Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dalsingh101

Benti - Why Sikhi failed spread thread

Recommended Posts

Can I request the admin to unpin this thread? It's been on my mind for a while. I don't think it is a good idea to have such a (what appears to me to be a) defeatist, negative thread title as the first one people will probably notice when they visit this forum. 

I'm sure it has valuable contributions within but maybe we should stop making it the first thing people may read?

If others also think this is valid, maybe implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thanks. Now we won't have a loaded statement (that presupposes a failure of Sikhi to spread) posed as a question as our first point of reference on the site.

For the record. I don't think Sikhi has failed to spread. I think it survived the most testing and challenging of situations, and is emerging again. 

If Sikhi was a child, it would be one that started out pure and innocent and then was viciously attacked by the most devious adversaries as it grew popular. But was strong enough to survive it, when most others wouldn't have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two religions which have spread have done so due to their intolerance and bigotry. The reason Eastern philosophies and most indigenous/animist religions did not spread is because of their tolerance towards other people.

 

Now that people are generally better informed we're seeing a rejection of enforced religion (albeit throwing out the baby with the bath water in some ways) and now that Christian countries/societies do not enforce punishments of blasphemy or apostasy we're seeing a rise in Western Buddhists, Wiccans, shamans, animists and even Sikhs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sikhi had to deal with the violence of the most powerful empire of the time during its youth. And it had to deal with millennia old, deeply rooted, enduring backward caste mentality that India is famous for simultaneously too. 

No easy task. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that Sikhi has no element of proselytism. It may be robust to external attack but we have no missionary element to convince others to convert or to impose ourselves on others. People who choose to join the path do so out of their personal attraction to it rather than fear or pressure to conform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ragnarok said:

My point is that Sikhi has no element of proselytism. 

I totally disagree with this. Sikhi had very strong and active proselytism going on. The Guru's themselves establish the manji system for this very purpose (even if they disbanded the later incarnation of this due to corruption) for example. In older granths Bhai Mani SIngh comes up repeatedly as a very strong parcharak of Sikhi as another. 

This only changed after the 'annexation' where (in the words of Jagraj Singh) goray done some 'Jedi mind trick' that convinced Sikhs that they don't proselytise but history tells us otherwise. If Sikhs have no element of proselytism now, it is because of insidious external influences, not because of the nature of Sikhi itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...