Dont Judge Mona Guys And Girls

[dalsingh101]

Well. Given that over 80% of the Sikh community are monay now, in the Panjab no less. I wish you all the best in your mission to convince them that they are not Sikhs.

"So whenever the word Khalsa is used we need to look at the context it is used in to better understand its correct meanings. "

So your saying Khalsa can have more than one meaning?

"Some historic events also make it clear that the enemies made no distinction between a Sikh and Khalsa. Bahadur Shah, Farkhuseyar and other government officials made strict orders to kill all “Nanak Naam Leva Sikhs†hence referring to Amritdhari Khalsa. When Nadir Shah asked Jakriya Khan about Sikhs he clearly wrote that Sikhs of Guru Nanak are fearless warriors and he has witnessed weak minded people taking Amrit and conquering death. In his letter to Nadir Shah he did not refer to multiple identities of Sikhs because there existed none. Qazi Noor Mohammad also praises Sikhs by saying “Singhs are indeed lionsâ€. No mention of the so-called sehajdharis. Historical records show that people who could not abandon their native religious practices (hindu rituals) completely were referred to as sehajdharis and were not considered Sikhs. This is why they were not hunted down by the enemies of Khalsa."

What marked those Khalsas out was their anti-governmental stance and willingness to raid Nadir's caravan. What we can deduce from this is that some Singhs openly rebelled against the authorities (these were the ones that lived in the jungles). Not all Singhs did and the people who got it the hardest was the ones who continued to live in villages and towns and not the horseback guerrilla lifestyle. Besides if you read the persian accounts, some of the sympathetic rulers who helped the Khalsa were imprisoned by the Moghuls.

Where is this letter by Zakriya Khan to Nadir Shah? I don't think it exists but if you know of any credible sources I would love to hear.

"Historical records show that people who could not abandon their native religious practices (hindu rituals) completely were referred to as sehajdharis and were not considered Sikhs. "

If you look at the old rahits and some of the accounts and pictures from M. Ranjit's time (i.e. Durga flags), a load of the amritdharis didn't manage to shake off their Hinduness themselves. Does this make them sehajdhari? Hell I still go the amritdhari Sikh houses full of Hindu pictures to this day.

Hukamnama of Baba Banda Singh refers to Amritdhari individuals as “Khalsa of Akal Purakhâ€. He was a pooran gursikh of Guru Sahib and well acquainted with Sikhi. He would not have contradicted Guru Sahib by calling Amritdhari Sikhs “Khalsaâ€.

You need to hit the history books more. Baba Banda also alienated the mainstream Khalsa by introducing some changes like changing the jaikara to Fateh Darshan, and the uniform colour to red. Don't get me wrong though, he was a seriously great person and a role model with his strength but historically very controversial to some of the Khalsas of the time. I thin it was Baj Singh (who Dasmesh Pita gave Banda as one of his five advisors) who left him in the end.

Look lets end this here. Nothing you can say is going to make me say "O.K. I'm not a Sikh", I recognise I have some way to go in my Sikhi but however you put it, I still view myself as closer to Sikhism than any other religion. I know I'm far from perfect but this is how it is right now. If I do ever take amrit, God forbid that I go around pointing fingers and telling people that they are or are not Sikhs.

If someone is further in their journey into Sikhi than others it doesn't make them judge and juries for lesser souls. What I may suggest is that you look closer to home at the corruption taking place by amritdharis Singhs in our institutes and straighten that mess out because we really do need someone to do that.

Nothing you can say or do will make me think of myself as anything other than Sikh right now albeit a really poor example of one.

I suggest you stop being yet another reason why people would want to run from Sikhism, don't you think we have enough of that?

[Bijla Singh]

Once again, your post lacks any valid proofs and is fully based on how people behave.

Well. Given that over 80% of the Sikh community are monay now, in the Panjab no less. I wish you all the best in your mission to convince them that they are not Sikhs.

We are discussing principles of Sikhi. Cutting hair is a bajjar kurehat. 99% people in the world cut their hair and they too are not Sikhs.

So your saying Khalsa can have more than one meaning?

I suggest you read my post before writing a reply. My post describes multiple meanings of the word “Khalsa”.

What marked those Khalsas out was their anti-governmental stance and willingness to raid Nadir's caravan. What we can deduce from this is that some Singhs openly rebelled against the authorities (these were the ones that lived in the jungles). Not all Singhs did and the people who got it the hardest was the ones who continued to live in villages and towns and not the horseback guerrilla lifestyle. Besides if you read the persian accounts, some of the sympathetic rulers who helped the Khalsa were imprisoned by the Moghuls.

This has no point whatsoever. The point I made was that Singhs were hunted down and what distinguished them from rest of the people was their distinct identity. The letter mentioned only one type of identity of Sikhs. The incident is well recorded in Panth Parkash and is accepted by the Sikh scholars.

If you look at the old rahits and some of the accounts and pictures from M. Ranjit's time (i.e. Durga flags), a load of the amritdharis didn't manage to shake off their Hinduness themselves. Does this make them sehajdhari? Hell I still go the amritdhari Sikh houses full of Hindu pictures to this day.

Care to name the “old rehit” and “accounts” you are talking about? Definition of sehajdhari I have provided is based on Bhagatratnavlee, which is accepted by Sikh scholars also.

You need to hit the history books more. Baba Banda also alienated the mainstream Khalsa by introducing some changes like changing the jaikara to Fateh Darshan, and the uniform colour to red. Don't get me wrong though, he was a seriously great person and a role model with his strength but historically very controversial to some of the Khalsas of the time. I thin it was Baj Singh (who Dasmesh Pita gave Banda as one of his five advisors) who left him in the end.

Once again, you proved nothing. Baba Banda Singh wrote “Fateh Darshan” which was not a jaikara. The meanings are provided by Prof. Ganda Singh in Hukamnamay. I suggest you read before posting foolish statements. Baba Banda Singh gave a great sacrifice and is considered a great Sikh. Bhai Baaj Singh never left Baba Ji and sacrificed himself.

If nothing can convince you then I suggest you stop making it seem like you want to have a rational debate. Such close mindedness can only come from those who never accept fundamentals of Sikhi and try to change it to suit their lifestyle.

I suggest you stop being yet another reason why people would want to run from Sikhism, don't you think we have enough of that?

When we have people like you to oppose very fundamental principles of Sikhi, it is no wonder why people fail to see the truth and understand what Sikhi is which results is alienation. Just to please some people, principles of Sikhi cannot be changed. Next time you want to debate, provide some references of credible sources and some hard facts and refute my every single point first. Otherwise it significantly weakens your case.

It is ironic that Sikhs were offered money to cut their hair but so-called “Sikhs” of today pay money out of their own pocket and still call consider themselves Sikhs. Guru Rakha

[N30S1NGH]

Khalsa cannot be bound to or limited to only person with dhara and kesh.

What you think bhagat kabir, ravidasa, namdev, sain, trilochan, ramanad, bhagat fareed, bhagat sadhna were? were they not sikhs/khalsa from ataamic sense yet maintaining outer garb (customs) of their culture (rehna-behna) to some extent?

True bhagats which are included in sri guru granth sahib ji didnt follow socio-religious boundaries of their own dharam (ie- islam, hinduism) they belong mystical orders of their dharam ie- sufi, shavism, advait vedanta.

All the bhagats which are included in sri guru granth sahib ji were jevan mukht, they didnt belong to any specific dharam, they were not hard core followers of hindu panth nor they were rehitdhari khalsa, they were all almast fakirs who didnt gave two hoots about socio-religious-economic boundaries of their own religions or others.

In my eyes, all the bhagats were sikhs didnt need to be in systematic khalsa socio religious panth in order to get jevan mukhti, they were already jevan mukht you can tell that by their gurbani included in sri guru granth sahib ji.

Sikh and Khalsa are same when it comes to avastha but these are relative terms ie- different type of intiation for eg- kabir panthis or sufi farid followers their intitation may be different than khalsa but internal bhramgyan amrit is one, they are relative terms could be both applied in socio-religious circle (panthic maryada) as well mystical traditions of any dharam.

For example:

In Sri Sarbloh Granth Sahib:

Atam Ras Neh Jannehi Sio Haie Khalsa Dev,

Prab Meh Mo Meh Tas Meh Ranchak Naeh Bhaiv ||

The one who has entered the sphere of atma(self), he alone is worthy of the title of the khalsa, he becomes one with me the guru and ultimately God.There is no difference.

Above quote can be applied both ways to a) an khalsa who have taken intiation of khanda batta amrit and applied guru maharaj sikhi in his/her life and tasted atam ras(turiya avastha).

Above quote also can be equally dedicated (if you look at it more antriv(Deeply) arths to b) anyone of any dharam abroad away from socio-religious circle(panthic circle) to anyone who has realize his own true self(atma).

Now lets look at this quote:

Here Guru Gobind singh ji directly explains Khalsa.

"The Khalsa is my exceptional Image,

In the Khalsa ever resides my Spirit.

The Khalsa is my Beloved and Venerable Master,

The Khalsa is my divine Protector.

The Khalsa is my Father and Mother,

The Khalsa is my body and soul.

The Khalsa is embodiment of true and perfect Guru.

The Khalsa is my Gallant and Knightly friend.

I have stated the truth without an iota of misconstruction.

God and Guru Nanak are to this my witnesses."

Guru Gobind Singh, Sarb Loh Granth, (MS), 519-526.

This quote looks like more dedicated towards khalsa from socio-religious circle than from mystical circle.

Guys, if gurmat gursikhi marg was that simple then we wouldnt need bhramgyanis in the panth, any tom, di ck , harry scholar can decipher gurmat gursikhi marg.

Last but not least, here are few words of my teacher, he puts all well together- listen to it:

http://www.gurmarag.net/SikhAwareness/Audi...0is%20anadi.mp3

With that said, i fully beleive in concept of tisra panth- khalsa panth which guru maharaj talks about in ugardanti and raj karega khalsa, and once again tisra panth that guru maharaj ji talks abouts its not to limited to socio-religious boundaries but go to an extent of mystical boundaries away from religious boundaries.

Khalsa chit shouldnt be spent in counting of how many khalsa with kesh and dhara there should be, but it should be

much higher than that.

Khalsa panth was created, true separate unique indentity was given to us but guru maharaj also gave us bibek buddhi not to shackles ourselves in socio-religious boundaries.

Khalsa should be like rain (ocean of sam dristh), pours everywhere doesnt discriminate between anyone.

[raj_karega_khalsa]

Generally, people do not grasp the true meaning of the terms Amritdhari and non�Amritdhari Sikhs. The phrase non-Amritdhari Sikhs is meaningless. One cannot make a comparison between them. There is only one class of Sikhs and that class is the SIKH (Khalsa). Thus, one is either a Sikh or not a Sikh. Who is a Sikh? The literal meaning of the word Sikh is a 'disciple.' A Sikh is one who is a disciple of the Satguru. To be a disciple of the Satguru, one must completely surrender one's will and wisdom to the Will and Wisdom of the Satguru. Only then, the Satguru admits one is in his fold as a 'Sikh' and blesses him with the holy Naam. This initiation ceremony was previously referred to as the deekhya or charan pahul and has been prevalent right from the time of Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dcv Ji, as supported by Bhai Gurdas Ji:

Gur Deekhya Lai Sikh, Sikh Sadaayaa. (Var3,Pauri 11)

One is called a Sikh only after he has been blessed with 'deekhya.'

Charan Dhoe Rehraas Kar Charnamrit Gursikhaan Pilaaayaa (// 1, Pauri 23)

(Guru Nanak) followed the system of washing the Guru's Feet and blessing the Gursikhs with the Charan�amrit (Charan-Pahul).

Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji prescribed specific rules and regulations which must be unconditionally accepted by the candidates before they can be admitted as disciples (Sikhs). The ceremony by which the Panj Pyaras are authorized by the Satguru to admit such persons in the fold of Sikhism is partaking Khande-ki-Pahul or Amrit. Therefore, according to the Commandment of the Satguru, one can become a Sikh of the Guru only by taking Amrit. Such a person is also called an Amritdhari because he has been blessed with the holy Amrit and has, thus, become a Sikh. It is further explicit from the following couplet from Rahitnamaa of Bhai Desa Singh Ji:

Pratham Rahit Yeh Jaan, Khande-ki-Pahul Chhakey.

Soee Sikh Sujaan, Avar Naa Pahul Jo Lai.

The primary Rahit for a Sikh is to take Khande-ki-Pahul. Only he is sagacious Sikh.

Now consider this point from another angle. If someone belonging to other faiths like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., wishes conversion into Sikhism, what is he required to do? Does he become a Sikh by merely refraining from cutting his hair and wearing a turban as Sikhs do? Obviously not. (There are a number of such people with long hair, and even wearing turbans, belonging to faiths other than Sikhism). He has necessarily to partake the holy Amrit to become a Sikh. How can, then, one become a Sikh simply because of accident of birth, without being baptized? This point has also been explicitly made clear by the Satguru himself as:

So Sikh Sakhaa Bandhap Hai Bhai, Jay Gur Ke Bhaaney Vich Aivey

Aapney Bhaaney Jo Chaley Bhai, Vichharr Chotaan Khaavey. (pg 601)

Only that person is a Sikh and he is my near and dear one, who comes under the total allegiance of the Guru. As against this, one who owes allegiance only to is personal will, always remains in separation and will suffer.

Even in the booklet entitled Sikh Rahit Maryada published by the S.G.P.C., a Sikh has been defined as under:

�...Dashmesh ji dey Amrit utay nischa rakhadu hai atey

kisey hor dharam nu nahin manadaa, oh Sikh hai.�

�...and has full faith in the Amrit of the Tenth Guru and does not believe in any other faith, is a Sikh.�

Clearly, therefore, being a non-Amritdhari means that one, has not yet declared his total allegiance and obedience to Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dcv Ji I Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji I Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as his Guru. Nor has he been blessed with the Gurmantra or Naam which is given ONLY at the time of baptism by Guru Sahib himself through the Panj Pyaras. Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself put a seal on this point by bowing before the Panj Pyaras for his own baptism. Are these so-called non-Amritdhari "Sikhs" greater than even Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, that they call themselves full-fledged Sikhs without being baptized?

It is thus, abundantly clear that the non-Amritdharls, even though they may claim to be Sikhs, and are also considered Sikhs politically and socially, are not Sikhs in the true sense and in the eyes of the Satguru. In Gurbani, they are referred to as (a) Nigurey; (b) Gumantar heenus; © Sakat; (d) Manmukhs or Vemukh, and (e) Vedeen (Faithless), etc. howsoever prominent or outstanding they may be in the social and public life of the community.

Gurbani defines such terms as under:

Nigurey: one who has not become disciple of the Guru.

Nigurey Ko Gat Kaaee Naahee.

Avgann Muthhey, Chotaan Khahee. (pg 361)

For him who is without the Guru, there is no liberation.

Deluded by evil propensities, he suffers.

Satgur Bajhon Gur Nahi Koee Nigurey Kaa Hal Naao Bura. (pg. 435)

Without the True Guru (i.e. Guru Nanak), there is not another Guru.

And one without the Guru is known as evil.

Gurmantar-heenus: One who has not been blessed with the Gurmantra (Naani).

Gumantar-Heenus Jo Praani Dhrigant Janam Bharashtneh.

Kookreh Sookreh Gardbeh Kaakeh Sarpaneh Tul Khaleh (pg. 1356-1357)

One who is without the Gurmantra, is the most accursed, and contaminated is his life. He is like a dog, a swine, an <admin-profanity filter activated>, a crow a snake, and a blockhead.

Saakat: Infidel

Saakat Suaan Kaheeyey Baho 1�bhee, Baho Dumat Mael Bhareejey. (pg.1326)

The dog like infidel is said to be very avaricious and is full to the brim of evil thoughts.

Saakat Besuva Poot Ninaam (pg.1239)

The infidel is nameless like a prostitute's son.

Manmukh: One who follows his own will; the egocentric.

Manmukh Oodha Kowl Hai, Na Tis Bhagat Na Naao. (pg.511)

The egocentric person (i.e. Manmukh) is like a reversed lotus and possesses neither devotion nor God's name.

Manmukh Seti Sang Karey, Muh Kalakh Daag Lagaaey (pg. 1417)

Whosoever associates with an egoist, to his countenance attaches the stigma of blackness.

Manmukh Naam Na Jannani, Vinn Naavey Pat Jaaey...

Vishta Kay Keerray Pavey Wich Vishta

Se Vishta Mahe Samaaye. (pg. 28)

The egocentrics know not the Naam, and without Naam lose their honor...

They are worms of excrement, fall in excrement, and get absorbed in excrement

Vedeen: The faithless; the irreligious.

Choraan, Jaaran, Randiaan, Kuttaneeya Di Baan.

Vedinaa Ki Dosti Vedinaa Ka Khaann

Sifti Saar Naa Jannani, Sada Vasey Saitaan. (pg. 790)

It is the habit of thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, and pimps that they contract friendship with the irreligious or faithless and eat their food; they know not the worth of God's praise and Satan ever abides within them.

www.akj.org

[yadwinder]

Sat Sri Akal;

Mona sikhs can be great persons better than most of sikhs but they are no longer sikhs, they have left sikhism by there own wishes. Look into our history there are millions of people who give there heads rather than there sikhism, Bhai Taru Singh.

Kesh are integral part of sikh, As said : Kesh guru dee Mohar hai", Keeping Kesh is just the first step, only Gurbani is what converts a sikh to gursikh. A sikh must be free from Kaam,Krodh, lobh etc, everyone knows. So if you are cutting your hair and still considering yourself a sikh it is just an illusion.

Just a question for Mona sikh, most people cut hairs for impressing girls, being socially accepted, So called medical reasons and there are thousand excuses, only excuses. So what is your excuse, The truth is you are not strong enough to be considered as a sikh.

As said in bani "sawat surat rab dee, bhande bayemann".

The Pure form is of God,Dishonest person Destroys it, if you are not honest to God then why do you want to be considered as sikh.

Just a question to my Sikh friends why we are trying to be appease the Patit, when they have wishfully rejected our religion, and do not care about teachings of Guru Gobind Singh and consider company of girls better then Guru. We always try to protect them why?????????????????

It is better to have few gursikhs in Sikhism then millions of Patits, as we are answerable to only our God.

You must admit there is weakness in there character as they give up there religion for wordly things.I am nowhere to judge a sikh and a mona, only saying a person who cuts kesh is not sikh.He may be a good person but not a sikh.

And if i hurt any sikh please forgive me and tell me where i am wrong.

ate ant wich main raab age ardass kada hain, ke mere bhulle bharavan nu sahi rasta dikhave.

[jassa]

in gurus eyes a person is NOT a singh

cutting hairs = visiting prostitute = eating kutha = eating tambakoo ... thats what 5 peyare say during amrit sanchar ... all these 4 things are kept at same level ...

if sangat agrees that one can be a sikh in eyes of guru still after visting prostitute but has loads of nitname and naam simren ... then i think a mona guy is also a sikh who has simren in his hand ....

but if such person cant be a sikh then i think mona is also not a sikh ... just think a guy smoking but keeping kesh and wearing turban ... other guy sitting on chair of hair dresser but chanting vaheguru vaheguru from his name .... are they not same ????

[S1ngh]

To discuss this topic.. emotions should be kept aside.. They are our brothers and sisters and in sikhi we have to respect everyone regardless of differences.

I agree with most of the bijla singh's post especially the below part and i think thats pretty much the conclusion of this thread:

You should base your arguments on Gurbani and acceptable Sikh sources not on behavior of people. I can equally give you many examples of monay drinking, eating tobacco, raping, looting and committing many immoral acts. People don’t always follow the religion. A Sikh is defined by principles and teachings of Gurbani. Behavior of people doesn’t define Sikhi but sometimes can reflect what Sikhi is. You and everyone else need to understand that when Sikhs say monay or patits are not Sikhs it is not passing judgment or looking down on them but simply saying that they don’t follow the hukam of Guru Sahib. By no means is it saying that monay are not human beings or inferior beings. Now, to your arguments.

[Punjabi_Link]

Patit: amritdhari committing a sin

Mona: a person born in Sikh family who cuts his/her hair.

So how can you tie Patit with Monay?

Akal Takht clearly states that if you believe in one god, 10 Sikh gurus, guru granth sahib, khalsa and don’t owe alliance to any other religion, then you’re a Sikh.

For argument sake, let’s say only amritdhari are Sikhs. Then how come you amritdharis are taking credit from non-amritdharis? A good example of this is whole Indian independence movement. The most well known “Sikhs” weren’t even amritdharis who fought and die to free India from British. Maharaja Ranjit Singh wasn’t an amritdhari, but yet, he ruled Punjab. Are you guys not going to consider him being Sikh either?

[Punjabi_Link]

Sat Sri Akal;

Mona sikhs can be great persons better than most of sikhs but they are no longer sikhs, they have left sikhism by there own wishes. Look into our history there are millions of people who give there heads rather than there sikhism, Bhai Taru Singh.

Kesh are integral part of sikh, As said : Kesh guru dee Mohar hai", Keeping Kesh is just the first step, only Gurbani is what converts a sikh to gursikh. A sikh must be free from Kaam,Krodh, lobh etc, everyone knows. So if you are cutting your hair and still considering yourself a sikh it is just an illusion.

Just a question for Mona sikh, most people cut hairs for impressing girls, being socially accepted, So called medical reasons and there are thousand excuses, only excuses. So what is your excuse, The truth is you are not strong enough to be considered as a sikh.

As said in bani "sawat surat rab dee, bhande bayemann".

The Pure form is of God,Dishonest person Destroys it, if you are not honest to God then why do you want to be considered as sikh.

Just a question to my Sikh friends why we are trying to be appease the Patit, when they have wishfully rejected our religion, and do not care about teachings of Guru Gobind Singh and consider company of girls better then Guru. We always try to protect them why?????????????????

It is better to have few gursikhs in Sikhism then millions of Patits, as we are answerable to only our God.

You must admit there is weakness in there character as they give up there religion for wordly things.I am nowhere to judge a sikh and a mona, only saying a person who cuts kesh is not sikh.He may be a good person but not a sikh.

And if i hurt any sikh please forgive me and tell me where i am wrong.

ate ant wich main raab age ardass kada hain, ke mere bhulle bharavan nu sahi rasta dikhave.

You sir, don't know what you're talking about. First of all, monay aren't patit. The term patit only applies to amritdharis who have committed a sin.

Sikhi doesn't live and die by kesh. You're making it sound like kesh is the only important aspect of sikhi. If I was going by your logic, then there are hardly sikhs in this world. Wearing a turban alone doesn't make you a sikh (using your logic here). By using your logic, if a sikh doesn't do his/her prayers, then he/she isn't a sikh anymore. If a sikh has ego, pride and is greedy, then he/she isn't a sikh anymore. I can keep on going here, but I will stop. All I am saying is that no one is perfect and everybody learns in his or her own pace.

ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥

गुर सतिगुर का जो सिखु अखाए सु भलके उठि हरि नामु धिआवै ॥

Gur saṯgur kā jo sikẖ akẖāė so bẖalkė uṯẖ har nām ḏẖiāvai.

One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru, the True Guru, shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name.

ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥

उदमु करे भलके परभाती इसनानु करे अम्रित सरि नावै ॥

Uḏam karė bẖalkė parbẖāṯī isnān karė amriṯ sar nāvai.

Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar.

ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥

उपदेसि गुरू हरि हरि जपु जापै सभि किलविख पाप दोख लहि जावै ॥

Upḏės gurū har har jap jāpai sabẖ kilvikẖ pāp ḏokẖ leh jāvai.

Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased.

ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥

फिरि चड़ै दिवसु गुरबाणी गावै बहदिआ उठदिआ हरि नामु धिआवै ॥

Fir cẖaṛai ḏivas gurbāṇī gāvai bahḏiā uṯẖḏiā har nām ḏẖiāvai.

Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name.

ਜੋ ਸਾਸਿ ਗਿਰਾਸਿ ਧਿਆਏ ਮੇਰਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਸੋ ਗੁਰਸਿਖੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥

जो सासि गिरासि धिआए मेरा हरि हरि सो गुरसिखु गुरू मनि भावै ॥

Jo sās girās ḏẖiāė mėrā har har so gursikẖ gurū man bẖāvai.

One who meditates on my Lord, Har, Har, with every breath and every morsel of food - that GurSikh becomes pleasing to the Guru's Mind.

ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਦਇਆਲੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਮੇਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਉਪਦੇਸੁ ਸੁਣਾਵੈ ॥

जिस नो दइआलु होवै मेरा सुआमी तिसु गुरसिख गुरू उपदेसु सुणावै ॥

Jis no ḏaiāl hovai mėrā suāmī ṯis gursikẖ gurū upḏės suṇāvai.

That person, unto whom my Lord and Master is kind and compassionate - upon that GurSikh, the Guru's Teachings are bestowed.

ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਧੂੜਿ ਮੰਗੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਗੁਰਸਿਖ ਕੀ ਜੋ ਆਪਿ ਜਪੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥੨॥

जनु नानकु धूड़ि मंगै तिसु गुरसिख की जो आपि जपै अवरह नामु जपावै ॥२॥

Jan Nānak ḏẖūṛ mangai ṯis gursikẖ kī jo āp japai avrah nām japāvai. ||2||

Servant Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself chants the Naam, and inspires others to chant it. ||2||

By the way, why are you saying "Sat Sri Akal"? The proper way of greeting a sikh is by saying "Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh" I guess this means you're not a sikh either. (using your logic here again)

[Punjabi_Link]

To rest of the people here, unless you’re a perfect Sikh, then you have no right question someone else’s sikhi.