Why Sikhi failed to spread

[dalsingh101]

Lets' be frank, the rot started post annexation.

 

I think Sikhi was spreading slowly, but the defeat at the Anglo-Sikh wars put on us a back foot from which we have yet to recover. 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

We lost a sort of confidence then, and started to push out our faith refracted through a contemporary Christian lens afterwards. Which itself highlights the inferiority complex we took on.

 

[paapiman]

​No it does not unless you deliberately misquote it, which the veggie brigade are quite adept at.

​Yes, it does. I will soon post it.

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

​It is discussed only by the vegetarians who wish to impose conditions on the Panth which never existed.

​Pleasures of the tongue are very hard to leave.

Bhul chuk maaf

[dalsingh101]

​Pleasures of the tongue are very hard to leave.

Bhul chuk maaf

​What, any less than sexual pleasures? 

 

Man, I don't know why some of you lot engage on issues that have been discussed ad nauseam. All you're doing is giving pendus an opportunity to derail from serious topics onto ones our own bani tells us 'fools' argue about.....

[paapiman]

​What, any less than sexual pleasures? 

​Bro, obviously sexual pleasures are probably even harder to control than pleasures of the tongue. The comment was made as vegetarian diet was being discussed.

Bhul chuk maaf 

[dalsingh101]

Paapiman, you're an idiot. 

 

You've got nothing constructive to say...

[SikhKhoj]

​Can we agree that logically the more potential converts lay in the Hindu religion?

It also has something to do with the way the Hindus saw us after 1947. They didn't want the Sikhs to be as we are, but to become Hindus again. They see us as Hindus, warrior Hindus, but now the threat of Islamic Persia/Middle East/Central Asia is no longer existing, they may have seen Sikhi as a past relic?

 

This make sense ?

No. Hindu attacks on Sikhi started way before partition, remember Arya Samaj?

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

This author agrees with most of the assertions in my very first post.

 

[paapiman]

I don't even want to get in a meat debate because hundreds of sources exist which confirm meat eating was not prohibited.

​

​No it does not unless you deliberately misquote it, which the veggie brigade are quite adept at.

 

​Here is one of the verses, which clearly prohibits meat eating and consuming intoxicants.

 

ਕਬੀਰ ਭਾਂਗ ਮਾਛੁਲੀ ਸੁਰਾ ਪਾਨਿ ਜੋ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ ਖਾਂਹਿ ॥

Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine

ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਤ ਨੇਮ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਸਭੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਜਾਂਹਿ ॥੨੩੩॥

- no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. ||233||

 

ਭਾਂਗ  - means marijuana, chicken meat, etc.

ਮਾਛੁਲੀ  - means fish meat, etc.

ਸੁਰਾ  - means alcohol, etc.

ਪਾਨਿ  - means to drink, Supari (Areca nut), tobacco leaves, etc.

There are many more meanings, of the above verses.

Request - If someone is interested in replying to this post, please start a new topic on it. Let's stay on topic.

Bhul chul maaf

 

Edited July 12, 2015 by paapiman

[CdnSikhGirl]

Paapiman,

SGGSJ is clear that ALL life is really different aspect of the ONE. vegetation has life and rudimentary consciousness, and even minerals.  Guru Nanak tried to make us aware that ALL life is the same. In the below comparison, he isn't speaking merely of a sugar cane, but trying to instill in us that plants too have consciousness and are alive:

"Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles, and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed. What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out. And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below. Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!"

Obviously animals have a higher developed consciousness and are more evolved spiritually than say a tree, but all life comes from the ONE and all life really IS of the ONE. It isn't about following blind rituals of eating or not eating meat.  If you do eat it, then realize it's a conscious animal and can feel pain, so it should not be killed in a way that it siffers.  If you feel compassion for animals, then don't eat meat. BUt there is actually no black and white rule. Myself I am vegetarian, but I do eat dairy and egg so I am not a "vegan".  And I have had some products that are leather like sandals etc.

"The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. 
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? 
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. 
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. 
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. 
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said."

I would also think that if you choose not to eat meat and staunchly oppose it, but wear or use leather products (this includes sandals, horse saddles etc.) it does make you a bit of a hypocrite! Because either way the animal dies.  At least if it is going to die, I'd rather see none of it go to waste. 

So anyway, being vegetarian is not 100% requirement in Sikhi. Many Sikhs are vegetarian out of choice of compassion for animals. But if they are not eating meat, then they should also not practice hyprocisy by using leathe rproducts etc. which animals are also killed for.  (I now have all synthetic sandals etc.) But I understand my choices are not a hard set requirement.

 

Anyway back to original topic... I think that tha MAIN reason Sikhi didn't spread like other major religions is simply because Sikhs don't seek to convert people!  At all!  There's no missionary work (parchar? Did I say that right?) But Basics Of Sikhi is actually trying to change that at least in UK. Simply by trying to just let people know what Sikhi is without suggesting or even using the word "conversaion" you will inivitibly get people who you spark an interest in it, will research more, and end up following Sikhi anyway!  I think this is the main and simple reason... Christianity and Islam for example spread like wildfire with the convert or die approach... and continued 'dawah' and 'missionary' work around the world.  We don't seem to do this... so on the outside it initially looks unintiving and many people know nothing about it, and think that it's entirely an ethnic religion that doesn't accept new people.

 

 

 

[amardeep]

Satkirin Kaur:
But thats the thing. Sikhi was a "missionary" faith - yet failed to attract a majority in any area of India.

[CdnSikhGirl]

Satkirin Kaur:
But thats the thing. Sikhi was a "missionary" faith - yet failed to attract a majority in any area of India.

​But it's not anymore... maybe we should start more parchar now!  But before that happens we need to decide on the actual rules because so many jathas with differing ideas doesn't help.  Some say equality of gender, others say males get more privilege, so is there gender equality or not?  Ragmala, Keski, Meat, sarbloh bibek, etc.  So many differing opinions based on different 'sants' etc.  I think what needs to be spread by parchar should be based entirely on SGGSJ and SGGSJ alone.  Or else it will be parchar of one Jathabadi over another etc. And I am not sure that can ever be resolved. (well it has been... by panthic decision but many turn their noses up at it and dont follow it).  So until there can be consesus (doubtful) parchar would do more harm than good if approached based on differing rehet maryadas by different groups. It will only confuse the public.  And without parchar it will remain a closed in religion that the general public is ignorant of.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[amardeep]

Though an entirely different context

 

"MI5 estimates there are between 150,000 and 200,000 white converts to Islam in the UK."

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/453300/white-jihadi-threat-brits-turn-radical

 

The number of converts in the US is also estimated in the hundreds of thousands.

 

There are only about 40-50 white converts to Sikhi in the UK.

Edited July 13, 2015 by amardeep

[mrsingh]

The Congress and Nehru approved definition of a Sikh solidified in the SGPC Maryada of 1950 was citical in excluding all non-Punjabi sehajdhari Sikhs from the Sikh population by the time of 1951 Census in order to deliberately make the Sikh Panth as small and politically irrelavant minority as possible.

If the Kabirpanthi, Ravidassia, Satnami, Sindhi, Vanjara, Sikligar and other tribal Sikhs had been accepted and integrated within the Sikh Panth the population of Sikhs today would stand at over 100 million.

The political strength of such an enlarged and inclusive Sikh Panth may have meant that 1984 would not have been possible to orchestrate by Indira Gandhi had the Sikh population been four or five times larger than it was at the time back in 1984.

To a great degree the sehajdhari Sikhs of non-Punjabi ancestry have lost much of their connection with Sikhi due to the Hindutva policies of consolodating them within the Hindu fold. However, even in Punjab right now today there is a systematic program to convert all Mazhabi and Ravidassia Sikhs of today into tomorrow's Hindutva votebank by way of Balmiki and Dera Ballan Mandir franchises. If Sikhs do not urgently address biraderi apartheid immediately by way of ending discrimination, matrimonial apartheid and ensuring each pind only has a single united sangat Gurdwara then by the time of the (east) Punjab census in 2021 the Sikh percentage will be less than 50% of the population (currently around 60% in Punjab if we include all dera followers within Sikh ranks - as we should).

Singh Sabha were not responsible for turning Dr Ambedkar away (which resulted in 10million new Buddhists since 1947) as Giani Ditt Singh Ji (who the Muslims and Hindu's openly derided by referring to him as the "chamar leader of Singh Sabha") was instrumental in the ideology that bought many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of erstwhile Hindu's and Muslims from poor families into the Sikh Panth in the early 20th century (including my ancestors - without any insistence from Akali Singh Sabha Lehar Gurdwara's upon becoming Amritdhari). Interestingly, Anand Karaj prior to the 1940's was a way where couples where both man and wife were previously of non-Sikh background became new Sikhs by virtue of Anand Karaj. As the puratan definition of a Sikh was anybody who would kneel down in humility before Guru Sahib.

One grouping seeks to limit the definition of its adherents to as small a number as possible.

Whilst Hindutva seeks to include anybody and everybody within it's fold in order to increase it's political strength.

It's clear which will be triumphant in the long run if we do not immediately start to address this by accepting that the tens of millions of Gurdwara Sangat that are wrongly termed Hindu's nowadays are in fact sehajdhari Sikhs and encouraging greater acceptance of Kabirpanthi's, Ravidassia's, Satnami's, Sindhi's, Banjara's, Sikligars and other tribes and communities estranged from the Panth since 1849 to again feel part of an enlarged and stronger Sikh Panth more able to protect itself and project forward for Sarbat da Bhala.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2015 by mrsingh

[amardeep]

Thank you for your comments MrSingh. I am very glad that your solition is to fight the inner challenges of the Panth, rather than just getting rid of the missionaries. Cause this is the way forward - to solve our issues so its not attractive for people to convert out of SIkhi. The way people do today is to hunt down the Muslim, Hindu and Christian missionaries instead of adressing the reason WHY people want to leave sikhi in the first place.

[kdsingh80]

Satkirin Kaur:
But thats the thing. Sikhi was a "missionary" faith - yet failed to attract a majority in any area of India.

​Sikhi was a missionary faith but from past 100-150 years It is more Punjabi tribalism. The issue of state of Punjab are considered as sikh issues. Punjabi language is considered as sikh language.

 

My brother told me that  it takes months for few of his friends from Oriissa , to understand that punjabi hindu and sikhs are different.. sometimes few religions got stuck in this like jews , jains and parsis .These religions never become religion of masses 

[paapiman]

 

"The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. 
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? 
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. 
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. 
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. 
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said."

​The above shabad does not promote meat eating. The above shabad is exposing hypocrisy of certain people.

I challenge you to find any verse in SSGGJ that clearly states to eat meat. The one, which clearly prohibites it, has been provided.

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

​But it's not anymore... maybe we should start more parchar now!  But before that happens we need to decide on the actual rules because so many jathas with differing ideas doesn't help.  Some say equality of gender, others say males get more privilege, so is there gender equality or not?  Ragmala, Keski, Meat, sarbloh bibek, etc.  So many differing opinions based on different 'sants' etc.  I think what needs to be spread by parchar should be based entirely on SGGSJ and SGGSJ alone.  Or else it will be parchar of one Jathabadi over another etc. 

​Most orthodox sects have similar beliefs. It is the cults (the ones started many years after tenth master) , which are causing problems in the panth.

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

 

I would also think that if you choose not to eat meat and staunchly oppose it, but wear or use leather products (this includes sandals, horse saddles etc.) it does make you a bit of a hypocrite! Because either way the animal dies.  At least if it is going to die, I'd rather see none of it go to waste. 

​Eating meat has a bad effect on the mind and is also, not that good for the body.

One cannot compare meat eating to, using animal products. 

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 13, 2015 by paapiman

[paapiman]

SGGSJ is clear that ALL life is really different aspect of the ONE. vegetation has life and rudimentary consciousness, and even minerals. 

​It is very easy to talk like a Brahangyani, but very hard to walk the talk.

Bhul chuk maaf

[mrsingh]

Sikhi was a missionary faith but from past 100-150 years It is more Punjabi tribalism. The issue of state of Punjab are considered as sikh issues. Punjabi language is considered as sikh language.

My brother told me that it takes months for few of his friends from Oriissa , to understand that punjabi hindu and sikhs are different.. sometimes few religions got stuck in this like jews , jains and parsis .These religions never become religion of masses

​You're right Paji.

What's sad is that one of the Punj Piare was from Orissa yet it took a Bengali academic to translate Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj into Odisha bhasa (their language - spoken by around 40million people) whilst SGPC sat on their hands.

What's even more insulting is that clowns within our community would wrongly class the lady who did the translation as a non-Sikh simply due to her not being a Punjabi (despite her leaving her own job and career for Sikhi to do this seva)

Sikhi is a universal faith for all of humanity.

87% of Punjabi's are non-Sikhs (defined as those from within the borders of Punjab in 1947 in this context)

Four of the Panj Piare were non-Punjabi's from as far apart as south India, Orissa (in the east), Gujarat (in the west) and so on.

Even 80% of Jatts are non-Sikhs like the first Prime Minister of Pakistan (Liaquat Ali Khan) and Sajjan Kumar of 1984 infamy.

Yet we fail so miserably to explain that Sikhi is the natural religion of the hundreds of million poor and oppressed in India and and the wider billions globally especially Africa (where even a slaveowner and slave trader like Prophet Muhammad gains adherents).

Edited July 13, 2015 by mrsingh

[paapiman]

Though an entirely different context

 

"MI5 estimates there are between 150,000 and 200,000 white converts to Islam in the UK."

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/453300/white-jihadi-threat-brits-turn-radical

 

The number of converts in the US is also estimated in the hundreds of thousands.

 

There are only about 40-50 white converts to Sikhi in the UK.

​Bro, you need to take into factor that Islam and Christianity are similar religions. On average, it will be easier for a Christian to understand Islam and Judaism, compared to Sikhism and Hinduism.

Bhul chuk maaf

[mrsingh]

Until we merge all biraderi-based Gurdwara's into single united Sangat Gurdwara's in the West and put an end to the associated matrimonial apartheid, Sikhi parchar cannot really be taken seriously by many.

Furthermore, only by accepting sehajdhari Europeans as new Sikhs (rather than insisting on them being Amritdhari in order for us to consider them Sikh) will greater number believe that the values they believe are best described as Sikhi and that they themselves are Sikh. The vast majority of human rights activists, animal rights people, those that helped the fight against Ebola are natural born Sikhs if only they knew it.

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

​Eating meat has a bad effect on the mind and is also, not that good for the body.

One cannot compare meat eating to, using animal products. 

Bhul chuk maaf

​On the contrary.... many scientists and anthropologists agree that humans only evolved beyond animal consciousness level by eating meat.  

And yes you can very much compare the two!  Either way the animal dies.  It's not about mind / body for us. It's about compassion for the animal.  

You can continue to wear animal flesh if you want... but then you can't speak out against eating meat because you would be a hypocrite.  And you condone wasting of the rest of the animal for use of only its skin. At least if the whole animal is used for food it sustains people.  Animal products that do not kill the animal like dairy and eggs are ok (as long as you practice good treatment of the animals in your ward) because they don't result in the animal giving its life.  

And that shabad is not directly saying go ahead and eat meat.  that wasnt what I was trying to say.  I was trying to show you the hyprocisy and also the futility of debating about meat (and blind rules) when you aren't evolved enough spiritually.