Reformist missionaries vs Puratan Traditionalist

[SAadmin]

Not sure how is it in real life as i am busy skate boarding in real life (metaphor) ..hehe  but on social media and online there seem very nasty divide between sikhs either they are part of reformist missionaries or puratan traditionalist.

It's looks like there are layers within reformist missionaries and puratan traditionalist, as you have cult fan base/vehli janta cult base (sticking to an idea of it just because so so said so), on major outer layers of both school of thoughts and most of useless bickering, mud slinging goes on outer layer then there is inner layer. Inner layer can have good debates as we saw in recent sant hari singh ji randhawale 2nd set of videos- there was elderly missionaries sikh who was quite level headed and polite.

Point of this thread to explore may be common ground between reformist missionaries and puratan traditionalist- 

What are key common ground both parties can agree on, besides political activism and Gurparsad- grace of one Vahiguru- i cannot think of any. Reformist missionaries may have small idea of gyan in sikhi but they translate gyan in sikhi into very dry conceptual, philosophy day to day intellectual knowledge than gyan spontaneously realized in meditation. 

More about modern day reformist and old traditional sikhi:

 

Your thoughts?

[SikhKhoj]

Having been at both ends of the spectrum I have to say that both are wrong on some levels. I was raised in a family with Taksal influence, have kathavachaks in my extended family but while growing up I was influenced by the missionary mindset. Have discarded both since though.

The forte of one side actually becomes a hindrance. While traditional schools have the adequate sharda and belief in Guru Sahibs powers, they go overboard in the sharda and have a hard time analyzing certain questionable rituals, traditions and writings because either they are blinded by certain 'mahapursh bachans' or an effect called 'cognitive dissonance'.

The missionaries are good in the sense that they try to evaluate Sikh traditions and other writings based on Guru Granth Sahibs philosophy, but they go overboard in over questioning and as you said, making Dharam black and white like judeo-christian traditions.

Edited June 12, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[jaikaara]

One thing we need to understand is ..bodies like the missionaries, rational thinkers etc all make place when people from the Puratan mindset go overboard and do things for their personal gain or just to create a block in your mind that this is all a very tough task . I have had conversations with some paathis who will make sure you fear 'chandi' while doing paaths and that if you do something wrong it could harm you.

I was listening to Giani Thakur Singhji's katha on Sehaj Paath maryada...he lists out a good number of do's and dont's ..offerings like dried fruits etc. tuff and so on..

Since i was born hindu i have seen all this done during pooja to specific deities ..i lost interest as i felt if people put so much effort in the articles timings muharats invitations availabilitiy of the poojari ..where is the energy left for bhagti ?

I felt Naam Sirman was more fruitful. Prakash of Shastars and Guru Granth Sahib Aad , Dasam and Sarabloh done with bhagti and simplicity can always be possible .

 

One needs to balance between Puratan and rational thinking and think how he/she would be benefited otherwise anything in excess will not be giving any gain spiritually.

Too much rationality can lead to atheist attitude.

[Balkaar]

In my personal experience, I have found the reformists to be the more vitriolic of the two parties. Puraatan Sikhi is inherently more comfortable with those that offer divergent views or practice Sikhi in a different way - the disparity of the various samparadas that constituted the Old Sikh world is testament to this. None of them, in spite of their vast differences, dabbled in the business of who was a Sikh and who wasn't. Only the Indian faiths are so paradoxical. This accommodating nature was lost when Sikhi started to take on accretions from Anglicanism after the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha gathered momentum. Even notions about Waheguru changed. He was no longer considered to be a numinous, ethereal force, but acquired anthropomorphic properties like the God of the Bible, issuing commandments and very specific sets of rules which could not be infringed upon. Sikhi became more totalitarian as a result, and the infighting between sampardas and jathas is the result. 

The missionaries place the very highest emphasis on Gurbani, they even whitewash or modify Sikh Itihas to make it compatible, as they see it, with their very specific interpretations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, The traditionalists, as their name suggests, respect Gurbani but place exceptional value upon history and heritage which they consider to be as immutable as the Bani itself. On the one hand, being propelled onward by the momentum of a developing world is an excellent and necessary thing, but on the other hand, if any one of our traditions can be discarded in order to better suit the times in which we live, then who is to say a time will not come in the future when it is thought that they all ought to be?

Similarly, respect for tradition is instrumental in preserving a distinct Sikh identity. But when some of these traditions are of unknown or questionable origin and appear to be wholly antithetical to our Guru's Bani, keeping them in spite of these very great misgivings is tantamount to a corruption of Sikhi. 

I think the solution lies vaguely in the middle of the Sikh religious spectrum, though I can't say where. 

Edited June 12, 2015 by Balkaar

[kdsingh80]

http://www.sikhnet.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10524&sid=beb0fb91637e99786f3d278ea274344b

 

The above is very good discussion Reformist sikhi vs traditional. I think much in today's world reformist sikhi is followed , puratan sikhi follower are in very much minority. The missionaries are ultra reformist which are fascinated by science and modern liberalism , that's why they just want to introduce all modern concepts like extreme gender equality , gay marriages . I even read comments on sikhchic in which their authors say that sikhism is against arranged marriages . The sikh missionaries also want to kick out concepts like rebirth , karma because they are hindu concepts

[Guest]

Here are some of my own observations:

- Reformist Missionaries seem to beleive in concept of higher power (God) with rational/logic but absolutely against dogmatic notions of God, it seems its quite black and white for them, there is no filter. They do lot of khandan(reject) of all the rituals, they simply don't accept them, even naam simran.

- Puratan traditionalist in this case -nirmale and highly knowledgeable taksali-bhindran/jawadi kalan, nihang- baba sher singh ji would never do any khandan (as sikhi is against pakhand perception of seeker not the ritual seen as spiritual development stage) , provided structural development stage framework as mentioned in gurbani, they acknowledge rituals as spiritual development stage or aspect of vahiguru (bhagti/shakti) in sikhi that one (case by case)- go through as austerity in order to transcendent them to towards one absolute reality. One of nirmala scholar provided such structure/framework- first is bhagti (outer bhagti towards sargun saroop of sri guru granth sahib ji) with all the rituals- nine types of bhagti then is inner bhagti of (shabad guru eternal) then finally its gyan of shabad- all prevading gyan of nirgun.

I think one bridge which is between them is bhai sahib bhai vir singh ji, he had best of both worlds. He upheld the absolute truth (tat gyan of Gurmat- all prevading impersonal god/love-gyan of gurbani) while engaging/promoting some relative realties - rituals towards personal god- our ishat dev - physical saroop of sri guru granth sahib ji to point there are no distinctions.

Here is the video of gyani kulvant singh ji which i beleive both parties would appreciate as he upholding tat gyan of gurmat. He isn't against pilgrims or totally rejecting it as he is seeing an stage but at the same time holding absolute tat gyan of gurmat. 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=887285557984869

 

 

[Guest]

http://www.sikhnet.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10524&sid=beb0fb91637e99786f3d278ea274344b

 

The sikh missionaries also want to kick out concepts like rebirth , karma because they are hindu concepts

​See regarding karma, hell, rebirth again missionaries are rejecting them based on rigid beleif system rather seeing these things in are relations with human consciousness:

Here is good post by pal and i tried to explain hell/heaven/even reincarnation/karma (see sukhmani sahib 21st astpadi of gurbani full transcedence/freedom from relative realities into one absolute reality). Both missionaries and puratan traditionalist may find common ground here.

Here is clarification for missionaries regarding dogmatic concept of God:

[Guest]

I am going to try inviting missionary - our infamous khalsa fauji to form a dialogue with him on these subjects.

[kdsingh80]

I am going to try inviting missionary - our infamous khalsa fauji to form a dialogue with him on these subjects.

​Khalsa fauj is not missionary in strict sense , he believe in reincarnation

[Guest]

http://www.sikhnet.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10524&sid=beb0fb91637e99786f3d278ea274344b

 

Looks like great discussion..i gotta carefully read this when i have little bit more time.

[Guest]

​Khalsa fauj is not missionary in strict sense , he believe in reincarnation

​Can you invite him? Lets have his view. He was quite rigid before but now he seems little open minded to have discussion.

[dalsingh101]

The chestnut is that the traditionalists appear to be insecure with modernity (especially in terms of science/technology) and seem to simply ignore major positive social developments in the modern world; to me they appear to be fencing themselves off and hiding behind mysticism to avoid dealing with contentious issues. This insular pettiness doesn't help us grow as a people, although they are a repository of certain invaluable information that the modernists have lost.  

On the other hand, the modernists don't seem to be able to construct and implement ideas that address the Sikh communities needs in the 21st century using Sikh precedents/ideas/worldviews and just end up plagiarizing or adapting ideas from other cultures. A lot of them are plainly political beasts as opposed to spiritually inclined ones. The black and white approach inevitably leads to inflexibility; which doesn't help with our now dispersed community in rapidly changing times. 

What they both have in common is a sort of culture of low expectations which is incapable of imagining a strong, modern (yeah I said it!) global and independent-minded Sikh community that has something to offer to the world from its heritage other than being quiet, good citizens. No grand ideas, or alternatives to other ways of life are forthcoming. 

We've got all manner of backwardness deeply embedded in the community now; which doesn't make us look too good when we rub up against other quoms. One consequence is that we end up looking like a bunch of victims, or some nice, minority, archaic people of little real consequence. 

Edited June 12, 2015 by dalsingh101

[chatanga1]

 

The missionaries place the very highest emphasis on Gurbani, they even whitewash or modify Sikh Itihas to make it compatible, as they see it, with their very specific interpretations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji,

 

The traditionalists, as their name suggests, respect Gurbani but place exceptional value upon history and heritage which they consider to be as immutable as the Bani itself.

​I would go the other way with the missionaries in that they have very little knowledge of Gurbani and place no little or emphasis on spirituality. They are even against naam simran which is incredible. Nor do they see Guru Granth Sahib as a living Guru. It seems like their focus is to disrupt sikh practice, and coupled with a hindu-phobia they make themsleves look ignorant/boorish at times.

 

The traditionalists see Gurubani as living but I feel have an over emphasis on spirituality. The doctrine of Miri-Piri has become imbalanced and i meet some youths every now and again, who cannot do anything at local gurdwara because they don't do enough naam japna.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2015 by chatanga1

[Balkaar]

​I would go the other way with the missionaries in that they have very little knowledge of Gurbani and place no little or emphasis on spirituality. They are even against naam simran which is incredible. Nor do they see Guru Granth Sahib as a living Guru. It seems like their focus is to disrupt sikh practice, and coupled with a hindu-phobia they make themsleves look ignorant/boorish at times.

 

The traditionalists see Gurubani as living but I feel have an over emphasis on spirituality. The doctrine of Miri-Piri has become imbalanced and i meet some youths every now and again, who cannot do anything at local gurdwara because they do do enough naam japna.

 

 

​Jio, when you speak of missionaries/reformists, are you alluding to those sampardas or Jathas which took their bearings from puritan Sikh movements and the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha (as the AKJ did for instance), or the heresies of Kala Afghana and Professor Darshan Singh? 

The formerly mentioned groups derived their views on everything from very strict and inflexible interpretations of Gurbani, whereas the latter, as you pointed out, are almost entirely animated by a sort of germinal atheism and an abhorrence of everything they perceive to be Hindu. 

Edited June 13, 2015 by Balkaar

[kdsingh80]

​Can you invite him? Lets have his view. He was quite rigid before but now he seems little open minded to have discussion.

​I don't think he is active online from past few years , I checked his blog and even that is not updated , if I will see him anywhere online then I will invite him into this discussion

[Xylitol]

 can you give some examples of how puratan sampradas cannot accept modern science / tech? I have never encountered such a mindset.

[mrsingh]

Respected N30 Paji there is a simple answer to this question.

Both sides of the debate revere Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj equally. That much is clear.

Some Sikhs can't bear for Dasmesh Pithah to be associated with certain sexual stories, whilst others have such sharda in Dasam Pitha that they would never dream of questioning what they have been told to believe are Guru Sahib's own handwritten stories.

So the key is that we all emphasise commonality and agree to disagree given that realistically the two sides will never agree. Those that aggressively promote and have active hatred for the opposing viewpoint are clearly the paid pawns of Hindutva forces. As such an issue should not result in hatred. Thus those instigating physical violence and verbal hatred clearly have an anti-Sikh agenda.

And instead let both sides as equally valid members of the Sikh Panth focus joint energy in uniting to fight female infiancide, drugs, biraderi apartheid, illiteracy, cancer, poverty, alcohol abuse and rather than competing by way of fighting inside Gurdwara's let both sides compete to do greater seva and help bring new members in to the Sikh Panth for the benefit of Sarbat da Bhala.

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2015 by mrsingh

[Guest]

Some Sikhs can't bear for Dasmesh Pithah to be associated with certain sexual stories, whilst others have such sharda in Dasam Pitha that they would never dream of questioning what they have been told to believe are Guru Sahib's own handwritten stories.

 

Guru's were much more progressive also when it comes to providing sexual stories and moral behind it. When people go to the doctor with their sexual organ problems, doctors talk about it, scan it, trying to find the root cause of physical sexual problem. Same thing applies if people/society have mental issues regarding sexuality diseased with lust so on and so forth Our beloved guru talks about it candidly and provides moral story behind 405 tales of men and women.

Off course you are going to have problem if you see it from juedo christian influenced singh sabha view.... see it from relative context -three gunas context with absolute underpinning-turiya...everything is fine.