurus Of Sikhism, Sikhism Gurus, India[SIZE=-1] The word 'Guru' in Sanskrit means teacher, honoured person, religious person or saint. Sikhism though has a very specific definition of the word 'Guru'. It means the descent of divine guidance to mankind provided through ten Enlightened Masters. This honour of being called a Sikh Guru applies only to the ten Gurus who founded the religion starting with Guru Nanak in 1469 and ending with Guru Gobind Singh in 1708; thereafter it refers to the Sikh Holy Scriptures the Guru Granth Sahib. The divine spirit was passed from one Guru to the next as "The light of a lamp which lights another does not abate. Similarly a spiritual leader and his disciple become equal, Nanak says the truth."[/SIZE]

from Guru Gobind Singh ji:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"They distinguish and separate one Guru from the other. And rare is the one who knows that they, indeed, were one. They who realised this in their hearts, attained Realisation of God." (Guru Gobind Singh, Dohira, Vachitra Natak)[/FONT]
from the vaaran of Bhai Gurdas ji (the key to Gurbani):

ਜਾਰਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਮੁਲਤਾਨ ਦੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਕਰਤਾਰਿ ਪੁਰੇ ਨੋ ਆਇਆ ।
jaarati kari mulataan dee dhiri karataari puray no aaiaa|
After the journey of Multan, Baba Nanak again turned towards Kartarpur.
ਚੜ੍ਹੇ ਸਵਾਈ ਦਿਹਿ ਦਿਹੀ ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਇਆ ।
charhhay savaaee dihi dihee kalijugi naanak naamu dhiaaiaa|
His impact increased by leaps and bounds and he made people of kaliyug remember Nam.
ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਮੰਗਣਾ ਸਿਰਿ ਦੁਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਦੁਖ ਸਬਾਇਆ ।
vinu naavai horu manganaa siri dukhaan day dukh sabaaiaa|
Desiring anything except the Nam of the Lord, is invitation to multiplying sufferings.
ਮਾਰਿਆ ਸਿਕਾ ਜਗਤਿ ਵਿਚਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਪੰਥੁ ਚਲਾਇਆ ।
maariaa sikaa jagati vichi naanak niramal pandu chalaaiaa|
In the world, he established the authority (of his doctrines) and started a religion, devoid of any impurity (niramal panth).
ਥਾਪਿਆ ਲਹਿਣਾ ਜੀਂਵਦੇ ਗੁਰਿਆਈ ਸਿਰਿ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਫਿਰਾਇਆ ।
daapiaa|ahinaa jeenvaday guriaaee siri chhatr dhiraaiaa|
During his life time he waved the canopy of Guru seat on the head of Lahina(Guru Angad) and merged his own light into him.
ਜੋਤੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਿਲਾਇ ਕੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨਾਨਕਿ ਰੂਪੁ ਵਟਾਇਆ ।
jotee joti milaai kai satigur naanaki roopu vataaiaa|
Guru Nanak now transformed himself.
ਲਖਿ ਨ ਕੋਈ ਸਕਈ ਆਚਰਜੇ ਆਚਰਜੁ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ ।
lakhi n koee sakaee aacharajay aacharaju dikhaaiaa|
This mystery is incomprehensible for anybody that awe-inspiring (Nanak) accomplished a wonderful task.
ਕਾਇਆ ਪਲਟਿ ਸਰੂਪੁ ਬਣਾਇਆ ॥੪੫॥
kaaiaa palati saroopu banaaiaa ॥45॥
He converted (his body) into a new form.
wait, let me guess, you don't believe in Bhai Gurdas ji.

gur naanak dhaev govi(n)dh roop ||8||1||
Guru Nanak Dayv is the Embodiment of the Lord of the Universe. ||8||1||SGGS p. 1192, m. 5

gur mehi aap samoe sabadh varathaaeiaa ||
You have merged Yourself into the Guru; You are pervading through the Word of Your Shabad.SGGS p. 1279, m. 1

gur mehi aap rakhiaa karathaarae ||
The Creator Lord has enshrined Himself within the Guru.
SGGS p. 1024, m1
sathigur kee baanee sath sath kar jaanahu gurasikhahu har karathaa aap muhahu kadtaaeae ||
O GurSikhs, know that the Bani, the Word of the True Guru, is true, absolutely true. The Creator Lord Himself causes the Guru to chant it.
SGGS p. 308, m. 4

i can find more if necessary.

Let's assume they were the same "Jyot" ... what is the basis for Guru Gobind to create a holy book then instead of passing the "Jyot' onwards indefinitely? Matter of fact, if it was passed ten times successfully (Thats 2 centuries, and quite a few generations, a LONG time)...why did he choose to end it, or pass the jyot to a scripture that can never pass it onwards?

um, he DID pass it onwards. to SGGS. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is not just some book... it is our LIVING Guru.

or dare I say, he must have seen a few errors in his predecessors judgment

are you saying that Guru sahib is not perfect, or did i totally misunderstand your statement?

When followers write down the details that the Guru told them, it will differ, it's never exact word. Look at the Bible. What makes you believe the same sort of errors can never happen amongst the Sikhs? See my above quote from sikhism.com with the classroom whisper example. (And that was only a 30 minute test, imagine if people had to try to remember and write down the whisper over a course of many years...)

the difference being that north india had an incredibly strong oral tradition... stories were passed down for hundreds of years before being written down. the vedas were not actually written down for over a thousand years, but passed from priest to priest and memorized.
also we're only talking a couple hundred years here, not the thousands it took to compile the bible, so that's not really a fair comparison.

As per the Rehat ... I do know it currently states not to commit Adultery. I am saying, at one point in time, I had read, or heard... that the initial version clearly stated Do Not Marry Muslim Women (Sikhs were at war with the muslims).

you could say it still says that, it says a Sikh should only marry a Sikh. i don't think it's ever NOT had a taboo against adultery, but i will investigate.

Why ban one type of meat as opposed to the other, and it just so happens to be a ban on the community the Sikhs were at war with... Oh, because of the way the animal is slaughtered? We know for a fact that Guru Gobind hunted game (debatable if he ate the meat or not), but he did hunt. A Bow and arrow from a distance considered better than a slit to the throat? And then Sikhs changed the story, and claimed the ban was issued because the Muslims prayed to God for forgiveness while killing.

huh? sikhs "changed the story"? ritual slaughter is clearly seen as unnecessary and hypocritical throughout SGGS. it's not a change, it's a continuation from the time of the first Nanak.

My question is then ... why only hold that standard to animals? not plants? or other humans at war? "Bole So Nihaal, SAT SIRI AKAL" and swords would rise, and the war would begin. Most of the time there was a Gyani in the back holding the SGGS and reciting for the troops ... is that not praying to God over death...and even worse than animals ... it was against humans? You call God, and then you slaughter a human?

um, do you EAT dead humans? no? neither do i. i will assume that neither did the early Sikhs. your comparison makes no sense. we're talking about consuming ritual sacrifices.

The only logical explanation is the historical relevance of banning halal meat because we were at war with the Muslim community. History gets re-written, and you were lied to by the religious institution.

are you this cynical about everything in life, or only religion? (sorry, not meant as an attack, i'm genuinely curious)

If a message was written before you exist, and you read the message and place it in what you revere as your holiest text, it's an obvious assumption to claim that you were inspired by that text. If a lot of what you write comes in perfect harmony with text that is already published and written prior to your existance, and you realize that it has already been written ... it's called an inspiration. If the Guru added everything Bhagat Kabir had wrote, then Bhagat Kabir would be the first known leader of the Sikhs...but only a few passages of his were selected, ones that inspired Guru Nanak and led him to create a new message. (This is a technicality on the term anyway).

that's all well and good, except that God spoke through the mouth of Guru... Guru was inspired by God. was kabir ji God? no. inspired? enlightened? sure. God? no way.

 

[carolineislands]

Although it is unfortunate that some have taken offense to my comments I want to say thank you to all of you for reponding to my questions. I have learned a LOT from just these 3 pages and am immensely grateful for all of you who have shared your knowledge with me.

I am curious about another thing. Does anyone have a link to information about all the different "sects" of Sikhism? I remember reading something once that described the different groups and their particular beliefs or practices but now I've forgotten it and can't find it again.

Thank you!!!

 

[spnadmin]

Sikhism :: Sects --* Britannica Online Encyclopedia

I will post a few more.

• 3HO
• Akhand Kirtani Jatha
• Bhatra
• Chamar
• Labana
• Mazhabi
• Nihang
• Prasadis
• Ramgarhia
• Sanatan Singh Sabha

I do want to point out that members of any of the groups listed above may not think of their group/jatha within Sikhism as a sect. Nihangs for example may not consider themselves a sect; Likewise 3HO may not. So I am posting this in answer to a question, fully aware that the perception of hard and fast boundaries that may be created by my doing so, may offend some forum members. Apologies for any offense taken. It is not intended.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Sikhism :: Sects --* Britannica Online Encyclopedia

I will post a few more.

• 3HO
• Akhand Kirtani Jatha
• Bhatra
• Chamar
• Labana
• Mazhabi
• Nihang
• Prasadis
• Ramgarhia
• Sanatan Singh Sabha

I do want to point out that members of any of the groups listed below may not think of their group/jatha within Sikhism as a sect. Nihangs for example may not; 3HO may no. So I am posting this in answer to a question, fully aware that the perception of hard and fast boundaries that may be created by my doing so may offend some forum members. Apologies for any offense taken. It is not intended.

just for clarification... Bhatra, Chamar, Labana, Mazhabi, and Ramgarhia are not sects, but castes/clans. for the most part they follow exactly the same path as any other sikh. i worry that naming them as "sects" creates caste-based divisions in the panth, which is clearly anti-gurmat.


i know that this list comes from an online source, not from Antonia, so it should not be interpreted as a criticism of her post.

i'd add Nanaksar and Damdami Taksal to the list, these were some of the original divisions within the panth.

there are also groups OUTSIDE of the panth which consider themselves Sikh, but which Akal Takht does not accept. included are Nirankaris, Naamdharis, Sanatan Sikhs, Radhosoamis, etc.

 

[spnadmin]

Just a quick reply Jasleen ji. Historically caste and sect were connected and communities were formed. There were 2 castes that were not unified with Jats and Khatri in the time of Guru Nanaak. These caste/religious distinctions continued throughout the 19th and 20 centuries. After the death of Guru Gobind Singh warrior units consolidated as sects with specific practices. At the time of the British raj, Sikhs in castes below that of Jat were recruited as military units, and then migrated to places outside of India, places like Africa. Then through isolation and history more than anthing else a sectarian identity evolved.I can provide a couple of references if you like.

 

[carolineislands]

I apologize for the use of the word "sect." I know it's not exactly accurate but can't pull up a more appropriate word at the moment.

Thanks!!!

 

[spnadmin]

Every word you might choose will be problematic. It is just like that.

Here are some other sects.

Udasi
Nirmali

Here is a link to an interesting online book that talks about the evolution of Sects within Sikhism. The Construction of Religious ... - Google Book Search

 

[spnadmin]

This book, a Google online book, covers a lot of territory related to your earlier question carolineislands ji

Sikh Identity: An Exploration Of ... - Google Book Search

 

[Archived_Member1]

Every word you might choose will be problematic. It is just like that.

Here are some other sects.

Udasi
Nirmali

Here is a link to an interesting online book that talks about the evolution of Sects within Sikhism. The Construction of Religious ... - Google Book Search

Udasi and Nirmali fall under the "sanatan sikh" category... and are not considered Sikhs by Akal Takht (or by most mainstream sikhs).

it's really confusing sometimes. in india, religion as seen as more fluid, so you wind up with some groups who call themselves sikhs even though they don't follow the most basic of our tenets... (in this case, never taking amrit, being celibate, etc).

there are also "sects" who only exist due to support from anti-sikh political or social movements (hindutva groups support sanatan sikhs, naamdharis, congress supported Nirankaris, etc)

 

[Archived_Member1]

Just a quick reply Jasleen ji. Historically caste and sect were connected and communities were formed. There were 2 castes that were not unified with Jats and Khatri in the time of Guru Nanaak. These caste/religious distinctions continued throughout the 19th and 20 centuries. After the death of Guru Gobind Singh warrior units consolidated as sects with specific practices. At the time of the British raj, Sikhs in castes below that of Jat were recruited as military units, and then migrated to places outside of India, places like Africa. Then through isolation and history more than anthing else a sectarian identity evolved.I can provide a couple of references if you like.

thanks for the info... i still prefer to keep caste divisions seperate though, to avoid confusion. Sikhi is 100% against caste bias/divisions, i feel uncomfortable making those divisions "valid" by accepting them. just my personal preference, i guess.

 

[spnadmin]

Jasleen ji,

It is not my impression that historians were so much accepting caste divisions. They were pointing out that the message of Guru Nanak and also Guru Amardas about caste distinctions-- no exclusion, no prejudice, no castes -- was not fully assimilated in the culture of India before, during, and after the Raj. Sikh Jats were scornful of higher caste Sikh Khatris, the city-dwellers whose names often sounded Hindu. And no one wanted one's garments to be touched by a Chumar servant woman, or drink from the same cup as an untouchable If that happened, then one had to purify oneself.

And the reasons were cultural, economic and political. Muslims BTW also were organized by caste in India then. But even today when I read Sikh matrimonials, which are often posted for an eligible girl or boy by a parent, the caste is given and the message is that the marriage needs to remain within caste. Sometimes culture and religion become deeply emeshed.

I feel perhaps like Carolineislands ji at times. I can remember how perplexed I was when I first discovered this. It could not be Sikhism, not caste distinctions! Then I calmed down and decided to chalk it all up to the "human condition." We have so much racial prejudice here -- and yet our laws forbid discrimination. The good thing is Nanak lives!

 

[carolineislands]

I just finished reading about Sanatan Sikh Seva Panthi and find that Guru Gobind Singh actually blessed Bhai Kanhaiy ji and declared him and his followers as a Sikh order that should serve mankind indiscriminately, at the same time exepting them from military duty for this cause. If Guru Gobind Singh made this declaration, how can Akal Takt refuse to acknowledge them as Sikhs?

 

[spnadmin]

I just finished editing my last post -- you sure do ask tough questions bhenji! Could be that Randip ji, an historian, can clear this up.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Jasleen ji,

It is not my impression that historians were so much accepting caste divisions. They were pointing out that the message of Guru Nanak and also Guru Amardas about caste distinctions-- no exclusion, no prejudice, no castes -- was not fully assimilated in the culture of India before, during, and after the Raj. Sikh Jats were scornful of higher caste Sikh Khatris, the city-dwellers whose names often sounded Hindu. And no one wanted one's garments to be touched by a Chumar servant woman, or drink from the same cup as an untouchable If that happened, then one had to purify oneself.

And the reasons were cultural, economic and political. Muslims BTW also were organized by caste in India then. But even today when I read Sikh matrimonials, which are often posted for an eligible girl or boy by a parent, the caste is given and the message is that the marriage needs to remain within caste. Sometimes culture and religion become deeply emeshed.

I feel perhaps like Carolineislands ji at times. I can remember how perplexed I was when I first discovered this. It could not be Sikhism, not caste distinctions! Then I calmed down and decided to chalk it all up to the "human condition." We have so much racial prejudice here -- and yet our laws forbid discrimination. The good thing is Nanak lives!

i think you missed my point. i don't care if "historians" think caste divisions are valid. i feel, personally, as a Sikh, that using caste as a base for distinguishing groups or dividing people is not useful or necessary. if other people still practice "untouchability" or "ritual impurity", or marrying by caste, they're not following sikhi, and i don't see the need to encourage them.

sorry for the confusion.

 

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

I know a lot of posts that judge are quick to qualify themselves by adding some sort of comment like, "Of course everyone has a right to live how they choose." and then the post goes on to judge that person as though that little disclaimer made it right. Then they go on to declare who does and does not have a right to call themselves this or that or consider themselves this or that.

When I responded to Carolineislands, I was struck by an almost direct quote of something I had written in her comments about Khalsa Sikhs being judgmental and uppitty an excluding others. Thus, I do not feel my response was unnecessary commentary. For this reason, and because it addressed some positions I have taken, I felt the post was a criticism of me personally.

However, Carolineislands has shared this was not the case and it's the perspective she disagrees with, not opinions about me personally. But my responses to her were genuine and I don't believe "unnecessary." Otherwise, I would still have hurt feelings thinking she had directed such comments to me. I'm grateful for a forum like this to evaluate issues related to Sikhism. Now I can go back and reread Carolineislands post and take the best points from it with a happy heart. So I do believe dialogue is important. There is no "useless commentary" unless it's intended to be deliberately rude or hostile. Such was not the case on either of our parts. And I apologize to the forum members for any inclarity or hurt feelings.