Wake-up Call

[Guest _Banda Singh_]

The hard-liners among the Sikh fail to understand that Sikhism was not just the beginning of a thought process but also a culmination of the Bhakti-Movement that started in India long before Guru Nanak. Kabir (1398-1495) and Namdev (1270-1350) were not even Punjabi. I, son of an amrit-dhari Sikh, has always been brought believing that I am a Hindu. The hard-liner Granthis say “Read the Granth-Sahib and you will know that Sikhism is different from Hinduism,” I would like to ask self styled scholars on religion how the Granth-Sahib (composed in Punjabi, Persian, medieval Prakrit Hindi and Marathi, Sanskrit as well as Arabiccan) be considered the ultimate when it does not carry even a single composition by Guru Gobind Singh except , Slok 54 (attributed), panna 1429, Raga Jayawanti.

The only book that carries the compositions of Guru Gobind Singh is the Dasam-Granth but even the SGPC, leave alone provide for reading, doesn’t even list it on its official web-site. The tenth Guru was born (a very important chapter in Indian history) in Patna but Gurudwara Patna-Sahib finds no mention in the list of Historical Gurudwaras in the SGPC web-site. Why do the hard-liners continue to deny the only source of the tenth Gurus compositions ? Is it because, in the Dasam-Granth, originally composed in Brij-Bhasha by the Guru, Gautam Buddha finds mentions as an ‘avatar’ of Vishnu ?

If Guru Gobind Singh gave the Sikh two books to follow why did the akalis 200 years after his passing replace the Dasam-Granth with just one under the influence of the British ? The British law still states that Sikh are not just a separate religion but an altogether distinct race from the Hindus. That renders a person like me who always believed that he has a 5000 year history behind him without a parentage.

Sikhism means following ones own feet and searching for ones own truth instead of being just a parrot prompted by other parrots. And I'm sure Nanak, Buddha, Krishna would approve.

The hard-liners and the Fascist-khalistanis can continue to believe that a Sikh is distinct from a Hindu but I know that they believe so, not because they are a separate religion but because they want to be.

There still are many Sikh like me who will never deny themselves their Cultural and Historical parentage just to get a tiny corner in the white mans country.

When Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib was asked to become a Muslim, then he had replied to Aurangzeb as follows:

utra bhandyo dharam hum Hindu | aati priya ko kim kare nikandu ||

lok parlok ubhay sukh dani | aanan paayiyat yahi samaani ||

mati maleen moorakh mati jey-yi | isko tyagey paamar soi ||

Hindu dharam rakhey jag mahi | tumre karey vinsai yeh nahi ||

Translation :

"My answer is that I am a Hindu and I love the Hindu Dharam. How can anybody destroy it? The Hindu Dharam provides happiness both in this world as well as in the other world. There is no other religion like it. Only a deranged person or a fool would leave it to become vile. The Hindu Dharam will remain in the world forever. (Oh Aurangzeb) it is not going to be destroyed by your efforts." - Shri Guru Teg Bahadur, Hind dee Chadar

Thanks.

Banda Singh.

[gupt_paapi]

yet anova rolacoastar...

utra bhandyo dharam hum Hindu | aati priya ko kim kare nikandu ||

lok parlok ubhay sukh dani | aanan paayiyat yahi samaani ||

mati maleen moorakh mati jey-yi | isko tyagey paamar soi ||

Hindu dharam rakhey jag mahi | tumre karey vinsai yeh nahi ||

Translation :

"My answer is that I am a Hindu and I love the Hindu Dharam. How can anybody destroy it? The Hindu Dharam provides happiness both in this world as well as in the other world. There is no other religion like it. Only a deranged person or a fool would leave it to become vile. The Hindu Dharam will remain in the world forever. (Oh Aurangzeb) it is not going to be destroyed by your efforts." - Shri Guru Teg Bahadur, Hind dee Chadar

Just curious, why isnt this mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib? If these were his true words, then SURELY he would've included these, since this phrase seems very important

O yeh I was wondering, have you ever studied Guru Granth Sahib Ji and

Dasam Granth Sahib?? If you had, you wouldnt have made this post in the 1st place. Have you read the life story of GUru Nanak Dev Ji - Guru Gobind Singh Ji?? Guru Nanak Dev Ji refused 2 wear the Hindu string, attacked the worshiping of the sun by offering water, etc etc.

Sikhism means to learn, not following. This is why Guru GObind Singh Ji made us LIONS not following SHEEPS. IF we were followers, wouldnt we have followed the mughals?!(ofcourse, this woudld've guaranteed us leisure and riches.. n no threat to death.. no?)

And about Dasam Granth Sahib, dont know what was going through the Akali's heads, but their mistakes don't really prove anything. Let us go into Dasam Granth a little..

The description of 24 Avtars given in Sri Dasam Granth are the incarnations of god Vishnu. The most important of all the Avtars are Rama and Krishna; It is mistaken belief of Hindus to call them as the Supreme God. It was to clarify the Mistaken Beliefs of people that the Avtars were God, Guru Gobind Singh Ji wrote about these 24 Avtars, giving their limitations and pitfalls. It was never the intention to teach to worship them, but to enlighten people to Worship One Creator God Alone, Who is Infinite and is the Ultimate.

Dusnt this attack Hinduism DIRECTLY?!

Also, you say Sikhs are not distinct frm Hindus. Well give me some similarities in our teachings please.

iLL give u a few of the differences ryt now:

- SIkh = 1 god strictly Hindu = Many

- Sikh = No idol worship Hindu = worship statues like God himself

- Sikh = no high/low castes! Hindu = If u not bhramin ur not worthy 2 meet God.

- SIkh = equality, women treated highly. Hindu = rituals like Sati

- SIkh = no rituals..all pointless Hindu = whole of 3rd ved (or isit 4th) dedicated to rituals

Well i think i wrote quite a lot so Ill leave it at that. Ill be looking forward to your reply:) and sorry for any stupid mistakes, i only try

PS: cant help noticing this..

The hard-liners and the Fascist-khalistanis can continue to believe that a Sikh is distinct from a Hindu but I know that they believe so, not because they are a separate religion but because they want to be.

So they want to be tortured for it in India?

hardliners, so that makes all singhs hardliners den

Btw, are u a psychic? u seem to know how 2 read sum1s mind.. plz tell us how woudl luv to learn the art!

Theres a Difference between Fact and Opinion. remember that :TH:

[Guest proud_to_be_singhni]

VAHEGURU JI KA KHAAALSAA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEHHHH,

GOAN PAJI, tell it like IT IS!!!

[Guest _Banda Singh_]

K_51NGH,

There are many things that the Gurus did not include in the Granth-Sahib. The five Kakars for example. But the Sikhs continue to maintain unshorn hair and beard, dont they ? If they were actually that necessary the Guru would surely have included them in the Granth-Sahib.

Gureu Nanak refused to wear the janneyu no doubt. His argument was that what is inside is more important than external appertunances. If janneyu is meaningless for Nanak how could a mere growing of hair have any meaning?

Mund mundaaey jo siddhi paayee, mukti pedh na gaiiya jaayee applies both ways.

If believing that shaving ones head and weraing a janneyu helps you attain siddhi is folly how can believing that just growing ones hair and wearing a kirpan will help you be sense.

Come to thing of it, Sikhism today resembles Hinduism of 500 years ago. You are a patit unless you blindly follow what the Granthi says and act accordingly. Hindus no longer wear a janneyu and are never branded as patit.

If at all Nanak used Hindu and Muslim symbols to attack religious corruption its only coz in his time there were no granthis. Whatever he said about pundits could easily be applied to the granthis today.

Example :

Nanak said 500 years ago: "There is no sacred thread for the sexual organ, and no thread for woman. The man's beard is spat upon daily. There is no sacred thread for the feet, and no thread for the hands; no thread for the tongue, and no thread for the eyes. The Brahmin himself goes to the world hereafter without a sacred thread. Twisting the threads, he puts them on others. He takes payment for performing marriages; reading their horoscopes, he shows them the way. Hear, and see, O people, this wondrous thing. He is mentally blind, and yet his name is wisdom. "

Today he would have said : There is no turban for sexual organ, and no turban for woman. The man's beard is spat upon daily. There is no turban for the feet, and no kaccha for the hands; no kripan for the tongue, and no kada for the eyes. The Sikh himself goes to the world hereafter without 5Ks. Twisting the turban, he puts them on others. He takes payment for maintaining a house for the Book, for running funny organizations and for opposing Sanatanis. Hear, and see, O people, this wondrous thing. He is mentally blind and is running after wine, liquor and disco, and yet his name is Sikhi.

So you see, religipon cuts both ways. Every thesis carries within itself its own ani-thesis. Sikhism cannot be immune from the natural law that every-thing is equally flawed as it is great.

I can give you more examples. But I thing that would suffice to prove my point.

Regarding your argument tht Guru Gobind Singh composed the 24-avatar to point out the fallibility of these icons. But Guru Gobind Singh was not the first one to do it. The Hindu scriptures themselves make clear that these avtars are Human and not Gods. Guru Gobind Singh understood that because he surely must have read the Hindu scriptures. The Ramayana maintains that Rama is human and Krishna died a human death. Not dissapeared with his body as is claimed by the Sikh regrding Guru Gobind singh.

My question you havent anwered is : Why are the Sikh denying themselves their own History. We certainly didn't drop from a comet. Why claim oneself to be a distinct racial group when we all know truly well that we share the same blood-line with the rest of Indians?

And since the Khalsa itself is not even mentioned in the Granth-Sahib, why not apply the logic that everything outside the Granth-Sahib is blasphemy ???

The truth is that the Sikh just like any other accepts only that which suits them. On second thoughts it not even the Sikh who are choosing, its the Granthis decide for them what is right and what is wrong. The Hindus have more sense. Hinduism today doesnt give two hoots whether one even visits the temple or not.

Will be waiting for your reply. At least you dont fume nonsense like one of those semi-literate khalistani.

Thanks.

[gupt_paapi]

Gureu Nanak refused to wear the janneyu no doubt. His argument was that what is inside is more important than external appertunances. If janneyu is meaningless for Nanak how could a mere growing of hair have any meaning?

yeh! dat is true since a person with hair is no better than a person without hair. But, it is a uniform. To make us stand out of the crwod. Guru Gobind SIngh Ji was forced to do this because Hindus/Muslims started mixing with us and we needed a separate identity.

You can also argue the fact that there is no point in cutting hair! i mean you are born with it. Turban is like a crown for Kings. In the Rehitnamas, (not made by granthis btw!) it is pointed out significantly. And Guru Gobind SIngh Ji sed "without hair and weapons you are like sheep" because truthfully, we WILL be pushed around if we cut hair. Some would call us Muslims, some call us Hindus, etc.

About the regioinal thing, well the same can be said for muslims, doesnn't make us all Muslims.. no?

I personally dont realy like the idea of a granthi who doesn't do anything all day, but then get busy on akahnd paths and Sunday Diwans etc. But Guru Ji didn't start this off! it was us humans...

ANd the way you compare Sikhs with Bhramin is kind of insulting (by using that quote). Bhramins started off caste system, for their own benefits.

You said "And since the Khalsa itself is not even mentioned in the Granth-Sahib, why not apply the logic that everything outside the Granth-Sahib is blasphemy ???" I am.. as you know, All the Guru's had the same JOT (light). So they will show same message.. no? So why not accept the fact that Guru Ji created Khalsa? Guru Ji did not include his writings in Guru Granth SAhib Ji due to the fact that it had parts of Hindu texts translated in it. Guru Ji wanted to give us knowledge, to prove to us that we are not Hindus!

i am sure my veerjis wil give a better response, because I dont have the knowledge to go further. I'm a stupid fol. sorry for mistakes.

[Akali]

K_51NGH,

There are many things that the Gurus did not include in the Granth-Sahib. The five Kakars for example. But the Sikhs continue to maintain unshorn hair and beard, dont they ? If they were actually that necessary the Guru would surely have included them in the Granth-Sahib.

Gureu Nanak refused to wear the janneyu no doubt. His argument was that what is inside is more important than external appertunances. If janneyu is meaningless for Nanak how could a mere growing of hair have any meaning?

Firstly, wearing a janneyu is a man-made thing. Having unshorn hair is how Waheguru intended us to be.

"If my hair was meant to be cut, God would not have made it grow."

Guru Nanak Dev Ji also said "Respect Hinduism, Respect Islam but they are not for us." I think that makes it VERY clear that we are not Hindu's.

"I do not accept Ganesh as important. I do not meditate upon Krishna neither on Vishnu. I do not hear them and do not recognise them. My love is with the lotus feet of God. He is my protector, the Supreme Lord. I am dust of his lotus feet"

Guru Gobind Singh

"I have read all the Vedas, but my mind's seperation from God is not removed and the five demons of my house (body) are stilled not even for an instant."

Guru Arjan Dev, Ashtpadis pg. 687

Granted, that going back in our history, we originated from Hindu's as a racial group but the point of the matter is that Guru Nanak made a seperate religion by the hukum of Waheguru hence what we are today.

If you want to go further back in time, Banda Singh, the human race originated in Africa (according to scientists) so are we all African?

The point is that it doesn't matter who we were hundreds of years ago, it's who we are now by Waheguru's grace.

Also, regarding your comments about Khalistani's, I am a pro-Khalistani as,

"Without sovereigneity, religion can not be."

That is more than enough in my eyes to have Khalistan as the Hindu government of India does not, never has and never will think of the Sikhs in equal terms.

Waheguru Di Mafi, if any of the quotes are slightly incorrect.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

[gupt_paapi]

:doh: thank u khalsa ji u se dhte stuff i dint have the knowledge 2 say

[MajhelSoorma]

The hard-liners among the Sikh fail to understand that Sikhism was not just the beginning of a thought process but also a culmination of the Bhakti-Movement that started in India long before Guru Nanak. Kabir (1398-1495) and Namdev (1270-1350) were not even Punjabi. I, son of an amrit-dhari Sikh, has always been brought believing that I am a Hindu. The hard-liner Granthis say “Read the Granth-Sahib and you will know that Sikhism is different from Hinduism,” I would like to ask self styled scholars on religion how the Granth-Sahib (composed in Punjabi, Persian, medieval Prakrit Hindi and Marathi, Sanskrit as well as Arabiccan) be considered the ultimate when it does not carry even a single composition by Guru Gobind Singh except , Slok 54 (attributed), panna 1429, Raga Jayawanti.

The only book that carries the compositions of Guru Gobind Singh is the Dasam-Granth but even the SGPC, leave alone provide for reading, doesn’t even list it on its official web-site. The tenth Guru was born (a very important chapter in Indian history) in Patna but Gurudwara Patna-Sahib finds no mention in the list of Historical Gurudwaras in the SGPC web-site. Why do the hard-liners continue to deny the only source of the tenth Gurus compositions ? Is it because, in the Dasam-Granth, originally composed in Brij-Bhasha by the Guru, Gautam Buddha finds mentions as an ‘avatar’ of Vishnu ?

If Guru Gobind Singh gave the Sikh two books to follow why did the akalis 200 years after his passing replace the Dasam-Granth with just one under the influence of the British ? The British law still states that Sikh are not just a separate religion but an altogether distinct race from the Hindus. That renders a person like me who always believed that he has a 5000 year history behind him without a parentage.

Sikhism means following ones own feet and searching for ones own truth instead of being just a parrot prompted by other parrots. And I'm sure Nanak, Buddha, Krishna would approve.

The hard-liners and the Fascist-khalistanis can continue to believe that a Sikh is distinct from a Hindu but I know that they believe so, not because they are a separate religion but because they want to be.

There still are many Sikh like me who will never deny themselves their Cultural and Historical parentage just to get a tiny corner in the white mans country.

When Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib was asked to become a Muslim, then he had replied to Aurangzeb as follows:

utra bhandyo dharam hum Hindu | aati priya ko kim kare nikandu ||

lok parlok ubhay sukh dani | aanan paayiyat yahi samaani ||

mati maleen moorakh mati jey-yi | isko tyagey paamar soi ||

Hindu dharam rakhey jag mahi | tumre karey vinsai yeh nahi ||

Translation : 

"My answer is that I am a Hindu and I love the Hindu Dharam. How can anybody destroy it? The Hindu Dharam provides happiness both in this world as well as in the other world. There is no other religion like it. Only a deranged person or a fool would leave it to become vile. The Hindu Dharam will remain in the world forever. (Oh Aurangzeb) it is not going to be destroyed by your efforts." - Shri Guru Teg Bahadur, Hind dee Chadar

Thanks.

Banda Singh.

114036[/snapback]

I can only say one thing

Go and read DHAN SHRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI MAHARAJ

but not as a book, but as ur Guru and U'll get answers to all ur Qs

and By the type of Q u have asked it doesn't looks to me that u r a Sikh.

Rabb Rakha

[Guest Guest]

When Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib was asked to become a Muslim, then he had replied to Aurangzeb as follows:

utra bhandyo dharam hum Hindu | aati priya ko kim kare nikandu ||

lok parlok ubhay sukh dani | aanan paayiyat yahi samaani ||

mati maleen moorakh mati jey-yi | isko tyagey paamar soi ||

Hindu dharam rakhey jag mahi | tumre karey vinsai yeh nahi ||

Translation :

"My answer is that I am a Hindu and I love the Hindu Dharam. How can anybody destroy it? The Hindu Dharam provides happiness both in this world as well as in the other world. There is no other religion like it. Only a deranged person or a fool would leave it to become vile. The Hindu Dharam will remain in the world forever. (Oh Aurangzeb) it is not going to be destroyed by your efforts." - Shri Guru Teg Bahadur, Hind dee Chadar

I have never read the above given phrase in any of the accounts of Guru Teg Bahadur Ji's martyrdom, I guess i'm ignorant enough to not know of this.

but sikhs practices r more towards liberation, and r unconditional, a hindu woman cannot even listen to the vedas being chanted,

but i know GURU ARJUN DEV JEE said

'I observe neither (Hindu) fasting nor the ritual of the Ramadan (Muslim month of fasting). I serve Him who at the last shall save (me). Gosain (The Hindus Lord of the Creation) and (the Muslims) Allah are one to me. From Hindus and Muslims I have broken free. I neither go on (the Muslims) pligrimage to Kaaba (Mecca) nor do I worship at (Hindu) bathing places. I serve the One sole Lord and no other. I neither perform the Hindu worship nor the Muslim prayer. I bow to the Sole Formless Lord in my heart. We are neither Hindus nor Muslims. '

hindu idealogy is to worship the Devta's or deities, and veen receiving favors via tamsic, satvic or rajsic pooja,( which is yag ,yaj or havan)

I have not yet seen the hindu temple which is built in devotion to Akal purkh and not for offering arti to the statue of some deity, how can we be hindu's

Guru ji has also taught us to recognise all as one, but that dosn't make us hindu we r still sikhs

[MajhelSoorma]

I, son of an amrit-dhari Sikh, has always been brought believing that I am a Hindu.

I don't know whats ur true identity and whether u r even a sikh or not.

Rabb maff kare, but I doubt that u r the son of an Amritdhari sikh.

SIKH IS NOT HINDU OR MUSLIM.

SIKH IS SIKH. GOT IT.

I actually can't believe that an Amritdhari Sikh told his son that he is a Hindu! <_< @

That coz an Amritdhari sikh definitely in his lifetime reads "DHAN SHRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI"

and if he reads & understands it and still even thinks that he is a Hindu/Muslim. Well what can I say he must be a fool.

I would like to ask self styled scholars on religion how the Granth-Sahib

(composed in Punjabi, Persian, medieval Prakrit Hindi and Marathi, Sanskrit as well as Arabiccan)

be considered the ultimate when it does not carry even a single composition by Guru Gobind Singh except , Slok 54 (attributed), panna 1429, Raga Jayawanti.

Our Gurus were great great personalities. They had the same jot.There is no difference or any kind of

confrontation between what our Gurus have said. We r Sikhs, our last mortal Guru Gobind Singh ji

ordered us to take guidance from SGGS.But We should also learn from the sakhis of our Gurus.

These Sakhis r not fictious stories made by some scholars as in case of Brahmins they have made fictious stories like a god's transport is Mouse or Peacock,etc,etc

The Sakhis of our guru's r real. Our Guru's lived as humans to tell us how to be a sikh.

The answer to every Question can be found if one reads either SGGS or the Sakhis of our Gurus.

The only book that carries the compositions of Guru Gobind Singh is

the Dasam-Granth but even the SGPC, leave alone provide for reading,

doesn’t even list it on its official web-site.

The tenth Guru was born (a very important chapter in Indian history)

in Patna but Gurudwara Patna-Sahib finds no mention in the list of Historical Gurudwaras in the SGPC web-site.

I don't know about this.I'll check out their site.

And as of SGPC, this organisation has not done what it is suppose to be doing.

Instead sometimes they take step which only harm sikhism.e.g Demolishing historic Gurudwaras in the name of Kar-Seva

If janneyu is meaningless for Nanak how could a mere growing of hair

have any meaning?

What a foolish Question.

Don't u know the difference between a janneyu & unshorn hair?

Janneyu was also an indication to show what is the caste of a Hindu.

These janneyus were made of different clothes/garment for diff castes of people and their style of making of diff for diff castes

ansd also the Shudras were not supposed to wear janneyus(I am sure U know all about this, since u consider urself Hindu)

and as of unshorn hair. Keeping unshorn hair doesn't make u a spiritual personality or anything else.

These r kept to remain just as God made us or in other words "Rabb de rajja de vich chalna"

and let me tell u one very Important thing

By putting over the skin of a Lion, a donkey cannot become a Lion.

Similarly

By keeping Beard & wearing Turban a person cannot become a Sikh.

Come to thing of it, Sikhism today resembles Hinduism of 500 years ago.

Oh really, Well I thought u were saying Sikhs r Hindus, so was there any difference at all.

You are a patit unless you blindly follow what the Granthi says and act accordingly.

Do not follow any Granthi or self-made Guru, take guidance from Shri Guru Granth Sahib ji

Nanak said 500 years ago: "There is no sacred thread for the sexual organ, and no thread for woman. The man's beard is spat upon daily. There is no sacred thread for the feet, and no thread for the hands; no thread for the tongue, and no thread for the eyes. The Brahmin himself goes to the world hereafter without a sacred thread. Twisting the threads, he puts them on others. He takes payment for performing marriages; reading their horoscopes, he shows them the way. Hear, and see, O people, this wondrous thing. He is mentally blind, and yet his name is wisdom. "

Today he would have said : There is no turban for sexual organ, and no turban for woman. The man's beard is spat upon daily. There is no turban for the feet, and no kaccha for the hands; no kripan for the tongue, and no kada for the eyes. The Sikh himself goes to the world hereafter without 5Ks. Twisting the turban, he puts them on others. He takes payment for maintaining a house for the Book, for running funny organizations and for opposing Sanatanis. Hear, and see, O people, this wondrous thing. He is mentally blind and is running after wine, liquor and disco, and yet his name is Sikhi.

I don't know what Shri Guru Nanak Dev ji had said but I say

Damn... U have got to be a fool.

U call urself a Sikh (and oh ofcourse Hindu) and u don't know in what reference and in what meaning did Guru Nanak Dev ji said those words and if thats

not enough u r distrotting Gurbani to suit urself.

I can give you more examples. But I thing that would suffice to prove my point.

Oh Please , Give us more points. Lets see what u have got. <_<

Let them come. Lets see what ur thinking is?

Bring them on. :doh:

The Ramayana maintains that Rama is human and Krishna died a human death. Not dissapeared with his body as is claimed by the Sikh regrding Guru Gobind singh.

Which Sikh claim tha Guru Gobind Singh ji's body disappered?

But yes, Shri Guru Nanak Dev ji's body definitely did.Thats a fact.

Why are the Sikh denying themselves their own History.

We certainly didn't drop from a comet.

Why claim oneself to be a distinct racial group when we all

know truly well that we share the same blood-line with the rest of Indians?

Doesn't the Hindus & Muslims share the same blood. Or R U telling me that the blood of a Hindu is red

and that of Muslim is Blue.

BTW Sikhs didn't came only from Hinduism, they came from Islam also and there were certain jatt clans who used to follow ancestor worship.

The also became Sikh.

The Hindus have more sense. Hinduism today doesnt give two hoots

whether one even visits the temple or not.

Thats bcoz their scriptures tells them that a God resembling elephant used to travel by sitting on a mouse.

Or that when the Indra wishes then only it rains.

or that a bull is keeping the earth on its horns.

Whereas in Sikhism it tells that their r millions & millions of stars, planets,,etc

That the God is One.

That there is not one earth, but many.