Guest Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/007/16.24.html http://www.bli.org/default.asp?p=projects&rec=40 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/012/17.26.html http://www.indiatraveltimes.com/religion/muharram03.html http://www.hvk.org/articles/0303/228.html Evangelism is taking worrying proportion in Punjab. Punjabi Channels have Evangelism Shows which are translated in Punjabi. Animated Films and books on Jesus in Punjabi are freely shown/available in Punjab. Jesus is called Satguru, Church is called Satsang, Choir Singing is called Kirtan. Same names but meaning is totally different. A Church has a choir of boys in turbans. The idea is to first ween people from Sikhism with minimal variation in their exsisiting belief. As it Jesuit schools and Hospitals do their best to convert people when they are vulnerable……young and helpless. Sikh Bodies have to realize the damage being done in rural Punjab. More so with Majbee Sikhs….I bite my tongue as I say this as in Sikhism there should not be such a segregation. Moreover Christianity is more permissive. This is the general perception. As we donate Millions to various charities it is important that we also look towards this problem. We have to make an effort to make Parchaar more widespread. Our Social Institutions need to be toned up. Anything SGPC or Sikh Missionary school doing in order to stop this from happening in the land of guroo maharaj ji?? This is what happened where certain sikh groups discriminate other castes (ie- Budda dal with castes) within sikh dharma. Most of these converts are happen to be low-caste... isnt that coincidence??? :roll: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh_fauge Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Why do people have this urge to convert people to their faiths..whats the big deal with numbers??!! Its even more frustrating when, chances are, they probably dont even follow that particular faith to the 't' themselves. I think SGPC should definitely open their tv channel; there needs to be more gurbani on the airwaves if people are to understand or have an insight into sikhi..but personally, it doesnt bother me. If someone wants jesus as their satguru then let them! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 If someone wants jesus as their satguru then let them! same here but there is a difference between understand the sikh doctrines..then converting and converting because of money, shelter, equality with other christians unlike us sikhs!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh_fauge Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 yeh thats where we have to work within..and sort out the flaws within the panth! what do u think singh? what can sgpc do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 There is nothing surprising in this: 1. Protestants want to convert Sikhs! 2. Protestants influence SIkhs who create a Protestantised from of Sikhi (SGPC< AKJ etc...) 3. Protestantised SIkhs join the Christian version of their modified SIkhi 4. Sikhi dissapears in Panjab! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ideal Singh Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 There is nothing surprising in this: 1. Protestants want to convert Sikhs! 2. Protestants influence SIkhs who create a Protestantised from of Sikhi (SGPC< AKJ etc...) 3. Protestantised SIkhs join the Christian version of their modified SIkhi 4. Sikhi dissapears in Panjab! Lalleshvari Penji, You are a teacher but then Can you be ever positive in your any posts... they are always too depressing... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Sorry but this is Kal Jug. If you guys do not wish to wake up to certain realities then... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh_fauge Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 praise the lo-rd!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 halleluja!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maha_Pavitar Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 I'm still confused..as veerji asked above..what is the need to convert? Why are these Sikhs easy targets of conversion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 the reasons were given above. Protestant Christianity is Imperialist in nature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maha_Pavitar Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 That makes sense...it was mentioned that 1. Protestants want to convert Sikhs! Is that because of the Imperialist nature or the Protestantized influenc, I guess what I'm asking is WHY Sikhs? Thank you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 There is nothing surprising in this: 1. Protestants want to convert Sikhs! 2. Protestants influence SIkhs who create a Protestantised from of Sikhi (SGPC< AKJ etc...) 3. Protestantised SIkhs join the Christian version of their modified SIkhi 4. Sikhi dissapears in Panjab! So Lalleshvari is saying British protestants influenced some Sikhs into making up their religion which is mainstream Sikhi today. This makes it easy for Protestants to convert Sikhs today Can anyone see the flaw in his argument? Singh Sabha 'creates protestant influenced Sikhi' in 1870's, why weren't these protestants so successful in converting Sikhs from 1880s to 1947 when they had lots of missionaries in Panjab as well as British rule to help them as well as Sikhs following the christians game plan and making up 'protestant Sikhi' Maybe Lalleshvari doesn't know much history, the Singh Sabha or 'protestant influenced Sikhi' was started as a direct response to Sikhs being converted to christianity in 1873, and what was the reason for Sikhs converting to christianity? It was the failure of 'puratan' Sikhi to face up to christian missionaries. See how lalleshvaris attempts to re-write history!! Those that saved Sikhi from Christianity in the 1880's are now the bad guys whose tactics are making it easy for christianity to convert Sikhs. The main converts to christianity are 'lower caste' Sikhs many of whom are illiterate. I doubt these people know 'puratan' or 'protestant influenced' Sikhi. The reason for the decline in Sikhi is Sikh leaders using Sikhi to their own ends Divisons in Sikhi due to jathaism 'puratan' Sikhi inroads in mainstream Sikhi Christian missionaries and their unlimited funds Christian use of modern media and 'miracle' stories being spread to influence iliterate sikhs But why let the facts get in the way of Lalleshvari hijacking every problem Sikhi has and then putting it down to AKJ, Singh Sabha, SGPC or anyone who doesn't agree with him! It must be great to be always right, Lalleshvari!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 1. The first SIngh Sabha, the Amritsar Singh Sabha or Sanatan SIngh Sabha as you rightly said was founded to counter-act the ffects of Christianity by emphacising traditional Sikhi. The other SIngh Sabhas or Tat Khalsa who did take over the institutions of the Panth imitated Protestantism. 2. Read any of the Tat Khalsa SIng Sabha literature and you will find clear examples of Protestant influence: Bhagat Lakshman Singh calls the Khalsa "the Church Puritan", Guru Nanak Dev Ji is compared to Martin Luther (what a blasphemy!!!), and let us not even mention our friend Macauliffe who became one of the main leaders of the Singh Sabha when he became Sahajdhari Sikh and integrated his Protestant anti-Catholic ideas into Sikhi comparing Puratan Sikhs to Catholics!!! Read the 39 articles of the Church of England and the SGPC maryada and you'll see what I mean! 3. Since that Protestant influence came into place the following splits occured in the Panth: 1. Ragmala issue: initiated by Christian missionaries 2. Gurdware start being built like churches 3. Dasam bani starts being rejected because it conflicts with Protestant and Puritanical ethics and values 4. The traditional orders of SIkh (sampradayas) are repressed (Protestants don't have orders). Instead cults start appearing like mad (cults are a characteristic feature of Protestantism). 5. traditional classical Sikh music is discarded in favour of the church-hymn type of attitude i.e. no need of raaags, everyone can sing and all this other non-sense like rainsabhai etc... 6. Exegesis and logical analysis and religious scholarship is discarded for a Pentecostal and miraculous understanding of bani i.e. no need to study the languages of bani as Maharaj asked us: let's just wait to get the meaning in some vision.. 7. representational management system i.e. SGPC! 8. Destruction of religious artitistic heritage! Look at all the white-washed old churches in the UK and compare that with what the SGPC does... I could go on and on and on: You want more I give you more! Ever came accross the notion of "Evangelical preparation". According to that theory only nations with beliefs similar to Christianity can accept Christianity. Guess what: For the lest 100 years our community has been through this "preparation" and trust me that in the future many gurdware will be transformed intop churches! The mistakes of the Sikh leadership: planned already by our Christian friends! Protestants are patient and sly: if they have to wait a century to get Sikhs to convert to Christianity, trust me they'll do it because they have already imposed their beliefs on our community by making them appear Sikh! Read the colonial and missionary literature and you will realise that you will realise why things are the way they are: it was planned well in advance! Baba Khem SIngh Bedi: true defender of the Panth against missionaries: I do not agree with everything he did but at least he was not Protestantised! You want some more? I give some more: http://sociologyesoscience.com/raryans-4.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamic_Banda Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 lol funky dude.. i like his dastar man.. and his western cane.. nah but seriously the use of the word kirtan. predates sikhism as well as the word satguru and satsang so it would only make sense that when providing your religion across the globe u will translate it so the people can understand.. all they are doing is raising awareness about their dharam too.. Just like the translation of guru granth sahib dasam and adi into english. use of words like lord.. and god.. in those translations.. etc. i cant see them activly threatening people and making them convert, now that would be wrong.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hari Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 1. The first SIngh Sabha, the Amritsar Singh Sabha or Sanatan SIngh Sabha as you rightly said was founded to counter-act the ffects of Christianity by emphacising traditional Sikhi. The other SIngh Sabhas or Tat Khalsa who did take over the institutions of the Panth imitated Protestantism. 2. Read any of the Tat Khalsa SIng Sabha literature and you will find clear examples of Protestant influence: Bhagat Lakshman Singh calls the Khalsa "the Church Puritan", Guru Nanak Dev Ji is compared to Martin Luther (what a blasphemy!!!), and let us not even mention our friend Macauliffe who became one of the main leaders of the Singh Sabha when he became Sahajdhari Sikh and integrated his Protestant anti-Catholic ideas into Sikhi comparing Puratan Sikhs to Catholics!!! Read the 39 articles of the Church of England and the SGPC maryada and you'll see what I mean! 3. Since that Protestant influence came into place the following splits occured in the Panth: 1. Ragmala issue: initiated by Christian missionaries 2. Gurdware start being built like churches 3. Dasam bani starts being rejected because it conflicts with Protestant and Puritanical ethics and values 4. The traditional orders of SIkh (sampradayas) are repressed (Protestants don't have orders). Instead cults start appearing like mad (cults are a characteristic feature of Protestantism). 5. traditional classical Sikh music is discarded in favour of the church-hymn type of attitude i.e. no need of raaags, everyone can sing and all this other non-sense like rainsabhai etc... 6. Exegesis and logical analysis and religious scholarship is discarded for a Pentecostal and miraculous understanding of bani i.e. no need to study the languages of bani as Maharaj asked us: let's just wait to get the meaning in some vision.. 7. representational management system i.e. SGPC! 8. Destruction of religious artitistic heritage! Look at all the white-washed old churches in the UK and compare that with what the SGPC does... This is true, these ba****d Protestants are no better than extremist "Muslims".They want to eradicate all non-Protestant religions and non-Western cultures.Replace everything with a white Jesus and shirt and tie. :x We should all do short or long Ardas everyday to Mahakaal Kalka to eradicate all the enemies of Sikhi.Mahakaal is the protector of Sikhi (who also is manifest as Akali Nihang Singh Khalsa). The Divine always listens to a sincere Sikh's prayer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Veer Lalleshwari, I don’t know why you are saying Baba Khem Singh Bedi was a “true†defender of the Sikh faith, while the Singh Sabhias of Lahore who took on the challenge of Chistian Missionaries, Ahmadiyas, and Arya Samajis as being fake Sikhs. Baba Khem Singh Bedi was to a large extent very heretic in his beliefs. -He claimed he was the 15th Guru of the Sikhs! and expected the Lahore Singh Sabhias to recognize him as such. -Since he declared himself the 15th Guru of the Sikhs, he also claimed that he somehow deserves a seat with cushions in Darbar Sahib in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. -His son Baba Gurbaksh Singh Bedi in his presidential address in 1910 at the Punjab Hindu Conference at Multan said “the Sikhs were Hinduâ€. The Lahore Singh Sabhias saved Sikhism with prachaar that was unseen at the time. Because of this Prachaar the Sikh population grew from a population of 2.1 million in 1901 census to 2.88 million in the 1911 census. That’s an increase of 37.1 %. Blessed are the Lahore Singh Sabhias. One day, I hope Sikhs start another such Singh Sabha movment all over the world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikh princess Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 1. The first SIngh Sabha' date=' the Amritsar Singh Sabha or Sanatan SIngh Sabha as you rightly said was founded to counter-act the ffects of Christianity by emphacising traditional Sikhi. The other SIngh Sabhas or Tat Khalsa who did take over the institutions of the Panth imitated Protestantism.[/quote'] The Singh Sabha started by sanatan Sikhs was very ineffective against the Christian missionaries. Just after annexation, when the 'puratan' Sikhs had total sway over Sikhi and had over 50 years of peacefully preaching their version of Sikhi. Yet the first 'puratan' Sikh to convert to Christianity was Daud Singh prior to any 'protestantization of Sikhism'. Later he was followed by another 'puratan' Sikh who was renamed a Shamaun giving up his Guru given name of Kesar Singh. What should be noted is that he was a GRANTHI of a Gurdwara. So why would the christian missionaries need to protestantize Sikhi when they were already gaining success?. Where was the bulwark of faith in Sikhi that Nirmalas, Udasis, Nihangs should have built up in 50 years of peaceful preaching? You may know this but one of the first acts of the missionaries was to rent a Bunga from the 'puratan' Sikhs to use as a base to preach Christianity to the Sikh pilgrims coming to the Harmandir Sahib. The 'puratan' Sikhs complied with this request. In the first instances of writing about Sikhi in English, it is to be expected that the writer would translate words such as Gurdwara into Church. Muslim writers referred to Mosques as a Church as well at that time. One of the first instances of comparison of Guru Nanak with Martin Luther was by Sir John Gordon for his book 'Sikhs' written in 1904. Rather than a sinister protestant plan as you portray it was because Guru Nanak was a contemporary of Martin Luther. What is also interesting is that rather than follow the Tat Khalsa line that Guru Nanak was the founder of a new religion, Gordon follows the 'puratan' Sikh line that Guru was just a reformer. " He (Guru Nanak) was a contemporary of Luther and like the German reformer, he preached no new faith but contended that religion had become obscured and transformed during the course of centuries " Yes there is blasphemy here, but it isn't the blasphemy of 'protestantizing' Sikhi but following the 'puratan' Sikhi view that Guru Nanak was just a reformer! Your pet theory of protestant influenced Sikhi is wrong. You should look at the history of the Nirankaris of Rawalpindi, they had beliefs that can be taken as proto-Tat Khalsa yet they may never even have seen a protestant!. This movement started in the North West Frontier Province during the rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and were as far removed from the British Rule as you could get. Doubt over the Ragmala were raised by Kavi Santokh Singh in his work in 1843, much before the Tat Khalsa came into being in the 1880's and much before the Christian missionaries were allowed to function in the soon to be annexed Panjab. If Kavi Santokh Singh could write about the doubts over Ragmala in 1843, it follows that this must have be an issue for at least a decade before since it took him many years to write his work. This will give Neo nightmares, before AKJ, even the 'puratan' Sikhs had doubts about Ragmala! I don't want to debate whether Ragmala is Bani or not. I just pointed out that you cannot blame everything wrong with Sikhi to the British or Tat Khalsa. I don't understand this point? Please elaborate. Parts of the Dasam Granth were being subjected to intellectual debate based on whether the concepts contained in some parts of it were in line with the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikh literature such as the Gurbilases were also subjected to such debate and stories such as Guru Gobind Singh worshipping the devi were rightly rejected. It wasn't protestant values but the teachingss of the Guru Granth Sahib that determined what was accepted or rejected As with the Masands, when the sampardayas started to lose the purpose for which they were formed they became irrevalent. People or organisations with a strong sense of purpose and self belief are very difficult to repress. The Sampardayas had a head start on Tat Khalsa, they had 150 years of preaching their version of Sikhi, they had resources such as land grants, buildings and personnel. They also had the support of the Sikh Rajas and the Sikh aristocracy who wanted to keep the status quo and had no real regard for Sikhi. Yet, they lost the fight to the Tat Khalsa, who were men of mostly modest means and without recourse to much resources. What the Tat Khalsa had were men who were determined to preach the Sikhi of the Gurus and not the Sikhi of of the sampardayas. Men such as Gyani Ditt Singh a so-called lower caste Sikh who in the congregation of the 'puratan' Sikhs would have to leave the diwan when the Bhog was to be distributed. What men like Gyani Ditt Singh, Bhai Jawahar Singh and Prof. Gurmukh Singh discovered was that the Sikhi of the sampardayas was totally at odds with the Sikhi of the Gurus. We all know how even the Budha Dal now discriminates against lower caste Sikhs when giving them Amrit. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this sort of discrimination would have been suicidal for the Dal Khalsa to have practicised when they faced the oppression of the Mughals. Yet, the Budha Dal Maryada is being espoused as being 'authentic'. This has nothing to do with Singh Sabha. With the increase in the number of Sikhs due to conversion to Sikhism from Hindus and Muslims, the new congregations had to be catered for with regard to Kirtan. So many Kirtan Jathas took the easy way of adopting the harmonium, an easy instrument to learn and use. The leadership of the Singh Sabha were some of the most educated men in Panjab. Gyani Ditt though a so called 'lower caste' Sikh was one of the most educated Panjabis of his time. Bhai Kahan Singh, Bhai Vir Singh, Arjan Singh of Bagrian, and countless others were scholars of Persian, Braj, Panjabi and Sanskrit. These scholars never asked Sikhs not to study other languages. In fact they did their level best to get as many Sikhs as possible educated. On the theme of education it is established that Sikhs were more iliterate than the other religions of the Panjab at the time of annexation. Yet with the Tat Khalsa and the espousal of education amongst Sikhs both males and females, by 1947 the number of educated Sikhs were 17.03 % whilst Hindus were 16.35 %, Muslims 6.97 % and Christians 7.76 %. These figures are all the more impressive as in the previous 50 years the Sikhs has absorbed many millions of Hindus into their religion and these Hindus were for the most part from less educated castes. Representive management and responsibility is a core belief of Sikhi. What are the Panj Pyare?. The sampardayas adopted the non-Sikh concept of leadership by one man, a Sri Mahant or a Jathedar. 8. Destruction of religious artitistic heritage! Look at all the white-washed old churches in the UK and compare that with what the SGPC does... This is a great shame and one of the many failures of the SGPC I think your are displaying the anti protestant bias of a catholic. Can I assume that before Sikhi you were a catholic? It is not good to bring previous bias when you become a Sikh. Have you heard of the Nashan?, Karam Nash, Kul Nash. I mean the protestant method of conversion is at least more humane than the catholic method of forced conversion practicised in the Americas and in catholic enclaves such as Goa. l I am sure you know what the beliefs of Baba Khem Singh were. Didn't he claim that Sikhs were Hindus in a public address at a Hindu gathering?. His son repeated this blasphemy to another meeting of Hindus. Could this be the reason that Baba Khem Singh Bedi in the end had to retire to Rawalpindi and out of Sikhs affairs. What the Baba failed to realise was that as Sikhs became more educated and able to read the Guru Granth Sahib they were not prepared to allow their former leaders to make such anti-Gurmat remarks. Didn't Baba Khem Singh Bedi also allow his version of the Maryada to have such anti-Gurmat teachings as discrimination against lower caste Sikhs?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 sikh princess, are the two posts u've written authored exclusively by yourself or are they ghostwritten compositions? i ask this because u have displayed a remarkable ability for cavassing lalleshvari's weltanschauung with erudition not displayed in any of your previous posts. i myself use multiple literary styles, dictions & phraseologies as u have no doubt ascertained from my various posts, so i would be willing to acquiesce that the same may be true for yourself. nevertheless, i have a very cynical & incredulous disposition, ergo my original query. if they are indeed exclusively of your own creation, then please accept my sincere & heartfelt apologies for doubting your capabilities. additionally, i would like to request that all members contributing to this discussion substantiate their assertions (particularly regarding historical events & diachronic religiosity) with the appropriate sources. thank u. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 sikh princess, are the two posts u've written authored exclusively by yourself or are they ghostwritten compositions? i ask this because u have displayed a remarkable ability for cavassing lalleshvari's weltanschauung with erudition not displayed in any of your previous posts. Guv written or not written by sikh princess. Thats not really point of discussion. She put post forward back to lalleshvari in form of debate. Let us enjoy the debate and avoid any kinda "tuuu tuu mein mein" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maha_Pavitar Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 This is entertaining (lol) but moreover..finally some intelligent debate has surfaced.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Didn't I just say that I did not agree with everything Baba Khem Singh Bedi said or did? At least he founded the SIngh Sabha and if it were not for his death the Lahore Singh Sabha would not have taken over. Regarding the Hindu/SIkh question I think that this is a stupide debate because "Hindu" is a Persian word that really does not apply to Indian religious reality and hence this debate of Sikh identity has no point as Hinduism does not really exist. Hence both Kahn Singh Nabha and Baba Khem SIngh Bedi were waisting their times with identity issues. At the smae time people like Kahn SIngh Nabha still held what you would call "sanatan" beliefs sych as charan di pahul, kirpan da amrit etc.. " Giani" Ditt SIngh was a mysoginist (he said that Sikh men should beat up their wives if they consulted pirs) and (strange for an ex-Arya Samaji low caste) was very strict about caste issues. Let us also look at the background of our Lahore Singh Sabha heroes to give this discussion a balance because they weren't that kosher either... The only reason why I like Baba Khem SIngh Bedi is that he was the man behind the movement against missionaries and tried to conserve Sikh tradition even though I do not agree with everything he said. He also did a lot for Sikh women's education. The real debate here is Protestantism and the damage it has done to Sikhi. Do I have an anti-Protestant bias? Depends on the kind of brand. I surely am not a fan of its ideology but as long as it does not contaminate other religions I am ok with it. Same thing with Catholicism. But puratan Christianity remains Oriental orthodoxy and that's where I find it eaiser to communictae with people. Sikh princess...go on fantacising about my origins. At least I'll know someone thinks about me! :wink: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ideal Singh Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 are they ghostwritten compositions? Sorry for interrupting.... but I know what you are comtemplating guv... ... anyways please continue with discussion... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Lalleshwari, what kind of Sikhism is baba Khem Singh Bedi trying to “promote†when he promotes himself as the 15th “guru†of the Sikhs. This is the kind of twisted version of Sikhism the false Radhaswami Gurus are also trying to promote. Lalleshwari is this what you think “Sanaatan Sikhi†is? Because I had a totally different idea of what Sanatan Sikhi was. I doubt any true Sikh who wants to promote the traditions of Gurmat would want a seat with cushions installed specially for him at Darbar Sahib. That is not the tradition of Sikhism, not even by a long shot. As for the word “Hinduâ€. When saying Hindu, we are not talking about its meaning in terms of where it is derived from. But “Hindu†as in the meaning we know of today. I doubt the meaning of the word “Hindu†has changed in the last 150 years. Sikhism is a separate religion than Hinduism. Who could deny that? Yet Baba Bedi the so-called 15th Guru promoted the idea of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism. This is exactly what the Arya Samajis tried to propagate as well. Giani Ditt Singh in case you didn’t know was actually a Nirmala. His knowledge in Sanatan Dharm was so immense that he was probably the only person to have defeated Daya Nand Saraswati in a debate. I don’t know why you are using his caste beliefs (if any!) against him as "Sanatan Sikhi" itself promotes casteism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Guv written or not written by sikh princess. Thats not really point of discussion. She put post forward back to lalleshvari in form of debate. Let us enjoy the debate and avoid any kinda "tuuu tuu mein mein" This is entertaining (lol) but moreover..finally some intelligent debate has surfaced.. i concur Sorry for interrupting.... but I know what you are comtemplating guv... ... anyways please continue with discussion... are u contemplating what i'm contemplating? ... i just can't figure out how to convince a monkey to use a jet pack :? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.