Clarification To Avoid Hostilities.

[HarjasDevi]

Clarification to avoid hostilities

Because my background is Sikhi and my orientation is Hindu I can only provide a Sanatan Sikh Sant Mat viewpoint.

*There are those who wish to boldly claim I am not a Sikh, and that is fine. I am a shish, and I believe there is only One Jyoti Jyot and that every Satguru is Jyoti Jyot of Guru God. However, because of my background I relate Gurbani to Hindu Mat. Now I would like to say that Gurbani is interpreted by established and respected Sikh sampraday and no one should negate those interpretations as false. I do not agree with the Singh Sabhian ideology for example, but I cannot disrespect or invalidate it as an authoritative and legitimate mainstream view. I respect even Tat Khalsa Singhs as having own mahapurash and even sants and brahmgyanis. I do not disrespect any sants views including Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale. Sikhs will speak for Sikhs.

*As now falling into the Hindu category I do not forget my love of Gurbani but my personal understanding and interpretations relate more to sanatan Sant Mat. It is my conviction that Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaaj belongs to the whole world as boat of mukti and solace from distress and medicine which can heal all the ills of the world. No one has exclusive claim on Guru Sahib to be able to deny His wisdom Light to anybody, regardless of their capacity or incapacity for correct understanding. Every word of Gurbani is holy and sacred. Our human understandings are not. So I make no claim to represent Guru Maharaaj actual teaching as I am not a bramgyaani. I am only doing a study of relational concepts between purataan Sant Mat teaching and Gurbani. I am not a guru, baba, sant, scholar or any qualification. I am just an ordinary human being who loves spiritual teachings.

*Prakash of actual Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaaj, as it is Holy Living Presence of Satguru Ji Jyot belongs only to those SIKHS of the Guru who can respect the proper Maryada and treat the angs of Guru Sahib with appropriate respect and not lapse into beadbi. I am not promoting in any way that Hindu's should have any right to take body of Shri Guru Granth Sahib into temples which have not been set up for primacy of respecting the Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, such as setting beside murthis. At the same time, no Sikhs have any right to tell Hindus that Shri Guru Granth Sahib teaching is not also for them or have rudeness or intolerance that Hindu's are going to understand and interpret and relate Sikhi concepts to Hindu Mat. Everyone is at own spiritual level. You cannot hate a child for not having the understanding of a college professor. So please, if you see some glaring misunderstanding on my part, feel free to comment respectfully and share with the forum your own personal views and correction. But don't be unhappy if I am not compelled to accept your view either.

The world should live in tolerance and harmony and not sectarian exaggerations such as Allah NAAM belonging only to Muslims or thinking Gurbani has not traditionally also been richly interpreted since purataan days from within Hindu Mat.

Thank you.

Edited January 28, 2010 by HarjasKaur

[dalsingh101]

"*There are those who wish to boldly claim I am not a Sikh, and that is fine. I am a shish"

You're a shish? Do you come with a salad and chilli sauce then?

Edited January 28, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Guest]

May i ask why this thread is in hinduism section? I am going to have to move it to general discussion for more exposure and discussion on this.

[Kaljug]

I can only provide a Sanatan Sikh Sant Mat viewpoint.

And what pray tell is "Sanatan Sikh Sant Mat"?

Now I would like to say that Gurbani is interpreted by established and respected Sikh sampraday and no one should negate those interpretations as false. I do not agree with the Singh Sabhian ideology for example, but I cannot disrespect or invalidate it as an authoritative and legitimate mainstream view. I respect even Tat Khalsa Singhs as having own mahapurash and even sants and brahmgyanis. I do not disrespect any sants views including Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale. Sikhs will speak for Sikhs.

I find it amusing that you should say that given your tendency to interpret anything that is not in accord with your view as being a Tat Khalsa innovation. For example, you were shown that neither Udasis and Nihangs see Sikhs as Hindus, yet you fail to acknowledge this important distinction that is upheld by all schools of Sikh thought.

You were also shown that the correct interpretation of the tuk you quote in your sig is that Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji's Guru is not Shiva, Brahma, or whatever but is the Guru of the guru of these entities. You were shown the interpretation from the great Nirmala Faridkot Steek, yet you still rejected that view simply because it is not in accord with your personal views.

So I make no claim to represent Guru Maharaaj actual teaching as I am not a bramgyaani.

You can claim whatever you like but the fact is that you have been doing exactly that by referencing Hindu granths when your own viewpoint is not supported by Sikh teaching.

And relax - no one hates you, but if you are seen to be misrepresenting Gurbani, you can be sure that some Sikh will speak out and correct you.

K.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Kaljug

[chatanga1]

Clarification to avoid hostilities

I do not agree with the Singh Sabhian ideology for example, but I cannot disrespect or invalidate it as an authoritative and legitimate mainstream view.

hold on please. You dismissed listening to katha of Kirtam Naam of shabd in Aag Guru, saying that it was from singh sabhians, and therefore not dependable as Singh Sabhians have an "agenda".

[Kaljug]

And for what it's worth, it's very clear to me and others who have seen you defend AKJ ideology on tapoban, and some time later describe Sikhi as nothing but a form of "militant Hinduism" (those were your words), with equal vigour, that your inability to seriously evaluate your beliefs while you believe them in a rational manner is what leads you to interpret as hostility anything that runs counter to whatever beliefs you hold at some point in time.

Until you overcome this personality trait of yours, you will face hostility wherever you go.

Edit: And here's the post (fourth in the thread) on the Hindu Dharam forums where you criticise Tat Khalsa views and blame them for the Nirankari murder of innocent Sikhs and the separation between Sikhs and Hindus. You also refer to Sikhs as Hindu.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4481

Regards,

K.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Kaljug

[jvalasingh]

it may shock people by...

most if not all itihaastik granths refer to us as Hindus (Suraj prakash, pracheen panth prakash before it was editted by bhai veer singh etc)

Again, the term is not reffering to Hindu as most people know it today.

[Kaljug]

it may shock people by...

most if not all itihaastik granths refer to us as Hindus (Suraj prakash, pracheen panth prakash before it was editted by bhai veer singh etc)

Again, the term is not reffering to Hindu as most people know it today.

Not shocking at all. The only thing I find shocking about it is that people are hellbent on using such granths as declaring the non-difference between those who follow Hindumat and those who follow Gurmat.

K.

[HarjasDevi]

1. Lord Shiva 2. Udasin Sri Pritam Das Ji Maharaj of Akhara Sangal Wala, Amritsar 3. Sant Baba Nand Singh Ji Maharaj- Nanaksar.(Kaleran)

"For example, you were shown that neither Udasis and Nihangs see Sikhs as Hindus, yet you fail to acknowledge this important distinction that is upheld by all schools of Sikh thought."

It's not a distinction ever made in history until the Singh Sabha reform movement. Just to display modern jathedars modern opinions does not erase the obvious sanatan past which peacfully blended sanatan Hindu Sant Mat with Sikhi. The distinction between Sikh and Hindu is a modern political one. Are they distinct? Yes....now they are distinct. But historically did these "clear" divisions exist? No, they did not. Neither did Guru Sahibaan renounce, reject, and deny what modern Tat Khalsa Reform ideologies so boldly claim, even as they ban and edit documents and translations to conform to the modern political ideology of DENYING Hindu heritage in the Sikh history.

But if you carefully read my post here, I am not saying there is not a conflict between our views. I'm saying I'm not here to invalidate what Mahapursash are saying in their katha. That rightfully belongs to the sampradayas which respect and honor them. I have no right to dishonor their words. We can disagree without being rude and disrespectful, in other words. You have not even begun to prove to me anything. Although, you may have suceeded in your own mind of proving to yourself. I am not persuaded.

Hindu and Sikh modernly are political terms. Where do you draw the dividing line? You will trace that dividing line to the Singh Sabha Reform and conflicts between the British and the Indian Nationalist Freedom Movement. Hindu and Sikh did not have the same definition 120, 150, 200, 400 years ago. If it were so clearly distinguished, then why have Sikhs intermarried with Hindu families since time of Guru Sahibaan? Why during the Indian Independence Movement did Sikhs align with Hindus? What's with Master Tara Singh being a founding member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad? You're just not being honest about the clear reality of purataan overlap and carry-over which existed between the traditional Indic sanatan heritage and Sikhi.

Pujya Chandra Swamiji Udasin

Nirmalay Mahant Ram Singh taking part in festivities marking the day of Mahasamadhi of Gurudev Omkarananda at his ashram, including aarati, havan, puja and bhajan-kirtan.

"...you were shown that neither Udasis and Nihangs see Sikhs as Hindus, yet you fail to acknowledge this important distinction that is upheld by all schools of Sikh thought."

You haven't shown anything which contradicts the obvious. This "distinction" exists in the minds of Tat Khalsas and modern day politics. But from my initial post I'm telling you I'm not here to disrespect the katha of Tat Khalsa Mahapurash. I'm not showing them disrespect to hold a conflicting view. Many of you do however, abuse my opinions. But that is not the purpose of an open forum which includes exposure to and discussion of various viewpoints with an attitude of tolerance and learning. You don't have to share the same beliefs and understanding. I don't understand why you feel any need to attack or invalidate it as "wrong" or "anti-Sikh" or "threatening Sikh identity." It's not supposed to be a Talibani war on opposing interpretations.

See what this Nihang Singh is holding? It's a Gul-shastar.

"On top of the Gul-shastar construct a large lion, four girah high, and six or seven girah in length. Above it {mounted on the lion}, construct a model of the immortal and supremely brave Bhavani Devi."

"Of all the weapons laid out the ones at the center of the kamal-shastar are most important. At the centre is the double-edged khanda sword representing nirguna Mahakal. On either side of the khanda is the curved tulwar sword representing sarguna Chandika. This symbol represents the ancient Ardhanarisvara (half male female Shiva combined with his female nature shakti) insignia from which is derived the Sikh national symbol khanda. In similar manner in order to designate different ranks of Sikh chiefs in times of the Sikh kingdoms was the practice of Sikh Maharajas giving specific insignia designating their rank based upon number of men they commanded. Gul-shastar was one such insignia. The weapons would be arranged in the form of a gul (rose) and stuck to a plaque mounted with idols of Chandi, Shiva, Hanuman, Karttikeya, etc. and when a Sikh chief of such rank would set up camp he would have the Gul-shastar set up in front of his camp designating his rank. Oral tradition also speaks of gardens and orchards being set in a specific manner housing idols of Bhavani (Chandi) to designate rank." Reflections on Prem Sumarag

"Ardhanarisvara (half male female Shiva combined with his female nature shakti) insignia from which is derived the Sikh national symbol khanda."

"...you were shown that neither Udasis and Nihangs see Sikhs as Hindus, yet you fail to acknowledge this important distinction that is upheld by all schools of Sikh thought."

ਕਹਯੋ ‘ਬਿਅਦਬੀ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਨਿ ਕੇਰੀ ਤੈਂ ਕਯੋਂ ਚਰਨ ਲਗਾਯੋ ।ਅਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਿਯ ‘ਖੜਗ ਅਕਾਲ ਪੁਰਖ ਕੋ ਨਿਜ ਧੁਜ ਬਿਖੈ ਸਹਾਯੋ ।੯।

The Guru then said, "You are disrespecting the weapons, why are you putting these weapons near your feet?

Akaal Purkh loves the Kharag, on his very own battle standards it (the sword) is displayed. 9

ਆਦਿ ਸ਼ਕਤਿ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਚੰਡੀ ਰੂਪ ਇਹ ਪੂਜਨ ਜੋਗ ਸਦੀਵਾ ।ਸਰਬ ਸੁਰਾਸੁਰ ਨਰ ਕਯਾ ਬਪੁਰੋ ਜਿਸ ਕੇ ਬਸਿ ਮਹਿਂ ਥੀਵਾ ।੧੦।

The sword is the Aadi Shakti (primal energy), and is the very form of Sri Chandi. One must always worship it.

All demi-gods, goddesses, demons, and humans whose fate was kind contemplated upon this.

ਸਾਦਰ ਸੇਵ ਮਾਞਿਬੇ ਕਰੀਯਹਿ’ ਇਹ ਕਹਿ ਅੱਗ੍ਰ ਸਿਧਾਏ ।ਬੈਠੇ ਬਹੁਰ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਆਯੋ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਮੁਖ ਦਰਸ਼ਨ ਪਾਏ ।੧੧।

Respectfully clean the weapons." After saying this Guru walked on. Later on, a Khalsa came and received Guru’s darshan as Guru was sitting down.

ਕੇਤਿਕ ਚਿਰ ਮਹਿਂ ਇਕ ਸਿਖ ਬੋਲਯੋ ‘ਮਾਰਵਾਰਿਯਾ ਜੋਈ ।ਪੁੰਜ ਖੜਗ ਸਿਰ ਪਰ ਧਰਿ ਬੈਠਯੋ ਕਾਰ ਨ ਕਰਤਾ ਸੋਈ’ ।੧੨।

After a while a Sikh said to the Guru, "The Marvaari Sikh has placed many weapons (swords) on his head and is sitting, but is not doing any work"

ਸੁਨਿ ਬਿਕਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਗਏ ਬਿਲੋਕਨਿ ਦੇਖਯੋ ਤਿਸੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਰਾ ।‘ਇਹ ਕਯਾ ਕਰਯੋ ਨ ਸੇਵਾ ਠਾਨਤਿ ਬੈਠੇ ਸਮਾ ਗੁਜਾਰਾ’ ।੧੩।

Listening to that, Guru ji went to go see. Upon approaching the Guru said, "What are you doing?

You are not doing any service; you are spending your time only resting."

‘ਮਹਾਰਾਜ ਰਾਵਰ ਕੀ ਆਇਸੁ ਅਦਬ ਕਰਨਿ ਇਮ ਹੋਵੈ ।ਸੇਵਾ ਮਾਂਞਨ ਕੀ ਹੁਇ ਤੈਸੇ ਜਥਾ ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਮਲ ਖੋਵੇਂ’ ।੧੪।

The Maarvaari Sikh said, "Maharaj, only with your permission can this respectful practice be carried out,

the service of washing can only be done that way, in the way (you proscribed) before. That is the only way the filth leaves."

ਬਿਗਸਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਕਹਿ ‘ਤੁਮ ਕੌ ਬਖਸ਼ਯੋ, ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਨ ਕੇ ਨਿਤ ਦਾਸਾ ।ਕਰਹੁ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਤੇ ਸੇਵਾ ਆਯੁਧ, ਤੌ ਸਭਿ ਸੁਖ ਹੁਇ ਪਾਸਾ’ ।੧੫।

The Lord said to the Maarvaari Sikh, "you are blessed; you are always doing service to weapons.

With great love you do selfless service to the weapons, with this happiness with always be at your side."

ਰਾਮ ਸਿੰਘ ਤਿਹ ਨਾਮ ਹੁਤੋ ਸੁਨਿ ਗੁਰ ਕੋ ਬੰਦਨ ਠਾਨੀ ।ਮਾਂਞਨ ਕਰਨਿ ਲਗਯੋ ਸੁਧ ਸ਼ਸਤ੍ਰਨਿ, ਪੁਨ ਸੁਖ ਲਹਯੋ ਮਹਾਂਨੀ ।੧੬।

The Marvaari Sikh’s name was Ram Singh, after listening to Guru Ji’s word he prostrated before the Guru and

started to clean some more weapons. After cleaning the weapons Ram Singh felt a great amount of happiness.

ਊਚੇ ਥਲ ਟਿਕਾਇ ਸਭਿ ਆਯੁਧ ਪੂਜਾ ਸੌਜ ਮੰਗਾਈ ।ਲਗੇ ਨੁਰਾਤੇ ਸਗਰੇ ਪੂਜਨ ਚੰਡਿ ਕਾਲਕਾ ਮਾਈ ।੧੭।

After the cleaning; all the weapons were placed on a high level and the Sikhs started to worship them with incense.

The festival of Navathri was starting and everyone was worshiping Chandi and Mata (mother) Kaalkaa.

ਚੰਡਿ ਚਰਿੱਤ੍ਰ ਪਾਠ ਨਿਤ ਹੋਵੈ ਸਹਿਸਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਅਰੁ ਭਾਖਾ ।ਧੂਪ ਦੀਪ ਚੰਦਨ ਕੌ ਚਰਚਤਿ ਫੂਲਮਾਲ ਬਹੁ ਰਾਖਾ ।੧੮।

The recitation of Chandi Chritr was starting in both Sanskrit form (from Markhandya Purana) and in Brij Bhasa (from Dasam Granth).

Incense, ghee-lamps, sandalwood were all used and great wreaths of flowers were put around the weapons.

Translation of Suraj Prakash - Fouth Rut, Chapter 32 (sakhi Shastar Maajane, Dushiraa)

Are you believing there exists no purataan sanatan interpretations of Gursikhi in history even from within Sikh sampraday?

[laalsingh]

Hindu and Sikh modernly are political terms. Where do you draw the dividing line?

That goes for whole manas ki jaat. Where do you draw the dividing line?

[laalsingh]

Hindu and Sikh did not have the same definition 120, 150, 200, 400 years ago.

I don't know history, but Gurbani addresses Sikhs and Hindus as different people. Nowhere is called Guru ka Hindu.

If it were so clearly distinguished, then why have Sikhs intermarried with Hindu families since time of Guru Sahibaan?

Majority of Sikhs including Gurus being from Hindu background/Not much malice between communities/lot of terms used for rituals very similar to Hindus. But intermarriage does not mean they are same. Many Rajput women were married to Muslim princes (like mother of Jahangir). Does that mean Hinduism and Islam or Deen e Ilahi are same religions? Reasons are political.

Why during the Indian Independence Movement did Sikhs align with Hindus?

Weren't Sikhs with British during '57 revolt? Weren't Purbia Hindus fighting alongside British against Sikhs during Anglo Sikh wars? Pakistan was helping Sikh militants in '80s. Your argument means shit.

What's with Master Tara Singh being a founding member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad?

Line for teesra panth is very thin. Hindu born Nanak Chand Malhotra can be little pro Hindu due to recent Muslim atrocities during partition. Do I need to give you list of popular Sikh leaders who were not very comfortable with Hindu ideology in '80s?

Your posts are long. Rest later.

[laalsingh]

About pictures, Muslims and some religious Christians and Jews too look same, long beard and turban on head (though Shivji is clean shaven). Osama got more similarities in appearance with Baba Nand Singh than Shivji (with clean shaven face). So what is the point of posting pictures?

[bhooliya]

http://www.apnaorg.com/research-papers/harish-puri/

[HarjasDevi]

You were also shown that the correct interpretation of the tuk you quote in your sig is that Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji's Guru is not Shiva, Brahma, or whatever but is the Guru of the guru of these entities.

You were shown the interpretation from the great Nirmala Faridkot Steek, yet you still rejected that view simply because it is not in accord with your personal views.

You were shown Faridkot steeka was commisioned by the prince of Faridkot who was a staunch supporter of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha Khalsa Diwan Society. That is the origin of the Faridkot steeka. And while Nirmalay sampraday may have copies of it, their sampraday is not the origin of it. Hence it is beyond obvious that the "interpretation" of the Faridkot steeka is representative of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha Reform interpretations and actually commissioned to reflect that ideology separating Hindu Mat from Gurbani.

And for what it's worth, it's very clear to me and others who have seen you defend AKJ ideology on tapoban, and some time later describe Sikhi as nothing but a form of "militant Hinduism" (those were your words), with equal vigour, that your inability to seriously evaluate your beliefs while you believe them in a rational manner is what leads you to interpret as hostility anything that runs counter to whatever beliefs you hold at some point in time.

Until you overcome this personality trait of yours, you will face hostility wherever you go.

Nothing but? I never reduced Gursikhi to "nothing but" anything. Those are lies on your lips to smear what I am actually saying. However, it is historically valid and part of purataan tradition that Sikh Fauj are a military response to the Mughal invasions in order to defend own homeland (Hindustan) from oppression and injustice, even to point that Guru Tagh Bahadur Ji is given title Hindu di chaddar, and even calling Himself a Hindu. Or do you deny it ? And before you demonize me about this subject, at least be honest how I totally exposed MK Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, and K.P.S. Gill corrupted injustices and also got banned from Hindu Dharma forums.

Edit: And here's the post (fourth in the thread) on the Hindu Dharam forums where you criticise Tat Khalsa views and blame them for the Nirankari murder of innocent Sikhs and the separation between Sikhs and Hindus. You also refer to Sikhs as Hindu.

Sikhs are Hindus. I said that on these forums too. But what you need to do analysis on is what context you refer to the term "Hindu?" Did Sikhi originate in Hindustan? Yes. That makes Sikh religion part of Hindustani culture, ergo, Sikhs from Hindustani culture and Sikh tradition is HINDU. Is Sikhi derived from Sanatana Dharma and Sruti? Without a doubt. Sikhi has so much more in common with Hindu Mat than Jain or Buddhist religion. Yet Jain and Buddhist religions have no trouble to deny origin and relationship with Sanatana Dharma. Why do you?

Yes, the radical Tat Khalsas have a definite talibani mentality which pits conflict between Sanatan Hindu Mat and Sikhi as a life or death struggle. Even going so far as to assassinate and justify assassination of sanatan dera babas and gurus. Is it not so?

They did it, they said, to avenge the ‘injustices’ done to the Sikhs by the Hindus; to defend the Faith against the machinations of the ‘evil Brahmins’ who were out to destroy it; to protect the lives and liberties of ‘persecuted Sikhs’ against an inimical and communalised State. They had simply borrowed their contemporary mythology from the Akalis. But the creed of hatred that had been propagated for decades was suddenly translated into action. Its source and centre remained in the Gurudwaras; but its idiom was now the bullet and the bomb.

Every instrument and strategy was adopted to perpetuate the myth, to authenticate it: selective killings; the alternating desecration of Hindu and Sikh religious places; sermons of a malevolent rage - anything that could drive a wedge between communities; anything that could incite a slaughter of the Hindus in the state, and a retaliatory pogrom against the Sikhs in the rest of India. That could have fulfilled their ambitions. Like the Akalis, however, they found only a few who could be swayed by their psalms of terror. To most, their falsehood was apparent from the outset. But those who did not believe them remained silent. Those who believed them, killed for their convictions. And many more joined in the slaughter, for profit, for greed, for power, for lust, for drugs, or for the opiate of the sheer freedom from moral restraint that terrorism represented.

Some of the believers still survive; they will, eventually, seek to revive and extend their fraternity of strife. As long as the myth persists, it will find its votaries. It is the myth, consequently, that we must contend with. Who were the victims of these ‘defenders of the Sikh Faith’? Of a total of 11,694 persons killed by terrorists in Punjab during the period 1981-1993, 7,139 - more than 61 per cent - were Sikhs.

The most dramatic killings, the ones that were projected to the greatest extent by the terrorists themselves, were always of the Hindus, or of other ‘enemies of the Faith’, such as the ‘apostate Sant Nirankaris’. But the most consistent victims, and perhaps the most dreaded opponents of the terrorists, were Sikhs. The terrorists claimed to speak for the entire Panth. Thus, any Sikhs who questioned their authority to do so, who questioned their actions, who exposed the immorality of their methods was a far greater danger to them than the Hindus could ever be. They threatened the credibility of the great myth. And they, above all others, had to die for it.

II

The incident to which the genesis of the terrorist movement in Punjab is traced, occurred in April 1978. The SGPC White Paper gives the Akali version of the background against which violence occurred. "....the Nrinkaris of Delhi," it observes, "were clandestinely supported and promoted by the Government in pursuance of its policy to create a schism and ideological confusion among the Sikhs."² And further, "The provocative utterances and activities brought the Nrinkaris into open clash with the Sikhs. In 1951, at Amritsar, the then Nrinkari Chief Avtar Singh, held a Satsang attended by his about two hundred followers [sic]. Some Sikhs clashed with the Nrinkari chief as he had committed an act of sacrilege by proclaiming himself a Guru in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib. These bickerings continued and ultimately the two important Sikh organisations known as the Damdami Taksal and the Akhand Kirtni Jatha also came forward to confront the attack of the Nrinkari."³ "The tension that had been building up for quite some time, resulted in clashes at Batala, Sri Hargobindpur, Pathankot, Qadian, Ghuman and Gurdaspur between the Nrinkaris and the followers of Sant Kartar Singh.⁴ Clashes were also reported from Tarn Taran, Ludhiana and Ropar."⁵ The circumstances of the actual clash are then described:

The Nrinkaris [sic] decided to hold their convention in Amritsar on April 13, 1978, the birthday of the Khalsa, when a large number of Sikh devotees throng the holy city. It was alleged that the place, date and time of the convention were deliberately chosen by the Nrinkaris in connivance with the Congress, which had been out of power and was trying to embarrass the Akali-Janata alliance, in order to get political leverage. One day before the Convention, on April 12, the Nrinkaris took out a procession, during the course of which their Chief allegedly made some derogatory remarks against the Sikh religion. These provocative gestures led to a lot of resentment in the Sikh circles in the city. Next day some followers of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and those of the Akhand Kirtni Jatha, went totally unarmed to the venue of Nrinkari congregation to dissuade the Nrinkari Chief from denigrating Sikh religion and its Gurus. The Nrinkaris, who were well equipped with rifles and sten guns fired at the approaching Sikhs, resulting in the death of thirteen of them.

⁶

The SGPC version is interesting, both in terms of what it attempts to conceal as of the mind-set it exposes. Given their own evaluation of the background, violence could easily have been predicted. The ‘Government’ they refer to when they speak of the encouragement given to the Nirankaris is the succession of Congress governments that had ruled at the Centre. However, this ‘villain for all occasions’ was, in April 1978, out of power both in Punjab and in Delhi. The state, at that time, was under the command of the Akali Dal-Janata Party coalition; and the Centre was ruled by the Janata Party, with the Akali Dal both supporting and participating in the Government. The ‘place, date and time’ of the Nirankari Convention, ‘chosen by the Nrinkaris in connivance with the Congress’, were sanctioned by the Akali Dal Government in Punjab, with full knowledge of the history of conflict that the SGPC document outlines. The role of both the Damdami Taksal and the Akhand Kirtani Jatha in this conflict was also known to the Akali Government. Yet no attempt was made to prevent, shift, or change the schedule of, the Nirankari Convention.

This is not all. Shortly before the ‘totally unarmed’ protesters set out for the venue of the Nirankari Convention, they had assembled in the Golden Temple, where the then Akali Dal Revenue Minister, Jeevan Singh Umranangal tried, unsuccessfully, to explain away the Government’s decision to allow the Nirankari Convention to take place. Bhindranwale interrupted the proceedings, shouting "We will not allow this Nirankari convention to take place. We are going to march there and cut them to pieces!"⁷ No precautionary measures were taken in response.

A procession of a few hundred agitated Sikhs, led by Bhindranwale and by Fauja Singh of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, then left the Golden Temple and set out for the Nirankari Convention. On the way, in what was perhaps the first act of gratuitous violence by the future terrorists of ‘Khalistan’, they hacked off the arm of a Hindu sweetmeats seller. On arriving at the convention, they rushed the stage on which the chief of the Nirankaris was seated; Fauja Singh drew his sword and tried to behead the Nirankari leader; he was shot by a bodyguard. In the skirmish that followed, two of Bhindranwale’s followers, another eleven of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, and three Nirankaris were killed [bhindranwale himself is said to have fled the scene just as the violence broke out, and this was a sore point between him and the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. Fauja Singh’s widow often described Bhindranwale as a ‘coward’ for running away on this occasion, and blamed him for her husband’s death]. Knights of Falsehood

After we strip the glamor and the personality worship away from the Sikh militancy, if we are terribly honest with ourselves and the convoluted facts, many things are apparent. For one thing, the brutality of the Indian state is reprehensible and cries out for justice. The actions of K.P.S. Gill cry out for justice. But his viewpoint and the viewpoint of the Indian state can't be ignored if we are ever to really understand what happened. For one thing, I find it amazing that while we deny the Indian Government's white paper on the agitation over the Sant Nirankaris in Amritsar, 1978, we have seen so many repetitions of it.

Dera Sacha Sauda protests. Is this how the "peaceful" Gursikhs went marching to meet the Sant Nirankaris in 1978?

Was it with this kind of baiting and provocation, intolerant intimidation, and mob mentality?

Now, I'm not saying Ram Rahim isn't a guilty dog. But that really is a matter for the Courts. But what we're watching is the manuvering of political games and vote bank politics and shifting power in Punjab. But dangerously, it's a game being played by radically delineating who is a "true Sikh" and who is not. It's a game being played by targeting whole communities who attend these deras, for blame, hatred, and violence. For those Sikhs who also suffered profound injustice, scapegoating and targeting, revenge is not any answer. Becoming the persecutor of others is no way to win the world's support for Sikh causes. We are suffering from a deficiency of LEADERSHIP. Imagine if Sikh community could channel these energies and rage morchas into building homes and providing material support to poor in own communities? We could end poverty if we fought that kind of war instead.

*We saw this intolerant targeting of sanatan Mat in the assassination of Darshan Das.

*We saw in it the assassination of Ravidasi Sant Ramanand.

*We saw it in the agitations and sword-waving morchas and death threats against Baba Ram Rahim of Dera Sacha Sauda.

*We saw it in the videotaped speeches of Babbar Khalsa accused bomber Ajaib Singh Bagri.

*We saw it in the attacks and internet character assasination of against Niddar Singh Nihang

*We saw it in the Akali Dal morcha against "Fake" Babas and Sants to which current Akal Takht Jathedar Giani Gurbachan Singh attended with posters of Babbar Khalsa militants and Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.

What did we see? We saw Talibani intolerance of HINDU MAT with propaganda aimed to target Sant Babas for murder and violence.

We saw deliberate intimidation and threats to "crush" "by any means necessary" "threats to Sikh identity" in the form of people who "believe sanatan Sant Mat interpretations of Sikhism." And so these fanatics are targeting, scapegoating, propagandizing, killing, everything that I love. Of course I will speak out. And I do not say that I love the evil, or corruptions of sant babas who break the law or do in fact overstep their bounds to offend Sikh religion, and that was the reason for my original post. But the corruptions of a few are not a license to despise the many.

This propaganda war is a war against people for having different beliefs and interpretations, not for any realistic grievances. Everyone is exaggerating the most distorted accusations. But where is the proof? Where is the day in Court? Why are radicalized Tat Khalsas becoming own judge, jury and executioner and expecting everyone to believe their self-aggrandizing self-justifications which only end up praising killers? There's even a video condemning murdered Ravidasi Baba Ramanand Ji for putting tilak on Guru Granth Sahib. It would be laughable if it wasn't a crying shame. Anyone can justify the murder of an unarmed old man over a tilak? A tilak is just scented paste blessing and sign of seal and even kingship. Or was it the sanatan implications of a tilak that they killed him for and did so much nindya?

ਜਿਤਨੇ ਭਗਤ ਹਰਿ ਸੇਵਕਾ ਮੁਖਿ ਅਠਸਠਿ ਤੀਰਥ ਤਿਨ ਤਿਲਕੁ ਕਢਾਇ ॥

jithanae bhagath har saevakaa mukh athasath theerathh thin thilak kadtaae ||

All of the devotees and servants of the Lord have the tilak, applied to their foreheads at the sixty-eight sacred shrines of pilgrimage.

~SGGS Ji ang 733

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.

~SGGS Ji ang 923

ਰਾਜਾ ਰਾਮ ਜਪਤ ਕੋ ਕੋ ਨ ਤਰਿਓ ॥

raajaa raam japath ko ko n thariou ||

Meditating on the Sovereign Lord God, who has not been saved?

ਗੁਰ ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਸਾਧ ਕੀ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਭਗਤੁ ਭਗਤੁ ਤਾ ਕੋ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਰਿਓ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

gur oupadhaes saadhh kee sangath bhagath bhagath thaa ko naam pariou ||1|| rehaao ||

Whoever follows the Guru's Teachings and joins the Saadh Sangat, the Company of the Holy, is called the most devoted of the devotees.

ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਮਾਲਾ ਤਿਲਕੁ ਬਿਰਾਜਿਤ ਦੇਖਿ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪੁ ਜਮੁ ਡਰਿਓ ॥

sankh chakr maalaa thilak biraajith dhaekh prathaap jam ddariou ||

He is adorned with the conch, the chakra, the mala and tilak mark on his forehead; gazing upon his radiant glory, the Messenger of Death is scared away.

~SGGS Ji ang 1105

ਹਰੀਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਸੁਤ ਵਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਏ ॥੧੨॥

darookrisan tin ke sut vae|| Tin te Teg Bahaadar bhae||12||

Har Krishan (the next Guru) was his son; after him, Tegh Bahadur became the Guru.12.

ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥

Tilak janjhoo raakhaa Prabh taa kaa|| Koono bado kaloo maih saakaa||

He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread which marked a great event in the Iron age.

ਸਾਧਨ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸੀ ਨ ਉਚਰੀ ॥੧੩॥

Saadhan het(i) itoo jin(i) daroo|| Soos(u) dooaa par soo na ucdaroo||13||

For the sake of saints, he laid down his head without even a sign.13.

ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤਿ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥

Dharam het(i) saakaa jin kooaa|| Soos(u) dooaa par sirar(u) na dooaa||

For the sake of Dharma, he sacrificed himself. He laid down his head but not his creed.

~Shri Dasam Granth Sahb Ji (SGPC Translation) p. 131

Does anyone of sound mind think this extremist position doesn't reflect the peaceful, holy, just, true and loving universal truths of Gursikhi? But no one can see the extremism while he is caught up in the personality worship of radicalized militants. And that is a real corruption of spirituality. And out of what, blind love for apne, are we going down path of paap betraying our own spiritual jeevan? At the end of our lives on this earth we will ALL have to be painfully honest with our own corruptions of God's Holy Light and Prem and the stupidity we have praised in the name of religion.

This is not the way the God is found.

And I publically repent my previous blind support of wrong things. Because I will be ashamed, if not in this life, then in the next. Eternal Truth which is justice and love is not communal hate. We are accountable for everything we do and say. It matters what we praise. We should defend all defenseless, and not only those who we agree with, just like Holy and Great Jyoti Jyot shining in example of Guru Sahibaan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnYpXxnjb9Q

Anyone can see the Truth. God is reading all our hearts.

[HarjasDevi]

I don't know history, but Gurbani addresses Sikhs and Hindus as different people. Nowhere is called Guru ka Hindu.

ਗਵਨੁ ਕਰੈਗੋ ਸਗਲੋ ਲੋਗਾ ॥੪॥

gavan karaigo sagalo logaa ||4||

- all these, and all people, shall pass away. ||4||

ਜਾਤਿ ਵਰਨ ਤੁਰਕ ਅਰੁ ਹਿੰਦੂ ॥

jaath varan thurak ar hindhoo ||

Social classes, races, Muslims and Hindus;

~SGGS Ji ang 237

No. Gurbani doesn't address Sikhs and Hindus as different people. Gurbani addresses the difference between who is a shishya of Guru Sahib and who is following his own understanding of religion. Everywhere Gurbani is calling as ethnic distinctions which carries religious and culture differences, as between Turkish Mughals and Hindustanis. The translation is wrong to say Muslim here making exaggeration between religion only when it is clear cultural and ethnic distinction in the tuuk as well as religion.

ਪ੍ਰਣਵਤਿ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਅਗਮੁ ਸੁਣਾਏ ॥

pranavath naanak agam sunaaeae ||

Prays Nanak, I share the mysterious secrets of God.　

ਗੁਰ ਚੇਲੇ ਕੀ ਸੰਧਿ ਮਿਲਾਏ ॥

gur chaelae kee sandhh milaaeae ||

The Guru and His disciple are joined together!　

ਦੀਖਿਆ ਦਾਰੂ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਖਾਇ ॥

dheekhiaa dhaaroo bhojan khaae ||

One who eats this food, this medicine of the Teachings,

~SGGS Ji ang 877

A Sikh is meaning only a chela, Shishya, a disciple of a True Spiritual Master who has crossed beyond duality and merged with the Divine Lord. It is not meaning ethnicity, culture, or race or anything like that.

Look at the famous Gursikhs of Gurbani.

ਭਗਤਾ ਦੀ ਸਦਾ ਤੂ ਰਖਦਾ ਹਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਧੁਰਿ ਤੂ ਰਖਦਾ ਆਇਆ ॥

bhagathaa dhee sadhaa thoo rakhadhaa har jeeo dhhur thoo rakhadhaa aaeiaa ||

You always preserve the honor of Your devotees, O Dear Lord; You have protected them from the very beginning of time.

ਪ੍ਰਹਿਲਾਦ ਜਨ ਤੁਧੁ ਰਾਖਿ ਲਏ ਹਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਹਰਣਾਖਸੁ ਮਾਰਿ ਪਚਾਇਆ ॥

prehilaadh jan thudhh raakh leae har jeeo haranaakhas maar pachaaeiaa ||

You protected Your servant Prahlaad, O Dear Lord, and annihilated Harnaakhash.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਾ ਨੋ ਪਰਤੀਤਿ ਹੈ ਹਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਮਨਮੁਖ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਇਆ ॥੧॥

guramukhaa no paratheeth hai har jeeo manamukh bharam bhulaaeiaa ||1||

The Gurmukhs place their faith in the Dear Lord, but the self-willed manmukhs are deluded by doubt.

~SGGS Ji ang 637

Who is Bhakta Prahlad? In what form of the Lord was Harnaakhash killed?

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਪ੍ਰਹਿਲਾਦਿ ਜਪਿ ਹਰਿ ਗਤਿ ਪਾਈ ॥

guramukh prehilaadh jap har gath paaee ||

As Gurmukh, Prahlaad meditated on the Lord, and was saved.

~SGGS Ji ang 591

He wasn't a chela of Guru Nanak. And the Lord in form of Narasingh manlion fourth of the das avtaray killed Harnaakhash and therefore is known as the great protector. The story is from the Vaishnav Puranas.

ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨਿ ਗੋਵਰਧਨ ਧਾਰੇ ॥

guramath kirasan govaradhhan dhhaarae ||

Through the Guru's Teachings, Krishna lifted up the mountain of Govardhan.

~SGGS Ji ang 1041

Who exactly is a Guru Ka Sikh? It surely isn't an anti-Hindu designation as Avatars are called Gurmukhs who follow Gurmat. A Sikh by purest Sanskrit definition is that one who is surrendered to Guru God. Obviously this doesn't exclude people who are related to either Turaks or Hindus, as the Vaishnav bhagats and Sufi sants have proved. Guruji doesn't have duality consciousness that designates between ethnicities. You are either surrendered to Guru God or you are a manmukh lost in duality consciousness still playing selfish games with life. So you're assumption that Gurbani is excluding Hindu people as somehow ethnically different from Sikhs is false. Hindu bhagats Sant Mat is all over Gurbani, for example. Real Sant Mahapurash and Avataray from within Hindu tradition are considered as being of the God, not excluded by Him as in "Sikh" is not a "Hindu." All the Gurus were Hindus because they came from Hindu culture, religious teachings and tradition, Guru-chela is an ancient Hindustani institution. It certainly did not come from Turaks. And Guru's are certainly not Shishyas.

When Guruji is saying he is not a Muslim and not a Hindu he is trying to unite human beings and stop social divisions. He is speaking from Turiya consciousness which doesn't see duality distinctions. But logically you can't distort the mystical message as claiming Guru Sahibaan were not belonging to Hindustani culture and spreading spiritual message based on Sruti truths. All of "Sikh religion" contains elements of Hindu Mat because it is teaching from within Sanatana Dharma. How else do you get all those descriptions, Lord of Lakshmi, Govinda, Shiva? But the truest truth, Guru Ji is right. We are not even these bodies or these identities. Ultimately we are all part of the Supreme Lord. But for philosophical purposes we should not distort the bani to deny obvious cultural heritage. Sikhs have always belonged to Hindustani culture and people. Only with advent of British Raj did all that change and message become distorted into political separation and denials.

Edited January 29, 2010 by HarjasKaur

[HarjasDevi]

Majority of Sikhs including Gurus being from Hindu background/Not much malice between communities/lot of terms used for rituals very similar to Hindus. But intermarriage does not mean they are same. Many Rajput women were married to Muslim princes (like mother of Jahangir). Does that mean Hinduism and Islam or Deen e Ilahi are same religions? Reasons are political

You overlook one crucial factor. Hindustani culture is very caste conscious. Unions of Rajputs with Mughals led to rejection. Unions between Hindu's and Sikhs were seen as completely compatible and socially accepted. Mughal marriages were political arrangements filled with scorn and shame for the families. Hindu marriages were not considered breach of culture or social disruption. So the point is, Sikhs have always been accepted AS A PART OF Hindu society by Hindu's themselves.

This is irrefutable.

Why during the Indian Independence Movement did Sikhs align with Hindus?

Weren't Sikhs with British during '57 revolt? Weren't Purbia Hindus fighting alongside British against Sikhs during Anglo Sikh wars? Pakistan was helping Sikh militants in '80s. Your argument means shit.

During the establishment of NATIONHOOD Sikhs aligned with Hindus as being historically a part of Hindu culture. Since then, for political reasons, Sikhs have been aligning against Hindus. But originally, and even during kingdom of Maharaja Ranjiot Singh, guess what? Sikh = Hindu. You really think attitude of militants in 1980's has anything to do with purataan roots of Sikhi? You are mistaken.

Hindu born Nanak Chand Malhotra can be little pro Hindu due to recent Muslim atrocities during partition. Do I need to give you list of popular Sikh leaders who were not very comfortable with Hindu ideology in '80s?

1980's is modern politics which cannot deny the Sanatan heritage. It tells us nothing of purataan Gursikhi or peaceful coexistence between Hindu and Sikh Mat before Singh Sabhias.

About pictures, Muslims and some religious Christians and Jews too look same, long beard and turban on head (though Shivji is clean shaven). Osama got more similarities in appearance with Baba Nand Singh than Shivji (with clean shaven face). So what is the point of posting pictures?

Is it even a rational response? Osama Bin Laden has more in common with Sikhs than Shiva because he has a beard? Is this the degree of intelligence you people are debating with?

Pictures are symbolic representations only. ALL Shaiva sampradayas and even Shakta ones have traditional uncut hair and beards among sadhus as Shiva is the Master of yoga, and yogis often show this by keeping natural appearance, even nakedness as showing disdain for social pretense of artificial attractiveness. However the tradition has been modified in modern times so you see cut and trimmed and shaved sadhus as well. However, it is still a distinctive feature that Shaiva and Shakta monks do keep beards.

Shiva has also been shown with beards. To be shown without a beard is a representation of his eternal youth. All pictures of Lord Shiva show him with uncut hair just like Chandi.

The point of showing those pictures was to show the traditional yoga being practiced on tiger skins being kept by sanatan Sikh sampradayas. It comes from Shaiva sampradaya, sorry if it offends your modern beliefs that Sikhi never had to do with Hindu traditions.

Yes, Shiva is occasionally shown with dhaari intact.

Nath Jogis

Do you have any pictures of Bin Ladin meditating on a tiger skin?

And more importantly, did he ever tie a jura over his dasam duaara like the jogis? Or practice NAAM Japna and Pranayam sas giras simran to vibrate the hairs and open the chakrs and raise the praan on the Gurmantra from the nabhi to form ras in the mouth, vissudhi/throat chakr and taste the amrita?

I bet not, because Osama bin Laden has no relationship whatever to Gurmat the way Shaiva sutras do.

Edited January 29, 2010 by HarjasKaur

[dalsingh101]

Sikhs have always been accepted AS A PART OF Hindu society by Hindu's themselves.

That is a really simplistic notion you are pushing there. For a start many Hindus down south probably never even knew of the existence of Sikhs for a long while, let alone identify them as Hindu bretheren.

Also there is a Moghul statement about Sikhs under Banda Singh seeing all, bar a few specified types of Hindus as well as Muslims, as deserving of death.

You ignore Bhai Gurdas's vaars which delineates a separate identity to Sikhs, even if his exegesis uses Hindu terminology.

Also consider the reference to Khatris not being keen on the Khalsa identity in Gursobha, and rioting against Khalsa Sikhs in Delhi over it.

What about people like Lakhpat Rai, a Hindu who persecuted Sikhs with the Moghuls?

Someone else mentioned Purbhia Hindus joining with the Brits to attack the Sikh kingdome also.

I'm not suggesting Hindus and Sikhs were bitter enemies, rather that your understanding of the matter is wrongly very simplistic and linear. The relationship probably wasn't as cosy as you think and has gone through different phases including more friendly stages and ones with enmity.

Edited January 29, 2010 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

So the point is, Sikhs have always been accepted AS A PART OF Hindu society by Hindu's themselves.

Harjas kaur ji

If you want to live in your imaginery world then Its OK.What matter to people what happened and what is happening in real world.The victory of congress in 1984 after the massacre of sikhs clearly shows that sikhs are not considered part of Hindu society.HKL bhagat in 1984 won by over 5 lakh votes do you think that those votes were of muslims or christians?

Though in 1984 many Hindu's saved lives of sikhs .but on the other hand they did not shun congress party for

riots.the urban sikh community of Delhi did not participated in khalistan movement and they were very close to Hindu's.Many had similar thinking that they are part of larger Hindu society until blood thirsty mob reached their homes.

Mahatma Gandhi and Rajiv were also assasinated by Hindu's but not even a single mandir was burnt in retalition while in Delhi alone after the death of Indira 3/4 Gurdwara's were burnt.All the killer of sikhs got spectacular victories in the election of 1984

[HarjasDevi]

If you want to live in your imaginery world then Its OK.What matter to people what happened and what is happening in real world.The victory of congress in 1984 after the massacre of sikhs clearly shows that sikhs are not considered part of Hindu society.HKL bhagat in 1984 won by over 5 lakh votes do you think that those votes were of muslims or christians?

Though in 1984 many Hindu's saved lives of sikhs .but on the other hand they did not shun congress party for

riots.the urban sikh community of Delhi did not participated in khalistan movement and they were very close to Hindu's.Many had similar thinking that they are part of larger Hindu society until blood thirsty mob reached their homes.

Mahatma Gandhi and Rajiv were also assasinated by Hindu's but not even a single mandir was burnt in retalition while in Delhi alone after the death of Indira 3/4 Gurdwara's were burnt.All the killer of sikhs got spectacular victories in the election of 1984

Everything in the above paragraph is talking about politics. What does it have to do with spiritual philosophy and kinship ties? Nothing.

You can hate your own cousin and murder him for stealing and being a hateful jerk. But it won't change the blood relation. He may have acted like a dog. But it doesn't make him no longer your cousin.

Even if Hindu society was absolutely the most despicable, reprehensible, and outrageously unjust...

it would not remove from fact that Sikh spiritual philosophy and social relations originated from Hindustan and Hindustani culture and Hindu religious philosophies.

1984, burned Gurdwaras, idiot (actual) pakudhi sants, Rajputs who kissed Mughal backsides for jagirs and sold own daughters and turned against Guru Gobind Singh NOTWITHSTANDING...

does not erase Hindu spiritual philosophy or interpretations from Sikh Mat.

You ignore Bhai Gurdas's vaars which delineates a separate identity to Sikhs, even if his exegesis uses Hindu terminology.

I already explained that Sikh means DISCIPLE SUBMITTERD TO GURU GOD and not some separate ethnic race and culture from the surrounding HIndustani one. Do you really think Sikh means turban and dhaari makes you now separate race, separate culture, waiting to have separate nation?

The SIKHS who were buffer between the Hindus and Thuraks, and accepted discipleship from both are not an ethnicity. They are and always have been SPIRITUAL PEOPLE, not own separate countrymen. Identity of "Sikh" modernly doesn't even have the association of chela of Guru Sahib. It's just degenerated into own tribal Punjabiyaat, "us" against "them."

Even as you use all these examples of Indian state terror, and it DID exist, you forget the context as coming from Hindustanis manipulated by only what they saw and heard from state sponsored media, just as Singhs today are radicalized by feeding only on extremist Khalistani parchaar.

Indian state terror was initiated by a dictatorial mentality which made terrible decisions for the country. Do you think Sanjay Gandhi's forced sterilization programs were evidence of democracy? Yet be honest, he was married to a SIKH! The riots targeting Sikhs were sponsored by CONGRESS party over power politics. It was the EVIL manipulation of religious differences that set the whole nation on fire.

Do we have to do the same?

[dalsingh101]

Nice one Harjas. Just ignore all the historical evidence I pointed out that goes against your theory.

I don't have any agenda. I don't hate Hindus for the record. But what you are saying is not historically correct and blaming Singh Sabhas for everything is weak.

Edited January 29, 2010 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

Everything in the above paragraph is talking about politics. What does it have to do with spiritual philosophy and kinship ties? Nothing.

You can hate your own cousin and murder him for stealing and being a hateful jerk. But it won't change the blood relation. He may have acted like a dog. But it doesn't make him no longer your cousin.

Even if Hindu society was absolutely the most despicable, reprehensible, and outrageously unjust...

it would not remove from fact that Sikh spiritual philosophy and social relations originated from Hindustan and Hindustani culture and Hindu religious philosophies.

1984, burned Gurdwaras, idiot (actual) pakudhi sants, Rajputs who kissed Mughal backsides for jagirs and sold own daughters and turned against Guru Gobind Singh NOTWITHSTANDING...

does not erase Hindu spiritual philosophy or interpretations from Sikh Mat.

I agree there are relations of sikh spirituality with Hindu's as they have many philosophies.but the conflict between Hindu's and sikhs are political and not spiritual.At the end of day a sikh support his/her cause and Hindu support his/her cause.so how are they same?Christian jews and islam share same philosophies but still they all are different

[HarjasDevi]

Also consider the reference to Khatris not being keen on the Khalsa identity in Gursobha, and rioting against Khalsa Sikhs in Delhi over it.

Khatris and Guru Sahibaan families were traditionally the leaders of sanatan Sikh society. They lost influence and power after the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha Reform movement. Modern Sikh Rehat Maryada and Khalsa identity is closely related to Singh Sabhas which Khatris have traditionally resisted. This means something?

What about people like Lakhpat Rai, a Hindu who persecuted Sikhs with the Moghuls?

Sometimes Guru's own families betrayed Sikhs. Does this make them a separate identity having no kinship whatsoever?

Someone else mentioned Purbhia Hindus joining with the Brits to attack the Sikh kingdome also.

Own Sikhs were joining the British to undermine the Sikh Kingdom. Those are the politics of divide and conquer used by shrewd enemies since beginning of time (read Bhagavad-Gita). How does this mean your conclusion that Sikhs are a separate

1. Nation,

2. Ethnicity,

3. Race,

4. Religion so completely dissociated that NOTHING about it relates to or originates from Hindu Mat?

Please prove to me the elements of separation, and not "political power struggles" unrelated to spirituality, cultural heritage or actual philosophical Mat.

"Also there is a Moghul statement about Sikhs under Banda Singh seeing all, bar a few specified types of Hindus as well as Muslims, as deserving of death."

Banda Singh was a Rajput Hindu his whole life who chukked amrit and became a shishya/disciple of Guru Gobind Singh. He was also the leader which meant he set down laws. The people who were living in Punjab were Hindus and Thuraks.

Please explain how this example proves something about Sikhs not having any credible relationship to Hindus or not being accepted as ethnically originating from within own community please.

[Kaljug]

It's not a distinction ever made in history until the Singh Sabha reform movement. Just to display modern jathedars modern opinions does not erase the obvious sanatan past which peacfully blended sanatan Hindu Sant Mat with Sikhi. The distinction between Sikh and Hindu is a modern political one. Are they distinct? Yes....now they are distinct. But historically did these "clear" divisions exist? No, they did not. Neither did Guru Sahibaan renounce, reject, and deny what modern Tat Khalsa Reform ideologies so boldly claim, even as they ban and edit documents and translations to conform to the modern political ideology of DENYING Hindu heritage in the Sikh history.

Did you seriously just post some pictures of people sitting on mats to prove that they are the same? Are you seriously that stupid?

The distinction is made clear in Gurbani and puratan Sikh itihas where Sikhi is refgerred to as the teesra Panth. But of course you don't know this because you are too lazy to learn Gurmukhi and consult these texts.

You have not even begun to prove to me anything. Although, you may have suceeded in your own mind of proving to yourself. I am not persuaded.

Well, that's because your views are nor informed by Gurbani or history. They are informed by your own ignorance. It was the same when you were AKJ, and the same when you were a whining Hindu. The truth is nothing will change your mind except anpther "spiritual" experience, and then you will be entirely convinced that whatever you interpret your experience as is the God's honest truth and history must not get in the way of that.

You haven't shown anything which contradicts the obvious. This "distinction" exists in the minds of Tat Khalsas and modern day politics. But from my initial post I'm telling you I'm not here to disrespect the katha of Tat Khalsa Mahapurash. I'm not showing them disrespect to hold a conflicting view. Many of you do however, abuse my opinions.

BECAUSE YOUR VIEWS ARE MISINFORMED DISPLAYS OF CHILDISH IGNORANCE! When someone comes here claiming that that The Guru Sahibs were really aliens and worshipped the great Lobster God in the Sky, do you honestly think that we are going to sit here and say "Oh well, that's just another belief, we should respect it" if it is clearly in contradiction to the truth?

K.

[Kaljug]

You were shown Faridkot steeka was commisioned by the prince of Faridkot who was a staunch supporter of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha Khalsa Diwan Society. That is the origin of the Faridkot steeka. And while Nirmalay sampraday may have copies of it, their sampraday is not the origin of it. Hence it is beyond obvious that the "interpretation" of the Faridkot steeka is representative of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha Reform interpretations and actually commissioned to reflect that ideology separating Hindu Mat from Gurbani.

Now, show me one source where the tuk is interpreted as you interpret it? There is no school of traditional Sikh thought that interprets the line in the way that you choose in order that Sikhi fits in with your fantasy-land beliefs.

Nothing but? I never reduced Gursikhi to "nothing but" anything. Those are lies on your lips to smear what I am actually saying. However, it is historically valid and part of purataan tradition that Sikh Fauj are a military response to the Mughal invasions in order to defend own homeland (Hindustan) from oppression and injustice, even to point that Guru Tagh Bahadur Ji is given title Hindu di chaddar, and even calling Himself a Hindu.

That's a pretty way of covering up your lie about Sikhi being nothing but militant Hinduism. Guru Tegh Bahadur called himself Hindu in order to show empathy with the oppressed. Did you know that it was Guru Nanak Dev Ji who gave Babur sovereignty in India? Does this mean that Guru Nanak Dev JI was a Muslim?

Yet Jain and Buddhist religions have no trouble to deny origin and relationship with Sanatana Dharma. Why do you?

Buddhists call themselves Hindus, do they? Honestly, your views are entirely idiotic. I can't even begin to argue with someone who is so brainwashed. Most Buddhists do not call themselves Hindus, most Buddhists do not give any validity tothe Vedas, most Buddhists do not wporship any Hindu devi or devata, most Buddhists deny the existentce of the atman.

And yes, you can say "oh but that is still Sanatan Dharam" because Sanatan Dharam seems to consist of every single belief that you can think of, but let's not pretend that the expression is not used by Hindus today to refer to Hindumat.

Yep, why don't you blame the Sikhs for everything like the good little Hindu lapdog that you are.

K.

[HarjasDevi]

Did you seriously just post some pictures of people sitting on mats to prove that they are the same? Are you seriously that stupid?

The distinction is made clear in Gurbani and puratan Sikh itihas where Sikhi is refgerred to as the teesra Panth. But of course you don't know this because you are too lazy to learn Gurmukhi and consult these texts.

Yes. Sikh sants sitting on mats practicing age-old yoga from Shaiva sutras. Amazing no?

Third Panth. There are only 2 religions in the world and Sikh-ism has become the third? Or this has a different meaning. Panth means Path. Sikhi is the middle way, it walks between the extremes of false religiousity that are external ornaments people use to identify true spirituality but is far from it. Third path between Hindus and Thuraks can only mean the way of Bhakti. And it can't be AGAINST Sanatana Dharma as Vaishnav bhagat bani is included in Sikhi Mat along with calling Krishna and Ram as Gurmukhs and Baisano Vaishnavs are Gurmukhs.

You are fluent in Gurmukhi. Instead of insulting my qualities why don't you explain how Bhagavan Krishna is a Gurmukh but Gurmat is is somehow totally different and separate and removed from Sanatana Dharma teachings about Krishna, for example? Can you explain Suraj Prakash steek claiming that Singhs worship Chandi Devi and Kalika? So obviously the Third Panth has no problem with Sanatana Dharma. How exactly is it separate? Would you care to spell it out for us?

It was the same when you were AKJ, and the same when you were a whining Hindu. The truth is nothing will change your mind except anpther "spiritual" experience, and then you will be entirely convinced that whatever you interpret your experience as is the God's honest truth and history must not get in the way of that.

You cannot answer intelligently and hence resort to personal attacks and insults all the time. These aren't only my opinions veer ji. I did not invent those tuuks of Suraj Prakash. I did not have anything to do with sanatan Sikh sampradayas or their yogic and Vedantic associations. I did not invent Gul shastar or create the photos of sanatan symbolizism which overlaps Sikh traditions and symbols.

But as to experience, that is sheer grace of God and as foolish as I am and undeserving, and no doubt misunderstanding on many levels. I would never use such personal things to degrade another person with. certainly not in the name of defending religion. If not for the very selfish reason that I would have to answer to God for it. Because are you degrading the experience that God gave or only my foolish understanding and interpretations of it? See, take care that you don't mock God.

BECAUSE YOUR VIEWS ARE MISINFORMED DISPLAYS OF CHILDISH IGNORANCE! When someone comes here claiming that that The Guru Sahibs were really aliens and worshipped the great Lobster God in the Sky, do you honestly think that we are going to sit here and say "Oh well, that's just another belief, we should respect it" if it is clearly in contradiction to the truth?

I am happy to acknowledge that spiritually I am like a foolish child with profound misunderstanding. But I have not shown disrespect of Guru Sahibaan or Guru God. And that was the purpose of the clarification of the original post. You can't contradict error with insults. You have to contradict error with intelligent explanation and evidence. Otherwise, you're just childishly ranting how much you hate the other view and showing nothing at all about it except frustration.