Hindu Sikh "unity"

[Mithar]

If Hindus want brother hood with Sikhs, they cannot and should not write the Bakwas that Chatanga jee has shown us on that site. I personally know of Hindus who really do want friendship and brotherly relations with Sikhs, but the makers of that site are not those types of Hindus. It seems like some really Sharaati type Hindus are behind that site. They will even create fake id pretending to be Sikhs and while their real agenda is to put doubts about Sikhi in the minds of other Sikhs by questioning the need for Kakkars or what is the point of bowing to the SGGSJ.

I remember there were these types of Hindus on the Faithfreedom site's forum. They hated Sikhs more than they hated Musilms. These kinds of people need to be watched out for. But at the same time we need to realise that not all Hindus are like this. The majority are nice people and want to have brotherly relations with Sikhs.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Mithar

[SAadmin]

When this forum started...there was this guy with various alias on here..but i used to call him - pandit..he used to spread his rss stuff...he was biggest rss online..he spent all his life on the forum to spread his views...i challenge him with many debates ..back then he used to have little edge over the debates because i didn't understood sikh theology very well. But now i can say by maharaj kirpa i have fair bit of understanding on sikh philosphy and theology. If he is reading this msg..i welcome him here for a debate.

[Kaljug]

When this forum started...there was this guy with various alias on here..but i used to call him - pandit..he used to spread his rss stuff...he was biggest rss online..he spent all his life on the forum to spread his views...i challenge him with many debates ..back then he used to have little edge over the debates because i didn't understood sikh theology very well. But now i can say by maharaj kirpa i have fair bit of understanding on sikh philosphy and theology. If he is reading this msg..i welcome him here for a debate.

Why bother?

As soon as you win the debate, he will tell you that it doesn't count unless it happens on TV.

K.

[HarjasDevi]

What exactly is the problem with Sikh-Hindu unity? Can someone please explain to me in a decent manner?

RSS Hindus promoting unity between Sikhs and Hindus by denigrating Sikhi to a sect of Hinduism and disrespecting Guru Sahiban, their Sikhi, Sikh Rehat5 Maryadas, and well .. pretty much everything in Sikhi that does not accord with their warped religious and political ideology.

I read through the site. I didn't read disrespect of Guru Sahiban or their Sikhi. Perhaps someone could kindly make it clear besides making juvenile insults about cow piss drinkers, which is clearly disrespect. Thank you.

~Om Namah Shivayah

[Matheen]

What exactly is the problem with Sikh-Hindu unity? Can someone please explain to me in a decent manner?....

There is no problem with Sikh-Muslim, Sikh -Hindu or Sikh - any other religion unity, as long as there is mutual respect. The problem is with that particular website and their attempt to portray Sikhi as a sect of Hinduism. That is their idea of unity.

As stated earlier by 'Kaljug':

.....unity between Sikhs and Hindus by denigrating Sikhi to a sect of Hinduism and disrespecting Guru Sahiban, their Sikhi, Sikh Rehat5 Maryadas, and well .. pretty much everything in Sikhi that does not accord with their warped religious and political ideology.

Did you miss all that?

Edited October 21, 2009 by Matheen

[drawrof]

Hindu-ism is a nationalist construct that divides people on religious lines. It is neo-colonial at best, although it started off as a reaction to colonialism, and it makes those who deviate from that 'norm' to feel like 'others'....albeit from a guise of 'we're peaceful and loving'. I don't rank sikh-ism any higher as it uses the same 'constructs' to alienate people.

Unity?....that is only present when identities can be fully imbibed and respected, not because they fit a place or a function on an agenda, but rather for the implicit differences that make them unique. That uniqueness was tolerated at one point through a dynamic heterolingual language (khari boli) as the standard language as opposed to 'hindi' being forced upon everyone one. That uniqueness was respected as people didn't fall into the false constructs of an aryan golden age etc etc.

If you are asking me if there is a problem between sikhi/gurmat (which I would like your definition of) and 'hindu' iconography which I will accept as 'Indian' then I would say there is no problem. If you were to ask me whether there is a difference between gurmat and hindu-mat....well, I dont' know what hindu-mat is as it is a broad stroking brush that encapsulates everything, but is sikhi indic? of course.

Gurmat as a 'mat' is different from other sampardai 'mats'....and those sampardai 'mats' should also be respected for their uniqueness.

Can sikhs and hindu's get along? why not? Should there be unnecessary hatred between the 2? of course not....if there is meant to be a dialogue though then the 'hindu masses' must be aware that as a force they are larger and must do their part to make sure sikhs are respected (fairly) and not just seen as a cog of a wheel of a political vehicle.

[chatanga1]

What exactly is the problem with Sikh-Hindu unity? Can someone please explain to me in a decent manner?

I read through the site. I didn't read disrespect of Guru Sahiban or their Sikhi. Perhaps someone could kindly make it clear besides making juvenile insults about cow piss drinkers, which is clearly disrespect. Thank you.

~Om Namah Shivayah

there is nothing wrong with hndu sikh unity on equal terms. I respect their religion but if I talk about Sikhi as a sepreate religion then they will either say im a singh sabhia or a pakistani agent. then they will deliberately misquote gurbani which contain the words RAM etc to try and prove that Gurus worshiped Vishnu etc .

This is some of things they have posted under the guise of Hindu-Sikh unity :

calling the 5 ks useless.

sayng that Guru Arjan copied Bhagat Bani without their consent.

calling 8 of the Guru's a joke.

claiming that Guru Harkrishan was given gurgaddi cos Ram Rai was the son of a lowcaste maid of Guru Har Rai.

saying that Gurus beleeived in caste discrimination.

there is a mo-fo on that site called sant. this is what that turd of a person posted:

"Guru Harkishen was a 6 year old guru, whose only QUALIFICATION for becoming guru was the fact that he was Guru Har Rais son.

He passed on when he was 11 and made no contribution to the granth sahib, so does he deserve to be reverred as a guru?"

now harjas this is the tip of the iceberg. there is a lot more. So plz dont giv that rubbish that you didnt read anything bad.

perhaps you could kindly make it clear what these holy devotees of Vishnu are trying to do?

Om Namah Shiva! Jai Shiv Shamboo!

Edited October 21, 2009 by chatanga1

[jaikaara]

I agree with Chatanga ji that yes many hindus if not all ridicule sikhi and the Bana of Sikhi. They neither would want to do anything themselves and just want to downgrade our beliefs and faith.

I veerji dont care about explaining anyting why kesh or why kirpaan. I just tell them will u question muslims who bow down 5 times and not 5 million times ? why just to the west and not to the north?

Why should you question or ridicule me ? It is upto the Sikhs, if they find this just as a ritual or if they feel it is useless they would what they want.

They want to preserve their culture, they want more sanskritisation, they want others to follow to them . The dreams they have about being 'vishwa gurus'.

They boast about astra shastra technology in the days of the Good King Sri Ram Chander Maharaj.

I ask them, where did yor technology go when the mughals attacked hindustan? why were you not able to use yor metallurgy and save yor women from being kidnapped by turaks and mughals ?

Why did it take so many years of slavery ?

First prove yorselves and stop questioning our kirpaans and kesh. Dont make khalistanis out of us , control the terrorism in yor hindu rashtra first and then dream like opium eaters.

Edited October 21, 2009 by jaikaara

[HarjasDevi]

There is no problem with Sikh-Muslim, Sikh -Hindu or Sikh - any other religion unity, as long as there is mutual respect. The problem is with that particular website and their attempt to portray Sikhi as a sect of Hinduism. That is their idea of unity.

As stated earlier by 'Kaljug':

Did you miss all that?

First of all do you accept that not every Sikh Jatha believes that Sikhism is a new Panth? There are traditional Jathas which have always been a part of Hinduism. So the dividing line which separates "Hindu religion" from "Sikh religion" does not exist for some as it exists for others. But why would anyone get emotionally hostile about a belief?

Different people and sects are going to have different views. So is the conclusion to be "intolerance of differect sects?" Or even supporting and justifying "attacks and assassinations" of different sect leaders? But simply to have the interpretation that Sikhism is a continuation of the Sant Mat of the past which is reflected in Bhagat bani of Vaishnav Bhagats and fitting within the umbrella of sanatana Dharma philosophy is no "insult" or "threat to Sikh identity." It's a viewpoint.

"denigrating Sikhi to a sect of Hinduism"

Denigration in this usage is in the interpretation of the perceiver. There's no denigration, for example, to show that Buddhist teachings originate from Shaiva Tantra. It's not "denigrating" something to show relationship or origination.

den·i·grat·ed, den·i·grat·ing, den·i·grates

1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.

2. To disparage; belittle:

Denigrate

People who use inflammatory words like "denigration" in context of a "discussion of belief systems" and "personal interpretations" invent a conflict where there is none in an effort to intimidate other viewpoints and cast aspersions on them.

as⋅per⋅sion

1. a damaging or derogatory remark or criticism; slander: casting aspersions on a campaign rival.

2. the act of slandering; vilification; defamation; calumniation; derogation: Such vehement aspersions cannot be ignored.

Aspersion

So rather than conscientious discussion of spiritual topics, it becomes SLANDER of Hindu religion and of beliefs of Sanatan sects. Simply to point out that Sikh philosophy and spiritual teachings originate and derive from Sanatana Dharma is not "denigrating" them.

"disrespecting Guru Sahiban, their Sikhi, Sikh Rehat5 Maryadas"

Merely to make an accusation without proving it is another slander. Did you get all that?

What you falsely attribute as "disrespect" is NOT the same as disbelief or disagreement. Traditional Sikh sects have not held the exact same views even among themselves. Traditional Sikh undertstandings which have long been at odds with Singh Sabhia views.

But that is NOT "disrespect" to hold different opinions.

Sikhs claim belief in panj kakkars as coming from hukam of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I don't personally disagree. But someone else could easily challenge, where is the proof of that? Where is it written? Because in fact, several rehitnamay talk about 3 kakkars only. So traditionally, there is not the hard and fast doctrinalism of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia.

To speak of this, or make questions along this line on a discussion forum is NOT "disrespect."

Sikhs claim Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the Khalsa His roop. Where is the proof? Because a bunch of Tat Khalsa Singhs have always said so? Where is it written? And in fact, it is in Shri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji.

"Khalsa mero roop hai khaas. The Khalsa is my complete image. Khalse maih hau karo nivaas. I dwell in the khalsa."

But is different mainstream Sikh Jathas do not even accept Sarbloh Granth Sahib as bani, and there are bitter debates whether even Shri Dasm Granth Sahib Ji is bani.

Why are the Hindu's and Sanatan Sikhs singled out as "disrespecting" what they do not agree with, or who discuss these issues from their viewpoints? But when Tat Khalsas do the same thing, it's not "disrespect" it's "discussion?"

disrespectful - exhibiting lack of respect; rude and discourteous;

Disrespect

Explain please about the Sikh Rehat Maryada being "disrespected?" No rude comments are written from the perspective of Sikh-Hindu Unity. Although some individuals may be disrespectful, just as some Tat Khalsas are disrespectful of Hinduism, calling perjorative names and insults. Even violating the very same SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada which says:

e. The Khalsa should maintain its distinctiveness among the professors of different religions of the world, but should not hurt the sentiments of any person professing another religion.

SGPC SRM

It isn't "disrespect" to question or challenge the authority of something from an ideological perspective. It is challenging the authority and political interpretations of the SGPC, not Guru Sahib.

"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." SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada definitions

We see here a perfect example of how the SGPC imposes an interpretation which various sects within Sikh tradition disagree with.

Take for example the simple interpretation of the word "Guru."

The Sanskrit does not confer the meaning of Guru as a teacher and an honored person. Guru means the one who is beyond the qualities of rajo-sato-tamo gunas and is thus a Divine Being able to confer brahmgyan on a chela because He has attained the God Realization.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਬੁਝਿਆ ਗੁਰ ਜੇਵਡੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥

sathigur har prabh bujhiaa gur jaevadd avar n koe ||

The True Guru understands the Lord God. There is no other as Great as the Guru.

~SGGS Ji ang 39

ਜੇਵਡੁ ਆਪਿ ਜਾਣੈ ਆਪਿ ਆਪਿ ॥

jaevadd aap jaanai aap aap ||

Only He Himself is that Great. He Himself knows Himself.

~SGGS Ji ang 5

ਗੁਰੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਡੁਬਦਾ ਲਏ ਤਰਾਇ ॥੨॥

gur paramaesar paarabreham gur ddubadhaa leae tharaae ||2||

The Guru is the Transcendent Lord, the Supreme Lord God.

The Guru lifts up and saves those who are drowning. ||2||

~SGGS Ji ang 49

Also, the SGPC Sikh Rehat Maryada goes so far as to interpolate political interpretations into RULES for amritdhari Khalsas in the name of living in consonance with the Guru's tenets. But they are not the Guru's tenets at all, they are INTERPRETATIONS of the Singh Sabhias codified into a set of rules.

"Most, though not all, rituals and ritual or religious observances listed in this clause are hindu rituals and observances. The reason is that the old rituals and practices, continues to be observed by large numbers of Sikhs even after their conversion from their old to new faith and a large bulk of the Sikhs novices were Hindu converts. Another reason for this phenomenon was the strangle hold of the Brahmin priest on Hindus' secular and religious life which the Brahmin priests managed to maintain even on those leaving the Hindu religious fold, by the his astute mental dexterity and rare capacity for compromise." Living in Consonance with Guru's Tenets (Gurmat Rehni)

It is additions like this which have political interpretations against Hindu practices as being at odds with Sikhism which is the Singh Sabhia ideology. The traditional Sanatan Sikhi has no problem with it, only the Tat Khalsas make it a problem and then invent a rulebook making sanatan Sikh observances "wrong," or worse, "anti-Gurmat," "anti-Sikh."

So the traditional Sikh practices are what is being attacked and what is being criticized by Tat Khalsas. Political opinions interpolated into the Sikh Rehat Maryada is a point of INTERPRETATION and NOT GURMAT. To challenge that is a viewpoint, not denigration or disrespect.

[Matheen]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa! Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

First of all do you accept that not every Sikh Jatha believes that Sikhism is a new Panth?

Guru Ji themselves say that it is the third panth. How can his Sikhs say otherwise?

Sikhs claim belief in panj kakkars as coming from hukam of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I don't personally disagree. But someone else could easily challenge, where is the proof of that? Where is it written?

It is clearly written in Sri Dasam Granth and Sarbloh Granth, not to mention the oral tradition of puratan sampardas.

Sikhs claim Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the Khalsa His roop. Where is the proof? Because a bunch of Tat Khalsa Singhs have always said so? Where is it written? And in fact, it is in Shri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji.

You answer your own question.

It is additions like this which have political interpretations against Hindu practices as being at odds with Sikhism which is the Singh Sabhia ideology. The traditional Sanatan Sikhi has no problem with it,..

Guru Ji had a problem with it, as demonstrated by the harsh words in Sri Dasam Granth against various Hindu practices. A few examples are given in another thread - "Gurmat and the Gita".

There is nothing wrong with civilised discussion, but that is not what was happening on that site. For unitym there must be respect and tolerance, like there was in the days before "Hindu-ism".

Are you a student of Rishi Handa by any chance?

Guru Rakha

Edited October 21, 2009 by Matheen

[HarjasDevi]

there is nothing wrong with hndu sikh unity on equal terms. I respect their religion but if I talk about Sikhi as a sepreate religion then they will either say im a singh sabhia or a pakistani agent. then they will deliberately misquote gurbani which contain the words RAM etc to try and prove that Gurus worshiped Vishnu etc .

It is the teaching of the Singh Sabhia Tat Khalsas that Sikhism should be separated from association with Hindu ideologies. Modern Tat Khalsa Sikhs who adhere to the basic institutions of modern Sikhism, such as SGPC and Akal Takhat political pre-eminance, who reject as "Hindu ritualism" such sanatan practices as Nihang Jatha and Hazoori Jatha practice of jhatka, or aarati, or prakash of all 3 Granths, or placing blood tilak on shastars, etc. are in fact espousing Singh Sabhia ideology and beliefs. These are political beliefs interjected into the Sikh Panth within the last 100 years and have no purataan parallel.

Moreover, if you hadn't noticed there has been an escalating conflict between Pakistan and India since the partition. China has been trying to claim Kashmir and arming the Pakistani intelligence agencies, who in turn arm the Islamic mujahideen. The fact remains that Pakistan and China have infiltrated the Punjab region in their efforts to break Indian National Unity. The Sikh militant organizations which sought refuge in Pakistan have long been working together with the Islamic Mujahideen and Pakistani National interests.

'China should break India into 20-30 states'

New Delhi: In an article likely to raise Indian hackles, a Chinese strategist contends that Beijing

should break up India into 20-30 independent states

with the help of “friendly countries” like Pakistan

,

Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan...

China Think-Tank to Dismember India

China projects Kashmir as a separate country

KATHMANDU: Besides issuing separate visas to Indian passport holders from Jammu and Kashmir,

China is also projecting the disputed territory as an independent country in other ways.

Visitors to Tibet, especially journalists invited by the Chinese government, are given handouts

where Kashmir is indicated as a country separate from India

...

China Projects Kashmir as a Separate Country

Monster turns on Frankenstein

Pakistan’s rationale for fueling militancy and separatism in Jammu & Kashmir and terrorism in other parts

of India is based on the premise that it is the sole custodian of Muslim interests everywhere, even more so

in India. Having fought four wars with us and having been defeated in all of them, it

is now fathering

terrorist groups to wage jihad against India

...

Monster Turns On Frankenstein

Even an old clip of Operation Bluestar shows the weapons of the Sikh Militants were of Chinese manufacture implying Chinese government manipulation to support civil war to divide the Indian state. As we from today the rising Maoist Naxal insurgency actually threatens civil war. So these political considerations are serious and continuing. What is to be gained by breaking Indian National Unity and strengthening terrorist threats and enemy foreign governments? How does that benefit Indian citizens which includes Sikhs? So when analyzing the real forces which are behind the Sikh-Hindu disunity efforts, it doesn't take very long to find the criminal hand of Pakistan and China.

India prepares new assault on its 'biggest threat'

India has sent 20,000 more troops to eastern states where a Maoist Naxalite insurgency is gaining strength.

Some analysts question whether India has the breadth and strength for an escalated campaign.

Naxal Insurgency

Most Hindu's and Sanatan Sikhs believe current political situation is a gross manipulation of holy Sikh religion by hostile forces.

And as for the naive assertion that the "weapons were planted by the Indian government," yeah, right.

For example Simranjit Singh Mann, former head of Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar videotaped shouting "Pakistan Zindabad" and praising their propaganda to achieve alliance with Sikhs and recognition of Khalistan together with his arrest for treason paint the picture that some radical Sikhs groups are actively collaborating with Pakistan.

So when Sikhs begin to post hate speech against Hindu's and Hinduism and justify the murder of Sanatan Sikh dera leaders and trash Sikh-Hindu Unity efforts while many times promoting aims of the Pakistani Intelligence forces, then yes, it is reasonable to assume some people will believe you are acting in the interests of Pakistan to further divide India as a sovereign country and to spread the kind of hate and disunity which leads to violence. Is there a spiritual purpose behind it? See, many Sanatan Sikhs believe these political manipulations and corruptions defile Sikhi and don't represent it at all.

This is some of things they have posted under the guise of Hindu-Sikh unity :

calling the 5 ks useless.

sayng that Guru Arjan copied Bhagat Bani without their consent.

calling 8 of the Guru's a joke.

claiming that Guru Harkrishan was given gurgaddi cos Ram Rai was the son of a lowcaste maid of Guru Har Rai.

saying that Gurus beleeived in caste discrimination.

What you are talking about are a collection of individuals with a collection of opinions, not one of which represents Hindu Dharma or even a particular sanatan Sikh sect. If you have a problem with those opinions, write you're rebuttal. But analyzing some of the issues under debate, can you explain WHY someone would believe the panj kakkars are "useless" from a spiritual perspective?

Can you please tell me in a decent way how wearing Kacchera makes someone modest? You see, it's a symbolic representation to remind someone of modesty. Now, if you believe, as I do, that Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave hukam that Khalsa were to keep the panj kakkars on their person at all times, you will disagree with other opinions. But other opinions have no authority to challenge your faith. There's no reason to lose peace or get angry because Namdharis don't believe in kirpan, for example. Do you want to eliminate all Namdharis to punish them for a different belief?

Does a dhaari really make anyone holy? Haven't we known kesdhari and even amritdhari people who fail to live up to Khalsa ideals, who maybe are sharaabis or beat their wife and kids? So the criticism isn't entirely false. Just having hairs doesn't make anybody spiritual. But it's the commitment to a spiritual ideal which should be behind the practice of keeping kakkars. So what, are you going to do, condemn the world for having an opinion? What exactly have you done to live up to the Khalsa ideal which would persuade anyone that disbelieving in panj kakkars is wrong?

Now, you are mixing apples with oranges in this phrase:

"saying that Gurus beleeived in caste discrimination."

There is a difference between caste "discrimination" and believing in the caste-varna-jati system. So here again, we're back to the issue of differing opinions and not "disrespect of teachings."

ਆਪੇ ਤੰਤੁ ਪਰਮ ਤੰਤੁ ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਆਪੇ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਦਾਸੁ ਭਇਆ ॥

aapae thanth param thanth sabh aapae aapae thaakur dhaas bhaeiaa ||

He Himself is the supreme essence, He Himself is the essence of all. He Himself is the Lord and Master, and He Himself is the servant.

ਆਪੇ ਦਸ ਅਠ ਵਰਨ ਉਪਾਇਅਨੁ ਆਪਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਆਪਿ ਰਾਜੁ ਲਇਆ ॥

aapae dhas ath varan oupaaeian aap breham aap raaj laeiaa ||

He Himself created the people of the eighteen varnas; God Himself acquired His domain.

ਆਪੇ ਮਾਰੇ ਆਪੇ ਛੋਡੈ ਆਪੇ ਬਖਸੇ ਕਰੇ ਦਇਆ ॥

aapae maarae aapae shhoddai aapae bakhasae karae dhaeiaa ||

He Himself kills, and He Himself redeems; He Himself, in His Kindness, forgives us. He is infallible

~SGGS Ji ang 553

It can easily be interpreted from the sanatan perspective that the Guru Sahibaan believed in the varna system because Gurbani says the Lord Himself created the people with differences in nature and temperament along which the varna exists. But this is not the same thing as the hateful, racism which the British Raj insinuated into the Varna system. Many Sanatan Sants and Bhagats had spoken against abuses and corruption of the Vedic caste system.

Vaishnav sants initiated a caste based reform hundreds of years before Guru Nanak Dev Ji was even born. And these teachings of spiritual evolution and equality are what appear in Vaishnav bhagat bani. These teachings are based on the Srimad Bhagavatum which teaches that a persons gunas, his temperament, not his birth determine his true varna, and that everybody is intended to be a brahmana, servant and devotee of God. So in the original Vedic system, even the lowly Shudra can be a brahmin, and a born brahmin a shudra based on his mentality. And it is this Vaishnav reform philophy which is found in Sikh Gurbani.

ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਸੋਢੀ ਤਿਲਕੁ ਦੀਆ ਗੁਰ ਸਬਦੁ ਸਚੁ ਨੀਸਾਣੁ ਜੀਉ ॥੫॥

raamadhaas sodtee thilak

dheeaa gur sabadh sach neesaan jeeo ||5||

The Guru then blessed the Sodhi Ram Das with the ceremonial tilak mark,

the insignia of the True Word of the Shabad. ||5||

~SGGS Ji ang 923

You do not find ANYWHERE in Gurbani, rejection of the caste-varna system. You do not find ANYWHERE promotion of caste discrimination. But the issue comes down to a matter of different opinions and different knowledge people bring to these discussions. Simply to read the Gurbani literally and believe the Vedic Vaishnav reform in the Varna system, together with the historical fact that not a single Guru Sahibaan ever married out of his caste and that Guru Granth Sahib records Guru caste surnames, or that historical pothis record what caste the panj piare were reflects that complete "rejection" of the caste-Varna system did NOT occur, although rejections of the CORRUPTIONS of it did.

ਖਤ੍ਰੀ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ ਸੂਦ ਵੈਸ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਚਹੁ ਵਰਨਾ ਕਉ ਸਾਝਾ ॥

khathree braahaman soodh vais oupadhaes chahu varanaa ko saajhaa ||

The four castes - the Kh'shaatriyas, Brahmins, Soodras and Vaishyas - are equal in respect to the teachings.

~SGGS Ji ang 747

ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਖਤ੍ਰੀ ਸੂਦ ਵੈਸ ਚਾਰਿ ਵਰਨ ਚਾਰਿ ਆਸ੍ਰਮ ਹਹਿ ਜੋ ਹਰਿ ਧਿਆਵੈ ਸੋ ਪਰਧਾਨੁ ॥

braahaman khathree soodh vais chaar varan chaar aasram hehi jo har dhhiaavai so paradhhaan ||

There are four castes: Brahmin, Kh'shaatriya, Soodra and Vaishya, and there are four stages of life. One who meditates on the Lord, is the most distinguished and renowned.

~SGGS Ji ang 861

ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਜੋ ਬਿੰਦੇ ਹਰਿ ਸੇਤੀ ਰੰਗਿ ਰਾਤਾ ॥

so braahaman breham jo bindhae har saethee rang raathaa ||

He alone is a Brahmin, who knows the Lord Brahma, and is attuned to the Love of the Lord.

~SGGS Ji ang 68

ਬਬਾ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਜਾਨਤ ਤੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ॥

babaa breham jaanath thae brehamaa ||

BABBA: One who knows God is a Brahmin.

~SGGS Ji ang 258

ਅਧਮ ਚੰਡਾਲੀ ਭਈ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣੀ ਸੂਦੀ ਤੇ ਸ੍ਰੇਸਟਾਈ ਰੇ ॥

adhham chanddaalee bhee brehamanee soodhee thae sraesattaaee rae ||

The lowly outcaste becomes a Brahmin, and the untouchable sweeper becomes pure and sublime.

~SGGS Ji ang 381

there is a mo-fo on that site called sant. this is what that turd of a person posted:

"Guru Harkishen was a 6 year old guru, whose only QUALIFICATION for becoming guru was the fact that he was Guru Har Rais son.

He passed on when he was 11 and made no contribution to the granth sahib, so does he deserve to be reverred as a guru?"

now harjas this is the tip of the iceberg. there is a lot more. So plz dont giv that rubbish that you didnt read anything bad.

It sounds like a foolish opinion of someone who doesn't know any better. But I don't read anything "bad" into it. Not even every Sikh understands the passing of the Jyoth from one Guru to another, why would you expect eveyone to have the same undertsanding as you do? Instead of calling him names, why don't you share that gyaan which you gain from dhyaan with him instead? If you can't do Sikhi parchaar why drop to the level of insults in the name of defending Sikhi?

perhaps you could kindly make it clear what these holy devotees of Vishnu are trying to do?

You should know that not every Hindu is a Vaishnav. And the people who have different opinions about the meaning of Gurbani or the historical relationships and stories withing different Sikh sampradayas are not all going to agree on things. But your comment about "holy devotees of Vishnu" following calling as mo fo's and turds is "disrespectful" of Gurbani.

ਬਬਾ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਜਾਨਤ ਤੇ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ॥

babaa breham jaanath thae brehamaa ||

BABBA: One who knows God is a Brahmin.

ਬੈਸਨੋ ਤੇ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸੁਚ ਧਰਮਾ ॥

baisano thae guramukh

such dhharamaa ||

A Vaishnaav is one who, as Gurmukh, lives the righteous life of Dharma.

ਬੀਰਾ ਆਪਨ ਬੁਰਾ ਮਿਟਾਵੈ ॥

beeraa aapan buraa mittaavai ||

One who eradicates his own evil is a brave warrior;

~SGGS Ji ang 258

Gurbani calls a Vaishnav as Gurmukh.

ਬੈਸਨੋ ਸੋ ਜਿਸੁ ਊਪਰਿ ਸੁਪ੍ਰਸੰਨ ॥

baisano

so jis oopar suprasann ||

The true Vaishnaav, the devotee of Vishnu, is the one with whom God is thoroughly pleased.

ਬਿਸਨ ਕੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਤੇ ਹੋਇ ਭਿੰਨ ॥

bisan kee maaeiaa thae hoe bhinn ||

He dwells apart from Maya.

ਕਰਮ ਕਰਤ ਹੋਵੈ ਨਿਹਕਰਮ ॥

karam karath hovai nihakaram ||

Performing good deeds, he does not seek rewards.

ਤਿਸੁ ਬੈਸਨੋ ਕਾ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਧਰਮ ॥

this

baisano

kaa niramal dhharam ||

Spotlessly pure is the religion of such a Vaishnaav;

ਕਾਹੂ ਫਲ ਕੀ ਇਛਾ ਨਹੀ ਬਾਛੈ ॥

kaahoo fal kee eishhaa nehee baashhai ||

he has no desire for the fruits of his labors.

ਕੇਵਲ ਭਗਤਿ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਸੰਗਿ ਰਾਚੈ ॥

kaeval

bhagath keerathan sang raachai ||

He is absorbed in devotional worship and the singing of Kirtan, the songs of the Lord's Glory.

ਮਨ ਤਨ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਗੋਪਾਲ ॥

man than anthar simaran

gopaal

||

Within his mind and body, he meditates in remembrance on the Lord of the Universe.

ਸਭ ਊਪਰਿ ਹੋਵਤ ਕਿਰਪਾਲ ॥

sabh oopar hovath kirapaal ||

He is kind to all creatures.

ਆਪਿ ਦ੍ਰਿੜੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥

aap dhrirrai avareh

naam japaavai

||

He holds fast to the Naam, and inspires others to chant it.

ਨਾਨਕ ਓਹੁ ਬੈਸਨੋ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਪਾਵੈ ॥੨॥

naanak ouhu

baisano

param gath paavai ||2||

O Nanak, such a Vaishnaav obtains the supreme status. ||2||

ਭਗਉਤੀ ਭਗਵੰਤ ਭਗਤਿ ਕਾ ਰੰਗੁ ॥

bhagouthee

bhagavanth bhagath kaa rang ||

The true Bhagaautee, the devotee of Adi Shakti, loves the devotional worship of God.

~SGGS Ji ang 274

Gurbani calls the Vaishnav who worships Gopaal, name of Har Krishna as attaining the liberation. Nothing anywhere in Gurbani rejects or disrespects Vaishnavism or Har Krishana. Neither should you.

Gopala Literally, Sanskrit for "Cow herder"/GOPAL, Child form of KRISNA, the Cowherd Boy who enchanted the Cowherd Maidens with the sound of his flute, attracting even Madan, Cupid. Historically one of the earliest forms of worship in Krishnaism. It is believed to be a key element of the early history of the worship of Krishna. This tradition is considered separately to other traditions that led to amalgamation at a later stage of historical development. Other traditions are Bhagavatism and Cult of Bala Krishna, that along with Cult of Krishna-Vasudeva form the basis of current tradition of monotheistic religion of Krishna.Gopal

[HarjasDevi]

Guru Ji themselves say that it is the third panth. How can his Sikhs say otherwise?

Show me where exactly with citation so that I can go look it up to read. Is it from Sarbloh Granth or Dasm Granth Sahib Jis? Again, please show me the citation. And the problem arises since Panthically, neither Sarbloh Granth nor Dasm Granth have full Panthic acceptance and so are not accepted as Gurmat by all Sikhs. So you are wrong to impose that All the Guru's Sikhs believe this. For certain this statement does not exist in Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Again, it is most likely an interpretation imposed on the bani. Sikhs of the Guru will follow "true spirituality" found in all religious paths but not follow a "corrupted religious path." There can't even be a third religion since Hinduism and Islam are simply 2 forms of religion and their are hundreds. Hinduism isn't even one Path by itself but probably includes dozens.

Sikhs claim belief in panj kakkars as coming from hukam of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. I don't personally disagree. But someone else could easily challenge, where is the proof of that? Where is it written?

It is clearly written in Sri Dasam Granth and Sarbloh Granth, not to mention the oral tradition of puratan sampardas.

And as I already stated, not all Sikh Jathas accept Shri Dasm Granth and Shri Sarbloh Granth as Gurbani. please show me the page numbers and citations. Oral tradition is prone to distortion.

ਸ਼ਸਤਰ ਹੀਨ ਕਬਹੂ ਨਹਿ ਹੋਈ, ਰਿਹਤਵੰਤ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਸੋਈ ॥

Those who never depart his/her arms, they are the Khalsa with excellent rehats.

– Rehatnama Bhai Desa Singh

This is the rehitnama given for the kirpan. I don't dispute it, but it's not at all clear that it is a kakkar, or that it is part of panj kakkars. So this is the problem with rehitnamay, some of which list only 3 kakkars. The point being, there is a lot of room for discussion and interpretation. You made wild claims about what a neat package Sikhism is in, then just base it on "you say."

Show us all where the citations and authority is please and we can continue this discussion. Otherwise you simply prove my point that different people will have different opinions and that having opinions is not "disrespecting."

Sikhs claim Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the Khalsa His roop. Where is the proof? Because a bunch of Tat Khalsa Singhs have always said so? Where is it written? And in fact, it is in Shri Sarbloh Granth Sahib Ji.

You answer your own question.

Don't be smart. Not every Sikh accepts Shri Sarbloh Granth as Gurbani. So the question of Khalsa roop as being Guru's roop is not even accepted by all Sikh Jathas, why do you complain if Hindu's or sanatan Sikh Jathas disagree and have another opinion? To have another opinion isn't showing you disrespect. This isn't a point of contention for me personally, I believe in the panj kakkars and in the Gurbani of Shri Sarbloh Granth and Shri Dasm Granth. but I was giving an example that not everyone shares the same INTERPRETATION of Sikhism and that different opinions ARE NOT disrespect.

It is additions like this which have political interpretations against Hindu practices as being at odds with Sikhism which is the Singh Sabhia ideology. The traditional Sanatan Sikhi has no problem with it,..

Guru Ji had a problem with it, as demonstrated by the harsh words in Sri Dasam Granth against various Hindu practices. A few examples are given in another thread - "Gurmat and the Gita".

All Vaishnav sampradyas had a problem with brahminism. Not just Guru Sahibaan. When Guruji is speaking out against hypocrisy of religious practice is it not the same thing as condemning ALL religious practice. So this is a matter of interpretation. Guru Sahib had a problem with hypocrites and evil people. He did not have harsh words anywhere for sincere people who practice differently. You think Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji sacrificed his life for hypocritical rituals? No! He sacrificed his life to defend Dharama and for people to be free of the curse of forced conversion and forced beliefs. So I believe you misinterpret the Gurbani when you say Guru Sahib had harsh words for "Hindu" practices.

ਜਾਤਿ ਵਰਨ ਤੁਰਕ ਅਰੁ ਹਿੰਦੂ ॥

jaath varan

thurak

ar

hindhoo

||

Social classes, races, Muslims and Hindus;

~SGGS Ji ang 237

Here Gurbani is using Hindu as meaning nationality, not religion. It is comparing with nationality of Turks who are not a religion.

ਇਕ ਹਿੰਦਵਾਣੀ ਅਵਰ ਤੁਰਕਾਣੀ ਭਟਿਆਣੀ ਠਕੁਰਾਣੀ ॥

eik

hindhavaanee

avar

thurakaanee

bhattiaanee

thakuraanee

||

The Hindu women, the Muslim women, the Bhattis and the Rajputs

~SGGS Ji ang 418

Here Gurbani is differentiating between Hindu's and Turks. Why then would it mention Bhattis and Thakurs as separate from Hindu religion? Because the usage of Hindu in Gurbani is interchangeable with nationality of Hindustan as well as religion of the people of Hindustan.

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ਸਾਲਾਹਨਿ ਦਰਸਨਿ ਰੂਪਿ ਅਪਾਰੁ ॥

hindhoo

saalaahee saalaahan dharasan roop apaar ||

The Hindus praise the Praiseworthy Lord; the Blessed Vision of His Darshan, His form is incomparable.

~SGGS Ji ang 465

It's wrong to over-generalize that Gurbani is against Hindu nationality and Hindu Dharma because it criticizes and corrects corrupted spiritual practices.

There is nothing wrong with civilised discussion, but that is not what was happening on that site. For unitym there must be respect and tolerance, like there was in the days before "Hindu-ism".

And in this thread calling as mo fo's, cow piss drinkers and turds is civilized? There was no religion before Sanatana Dharama.

Are you a student of Rishi Handa by any chance?

I have never heard of him.

[ds123]

are you the same Harjas Kaur who used to post on tapoban forum?

[HarjasDevi]

are you the same Harjas Kaur who used to post on tapoban forum?

Yes

[Xylitol]

But is different mainstream Sikh Jathas do not even accept Sarbloh Granth Sahib as bani, and there are bitter debates whether even Shri Dasm Granth Sahib Ji is bani.

Why are the Hindu's and Sanatan Sikhs singled out as "disrespecting" what they do not agree with, or who discuss these issues from their viewpoints? But when Tat Khalsas do the same thing, it's not "disrespect" it's "discussion?"

This forum's members tend to be more concerned wiht the essence of Gurmat (as far as that goes on discussion forums) than other forum members. People here are (mostly) interested in learning more about Gurmat, which is quite simply what the Guru's taught, and not what politicians or 'reformers' tried to make Sikhi into.

Your questions above can mostly be answered quite simply. The primary gunn for a sikh is nimarta according to Bhai Gurdass ji. The primary aim for a Sikh is surrender. IT is only surrender to the Guru that will grant victory on this marg. Bhai Lehna ji won the game solely b/c he surrendered his matt to the Guru. Why do we keep beards, we do we keep kakkaars, why do we remain distinct??? While I'm sure there are numerous benefits to these things (and there certainly are), in the end for any Sikh with sharda it simply comes down to surrendering to His sweet will.

[laalsingh]

Journey starts with accepting Hukam. I don't know about Vaishnavs. What do they say about Hukam and Razai?

Edited October 23, 2009 by laalsingh

[HarjasDevi]

This forum's members tend to be more concerned wiht the essence of Gurmat (as far as that goes on discussion forums) than other forum members. People here are (mostly) interested in learning more about Gurmat, which is quite simply what the Guru's taught, and not what politicians or 'reformers' tried to make Sikhi into.

That did not come across on this thread calling as mo fo's, turds, and cow piss drinkers. The point again is why are you all judging Hindu's for being Hindus? Of course Hindu understanding of Sikhi is coming from a different perspective. Whether or not you personally believe Gurmat is in a neat little box where everyone can understand the same thing, the point remains that if Sikh Jathas can't even agree among themselves what Gurmat is, why bash Hindu's for not having your same opinion?

Even Sikh Nirmalay read Gurbani with the same kind of Vedic interpretations. This isn't something new to the Panth, new like a political, RSS struggle. I don't belong to RSS. RSS is like the most over-used attack Sikhs make against anyone who posts from a Hindu perspective. It is the mentality of the perceiver to attack suspiciously or degradingly any Hindu who has a sanatan viewpoint. Yet, sanatan interpretations abound in Janam Sakhis, in Dasm Granth which has translated portion of Devi Mahatmyam, in Prem Sumarag, in Sanatan Sampradayas and their preserved traditions.

What are you going to do bash everybody who doesn't read Gurmat with YOUR understanding? With the understanding of YOUR sangat? Of YOUR Tat Khalsa brethren? If you are all so interested in learning about Gurmat, why do you people disrespect it in calling degrading names those Devatay who appear in Gurbani? Did Guruji degrade the Devatay? Is it the Dharm of a Sikh to degrade Devas and disrespect Hindus? Because that is the point of my posting here, in this section:

Anti-Sikh propaganda -- Hindu Sikh Unity.

So is this what you all believe? Hindu's are the devil, every Hindu perspective, viewpoint and opinion is anti-Gurmat and anti-Sikh? Does this justify you being anti-Hindu or promoting acts of violence and assassination against Hindu dera leaders because in your eyes they are "anti-Sikh?"

You see, it is a concern.

Because what, he is a dedhari guru in a sanatan sampradaya? Because he is Chamara? Because he accepts traditional gestures of respect such as matathek? Because you believe Hindus and Sanatan Sikhs have no right to have Guru Granh Sahib in their mandirs and Gurdheras? For this you are greater than God to judge without trial and assassinate?

Why do you people hate so much?

Your questions above can mostly be answered quite simply. The primary gunn for a sikh is nimarta according to Bhai Gurdass ji. The primary aim for a Sikh is surrender.

Oh really? This trashing Hindus and sanatan Sikhs all the time is hatred. It certainly isn't nirmata. Maybe there's a disconnect between what the ideal is and what the actuality is.

Why do we keep beards, we do we keep kakkaars, why do we remain distinct???

I also keep kesas. And the Kakkars come from the Rajputs. So does surname of Singh. You aren't distinct at all. Shaivas and some Shaktas also keep kesas. It's an ancient yogic tradition to tie jura over the dasm duaara to form a mudra/seal and do Naam simran japo to vibrate the Gurmantra to raise the praan through the shushumna nadi, pierce the chakrs and open the third eye/brahmgyan, and open the tenth gate, sahasrara chakra to have darshan of the Divine.

No distinctiveness at all, except most modern Sikhs have lost understanding of WHY they keep their traditions.

[HarjasDevi]

Journey starts with accepting Hukam. I don't know about Vaishnavs. What do they say about Hukam and Razai?

I am not a Vaishnav. But Gurbani is clearly supporting the Vaishnav practices of keeping Naam Simran. Bhair Gurdas Ji vaaran teaches us that Vaheguru Gurmantra comes from beej syllables V for Vishnu, Vasudeyva, H for Har Krishan, G for Gobind, R for Raam. These are the Naams which the Vaishnav sampradayas jap to carry across the ocean of suffering and have mukti in the Kalyuga.

Hukam is from Arabic word Hukm, meaning order or command. In Punjabi it means the Order or command of Vaheguru's will. It also means submission and living in harmony with the Divine will.

Rajai comes from Sanskrit as there were Rajput rulers who gave commands as Kings.

rājā — the king; BG 1.2

pāda-raja — the dust of your feet; CC Antya 16.22

Sanatana Dharma gave the world the tradition of Gur-chela. The word of the Guru is the will of God. His words are pure command for the chela's life. You think there is no following the commands and orders of the Guru as submitting and keeping harmony with God's will in sanatan sampradayas? Where do you think the term "das" came from? Where do you think the tradition of touching feet came from, or drinking charan pahul? It came out of this same heritage and tradition which the Vaishnav's also keep, and which the Sikhs also keep. Or are you implying radical distinction on the basis of simple terminology of an Arabic word?

ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਚਲਣਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਨਾਲਿ ॥੧॥

hukam rajaaee chalanaa naanak likhiaa naal ||1||

O Nanak, it is written that you shall obey the Hukam of His Command,

and walk in the Way of His Will. ||1||

~SGGS Ji ang 1

In Sanskrit the word Prapatti means "to throw oneself down." It means to seek refuge at the Guru's feet, self-surrender to Guru's will. You must have prapatti before you can have bhakti. It means submission to the Divine Will.

ਸਾਧੂ ਕੀ ਹੋਹੁ ਰੇਣੁਕਾ ਅਪਣਾ ਆਪੁ ਤਿਆਗਿ ॥

saadhhoo kee hohu raenukaa apanaa aap thiaag ||

Become the dust of the Saints; renounce your selfishness and conceit.

3 Sriraag Guru Arjan Dev

ਉਪਾਵ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਸਗਲ ਛਡਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਚਰਣੀ ਲਾਗੁ ॥

oupaav siaanap sagal shhadd gur kee charanee laag ||

Give up all your schemes and your clever mental tricks, and fall at the Feet of the Guru.

~SGGS Ji ang 45

[laalsingh]

I am not a Vaishnav. But Gurbani is clearly supporting the Vaishnav practices of keeping Naam Simran. Bhair Gurdas Ji vaaran teaches us that Vaheguru Gurmantra comes from beej syllables V for Vishnu, Vasudeyva, H for Har Krishan, G for Gobind, R for Raam. These are the Naams which the Vaishnav sampradayas jap to carry across the ocean of suffering and have mukti in the Kalyuga.

Hukam is from Arabic word Hukm, meaning order or command. In Punjabi it means the Order or command of Vaheguru's will. It also means submission and living in harmony with the Divine will.

Rajai comes from Sanskrit as there were Rajput rulers who gave commands as Kings.

rājā — the king; BG 1.2

pāda-raja — the dust of your feet; CC Antya 16.22

Sanatana Dharma gave the world the tradition of Gur-chela. The word of the Guru is the will of God. His words are pure command for the chela's life. You think there is no following the commands and orders of the Guru as submitting and keeping harmony with God's will in sanatan sampradayas? Where do you think the term "das" came from? Where do you think the tradition of touching feet came from, or drinking charan pahul? It came out of this same heritage and tradition which the Vaishnav's also keep, and which the Sikhs also keep. Or are you implying radical distinction on the basis of simple terminology of an Arabic word?

ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ ਚਲਣਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਨਾਲਿ ॥੧॥

hukam rajaaee chalanaa naanak likhiaa naal ||1||

O Nanak, it is written that you shall obey the Hukam of His Command,

and walk in the Way of His Will. ||1||

~SGGS Ji ang 1

In Sanskrit the word Prapatti means "to throw oneself down." It means to seek refuge at the Guru's feet, self-surrender to Guru's will. You must have prapatti before you can have bhakti. It means submission to the Divine Will.

ਸਾਧੂ ਕੀ ਹੋਹੁ ਰੇਣੁਕਾ ਅਪਣਾ ਆਪੁ ਤਿਆਗਿ ॥

saadhhoo kee hohu raenukaa apanaa aap thiaag ||

Become the dust of the Saints; renounce your selfishness and conceit.

3 Sriraag Guru Arjan Dev

ਉਪਾਵ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਸਗਲ ਛਡਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਚਰਣੀ ਲਾਗੁ ॥

oupaav siaanap sagal shhadd gur kee charanee laag ||

Give up all your schemes and your clever mental tricks, and fall at the Feet of the Guru.

~SGGS Ji ang 45

That is not the answer. I repeat, Hukam is first step in Sikh's journey. Living Guru and Chela relationship is not Hukam. First understand Hukam and then we can talk. Long posts do not mean anything.

ਸਾਧੂ ਕੀ ਹੋਹੁ ਰੇਣੁਕਾ ਅਪਣਾ ਆਪੁ ਤਿਆਗਿ ॥

ਉਪਾਵ ਸਿਆਣਪ ਸਗਲ ਛਡਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਚਰਣੀ ਲਾਗੁ ॥

These Tuks do not have anything to do with Razai and Hukam. First Tuk is about humility and second Tuk is about following Gurmat.

Edited October 23, 2009 by laalsingh

[laalsingh]

Rajai comes from Sanskrit as there were Rajput rulers who gave commands as Kings.

rājā — the king; BG 1.2

pāda-raja — the dust of your feet; CC Antya 16.22

Are you implying that ਰਜਾਈ from ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ is taken from Sanskrit?

[HarjasDevi]

Are you implying that ਰਜਾਈ from ਹੁਕਮਿ ਰਜਾਈ is taken from Sanskrit?

Rajaa-ee is an Arabic word from Raza meaning by the Divine Will. In the usage as it relates to Divine Will in relation to command and Rulership of Hukam. And as the question was posed regarding Vaishnavs who had close mystical relationship to Sufi bhaktas and overlapping of teachings, Raza as Divine Will has relationship to Raja as Lord and King. So there is a relationship, although not origin. It is an Arabic word, not Sanskrit. I was trying to show relationship to concepts leading to Guru's charan which in Sanskrit have relationship to the word Raja. As in the phrase "Raja pada" as used for submission and surrender to will of a Guru.

ਸੋ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹੁ ਸਾਹਾ ਪਤਿ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਹਣੁ

ਰਜਾਈ

॥੧॥੧॥

so paathisaahu saahaa path saahib naanak rehan

rajaaee

||1||1||

He is the King, the King of Kings, the Emperor of Kings! Nanak lives in surrender to His Will. ||1||1||

~SGGS Ji ang 348

ਰਾਜਨ

ਰਾਜਿ

ਸਦਾ ਬਿਗਸਾਂਤਉ ॥

raajan

raaj

sadhaa bigasaantho ||

He is the king of kings, and blossoms forth continually.

~SGGS Ji ang 352

ਰਜਾਈ

Rajai

ਰਾਜਿ and also ਰਾਜ

Raaj

clearly in Gurbani there is a relationship to the Kingship of God and His Divine Will, Raja-ee. So there may be a relationship in the sound similarity of the Arabic and Sanskrit words. Relational meanings notwithstanding. I made no claim that Rajai meant Raja. The closest I could come to a Sanskrit equivalent for Hukam in this context was Prapatti, which is Self-surrender or submission (to a Divine Will).

The exact Sanskrit equivalent for Hukam would be "adesa"

mat-ādeśa — according to my instruction; SB 4.12.42

ādeśa — orders; SB 10.68.34

And has relationship to "Adeesha" or Ruler/King. But this doesn't quite fit the phrase "Hukam Rajai chalna." Which implies submission to the Order of the Divine Will. Sanskrit equivalents with Vaishnavism which is based on surrender to the Guru Shishya relationship is the closest to submission to Divine Will. So "Prapatti" (surrender by throwing oneself under submission) and "Raja pada" (the Lord's feet) reflect the closest association from Vaishnav teachings to the tuuk "Hukam Rajai Chalna Nanak Likiya Nal."

~Bhull chak maaf karni ji

Edited October 23, 2009 by HarjasKaur

[Matheen]

This thread is about the website in question - where it has been shown that they insulted Sikhi and our Guru. Let's keep the rest of the discussion in the Gurmat and gita thread.

[HarjasDevi]

This thread is about the website in question - where it has been shown that they insulted Sikhi and our Guru. Let's keep the rest of the discussion in the Gurmat and gita thread.

The thread is entitled Hindu-Sikh Unity, and thereby includes issues from that forum. And how Sikh fanatics are misconstruing simple ideological differences as forms of disrespect while at the same time heaping disrespect on Hindu's, Hindu religion, and Sanatan Sikhs.

[Matheen]

Calling Guru Ji 'a joke' is not an ideological difference!

Who do you consider to be 'sanatan Sikhs'? Jathedar Akali Surjit Singh Ji, Buddha Dal has said Sikhi is not Sanatan, many Nirmalas believe the same. Furthermore, where have you seen insults to any puratan Sikh sampardas?

[shaheediyan]

Matheen, just out of interestm could you give examples of which Nirmaley have said Sikhi is not Snaatn.

Ta.