Dont Judge Mona Guys And Girls

[britiah sikh lad]

Many of todays british singhs used to be mooner certianly alot of isyf were.

[dalsingh101]

Ok, I am going to try and respond to your post. But make sure you understand that I have full respect for true puratan Khalsas. I don't see much resemblance between many of those claiming to be Khalsas today and those that upheld the panth throughout the first half of the 1700s, who I see as the true Khalsa. The main difference being political and military understanding that todays Khalsa doesn't seem to have. Those Khalsas had realistic strategies and undying courage and a desire to rule. As far as I can see the Khalsa lost that after the Anglo-Sikh wars and most became subservant to the British. Those nihungs who escaped to Deccan or wherever also lost grip of hakikat (reality) and are very much powerless now. Bjut don't get me wrong, I'm increasingly aware of my own shortcomings but amritdharis pushing people away whilst being ready to accept their offerings at weddings, akhand paaths and golak is crap. Also being amritdhari today is no guarantee of goodness. Our political institutes in Punjab are full of amritdharis and are about as low and corrupt as you can get. Most monay wouldn't stoop to the levels those people have. I have a feeling we wont agree on much but for what its worth:

"I think you're wrong. Joining the Khalsa, from the very beginning, was a voluntary move.

I would like to see the proof from Gurbani, Vaaran and other credible sources such as Rehatnamas. "

First thing, mention of the Khalsa as your suggesting (khande pahul) doesn't exist in vaaran and Gurbani. Vaaran were written in 5th and 6th Gurus time.

‘Oh Kabir, they have become Khalseh, those who have known love of devotion to God.’

SGGS, Bhagat Kabir

Gurbani says a Sikh is:

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||

As for rahits. If we are to use them, what about all of the strange unSikh like stuff that is usually contained and whitewashed when they are being quoted. You show me a rahit that is proven to be written in the time of Dasmesh Pita or even an old one that doesn't have stuff we would raise our eyebrows at today.

"Besides in at least one case (Diwan Kaura Mal) someone who was a mona Sikh (thats right) gave crucial support to the Khalsa against the Moghuls. Do you think this was the only guy like this? Do you think Khalsas didn't help from ordinary Panjabis in their hour of trial?

Being a mona and helping Sikhs doesn’t make anyone a Sikh. Gani Khan and Nabi Khan and Pir Buddhu Shah also helped Sikhs but they themselves were not Sikhs. Sikhs helped hindu community and saved their women. Does that make those Sikhs hindus? Absolutely not. Diwan Kaura Mall was not a Sikh. Back in those times Sehajdhari was he who could not completely abandon hindu rituals and was not ready to join Sikhi. Sehajdhari refers to those who were slowly becoming Sikhs from other religions such as Hinduism and islam. Conversation of sehajdharis with Guru Sahib also shows that Guru Sahib wished them to become Khalsa which was not an optional move otherwise Sikhs like Bhai Taru Singh Ji would’ve cut their hair and still considered themselves Sikhs."

What conversations are you talking about here between Guru Sahib and sehajdharis? You seem very knowledgeable so I'm sure you know that some of Dasmesh Pitas surviving Hukums sent to Southern India where addressed to peopel named Meehar Chand and Karam Chand (not Singhs) and Guru ji refers to them as his Khalsa. I think a Hukum sent way back by Chevvin Padshah also refers to the sangat as Khalsa. How do explain this?

"Read some extracts from Rattan Bhangus work. Sehajdharis have always been here. Always will. Its only your egos that make you differentiate.

They have been there but never considered Sikhs. Guru Sahib did not make two different type of Sikhs. Can you point to a single reference that pertains to sehajdhari rehat and khalsa rehat as two different things? I am simply talking about Sikhi. By attacking me personally it shows who is the intolerant one."

I apologise if I sounded intolerant. But the sehajdhari rehat you are talking about is the one that is quoted from SGGS ji above.

"If it got messy and you were being hunted down like dogs you would be grateful for any help you would get. Read also the story of Sukha Singh (who slew Massa Ranghar with Mehtab Singh) prior to taking amrit he would help hide Singhs.

Once again, helping Sikhs did not make anyone Sikh.

You need to find sources that state that becoming Khalsa is optional, and rehat of sehajdharis. Those who claim such are not only ignorant but also directly attacking Sikhi. Guru Sahib gave his roop to Khalsa not to anyone else. Were there any misl of monay? How many monay were beheaded to receive rewards? It is you who need to contemplate on Sikhi first. Sikhi is defined by Gurbani and rehat of Guru Sahib not on jeevans of individuals."

Here we can agree that no monay were sacrificed like that. But also bear in mind that Ala Singh's misl was subserviant to sullay and not part of the Dal Khalsa. Also that drug taking was common with some misaldars (i.e. bhangi). There are a few European sources that record Khulasa and Khalsa Sikhs in the way we would describe monay and Amritdhari today. I will have to dig them up .

BUT - Look it isn't my aim, intention or desire to knock amritdharis. Just they don't hold the key to the entrance of the panth. Don't even try and think your in the league of puratan Singhs because you've taken amrit. And from what I've seen - when the crap hits the fan on a street level - say with the conversion thing - it is many monay who have displayed the truth Khalsa bravery style of directly confronting dushhts.

Its late, got to get some sleep now!

Hope i didn't cause any offence. We'll talk more later.

[Barjinder Singh]

wat i feel is that more than knowledge matters its implementation in our daily life...

even if monas have more knowledge than us about sikhi... its of no use as they can't implememnt it in their life.....

[Fruity]

wat i feel is that more than knowledge matters its implementation in our daily life...

even if monas have more knowledge than us about sikhi... its of no use as they can't implememnt it in their life.....

With all do respect to your opinion, i think the original poster wanted to state, that irrespective of whether sehajdhari's have more or less knowlege of sikhi than amritdhari sikhs, it is not our position to judge them or vice versa? Each to their own i guess. I guess it is also down to personal choice of which path you choose to take also, i don't think theres an intrinsic right or wrong, you just do what is right for yourself.

Forgive me if ive offended anyone.

[Guest Papi]

PrIdw mnu mYdwnu kir toey itby lwih ]

fareedhaa man maidhaan kar ttoeae ttibae laahi ||

Fareed, flatten out your mind; smooth out the hills and valleys.

AgY mUil n AwvsI dojk sMdI Bwih ]74]

agai mool n aavasee dhojak sa(n)dhee bhaahi ||74||

Hereafter, the fires of hell shall not even approach you. ||74||

mhlw 5 ]

mehalaa 5 ||

Fifth Mehla:

PrIdw Kwlku Klk mih Klk vsY rb mwih ]

fareedhaa khaalak khalak mehi khalak vasai rab maahi ||

Fareed, the Creator is in the Creation, and the Creation abides in God.

mMdw iks no AwKIAY jW iqsu ibnu koeI nwih ]75]

ma(n)dhaa kis no aakheeai jaa(n) this bin koee naahi ||75||

Whom can we call bad? There is none without Him. ||75||

Here bhagat fareed ji shakrganj is saying that o freed, make the field of your mind plain. dont look at someone as high (hill) and another one as low (valley), think of everyone as the same (plain). even though there are people that are high and low, its not your job to see that. its not your postition to judge them. if you are able to see everyone equally then here after you shall not goto hell.

If we read the salok in isolation, it causes much confusion as there is no hint given by fareed ji about what he means by hills, vallies and plains. To clarify this salok, dhan guru arjan dev sahib jee has added a salok of his own, which is the explanation of bhagat ji's salok. o fareed, creation and the creator are both intertwined, one is not with out the other. so, how can we call someone bad and someone good, when waheguru resides in everyone.

another way to look at hills n vallies is this, when someone is on top of a hill, everyone looks lower and smaller. someone high on ego will always look down on others, while a person standing in a valley will always be lower and small than others. this raises an interesting dilemma, because we are told be lowest of the low. skipping this for a moment, bhagat jee clearly states that we shoudln't be high on ego and look down upon everyone and we also shouldn't be boosting other's.

now, this is intersting, why is standing in a valley, being lower than everyone, not considered good? or am i in LA LA LAND again !!! :lol:

[Birmingham Misl Soldier]

YOU GOTTA VALID POINT PAPI PAJI, ACTUALLY MORE THAN VALID..

[dalsingh101]

Watch, the day we all overcome differences, see how powerful we will become in no time. Instead we have so much energy and talent in the panth that is wasted clashing between each other instead of against people who ARE plain out to knock us down in various ways.

[just a soul]

Good post, this is definatly an issue we need to discuss more often. Although i am now amrithari, i too felt i was "looked down upon" and judged when i hadn't taken amrit. I always like to hear people's opinions on sikhi as i am forever trying to learn and understand as much info from as many people- this one guy blatently underestimated my knowledge from my external appearance, started quoting some bani, but didnt know the remainder of the quote- i did- but i remained quiet. We've already established we shouldn't judge but do you really think we'll all just stop because we've said so on this forum? We need to be more active and encourage more moneh to programmes and make them feel welcomed, i certainly didnt feel welcomed when i used to come programmes, almost an outcast, well actually, yeah, an outcast. Not that i really cared coz i continued going, but there are people that find an environment where there are 95% amrithdari's at a programme very very intimmidating.

Someone i kno recently took amrit too, they had been into sikhi for quite some time, attending programmes etc. When they took amrit, a whole bunch of amritdhari folk came over to say fateh and congrats etc, made them feel really welcomed. Something which made my ears perk up was the fact that they'd said we've seen you at programmes before, but yet they've never said hello or greeted them before. It's almost as though there is a club or a secret society where they only say fateh and welcome into a clique once taken amrit, even tho, rehit wise and mentallity wise, they're the same person. So it's really down do please don't judge a book by it's cover.

My point being- we should be more active and try to reach a wider audience encouraging and welcoming a wider range and levels of Sikhs into sangat.

Pul chuk mafh.

WJK WJF

[2desi]

Isn't the whole point of being Keshdharree so people will judge you but in a positive way??? I mean being Keshdharree is apart of the Sikh Identity, and its supposed to be that when people see a Sikh of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, those people will immediately realize that the Sikh doesn't smoke or touch tobacco, doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs, doesn't cut his/her hair, doesn't lie, will never steal, a firm believer in human equality, is a devotee of One Formless God, recites the Name of God and encourages others to do the same......

Like when I go to restaurant or a fast food place like Subway, the people working there already know that I want a vegi sub before I even say anything (I'd say 90% of the time they do this) even though I never met them before. I go to a Apna Pizza restaurant and the person working there won't even ask if I want vegi pizza, they already know by looking at me.

When I was in high school, the teacher was going around the class asking people which religion they followed and said "I don't how many Hindus, Muslims, Christians, or Buddhists are in this class but I know there are at least two Sikhs." Me and my buddy Gurp were easily identified because of our Dastars and beards. In Uni its the same thing.

I believe the every person should be treated equally and that we are going to "judge" or assume people to be a certain way at first glance but we need to work past this.

The problem I have is that when "monay" who smoke, and drink, when asked their religion reply "I'm a Sikh" (the problem is not with this), then when person asks "Why do some Sikhs keep their hair and have turbans but others don't?" the "monay" reply "those guys over religious or too religious"

Its the same thing with "Sardaran De Mundey" who have dastaars but trim their beards, smoke and drink, they also say "those Singhs don't smoke or drink because they are over religious".

Its these people that are spreading the word that it is acceptable to drink, smoke or do drugs. I don't care if a person is a "mona" (got a lot friends that are) but I don't like the fact that a lot of "monay" try to make it seem that drinking and smoking is acceptable in Sikhi.

Any mistakes??? Please forgive me :closedeyes:

[Bijla Singh]

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.

During Mughal Empire word “Khalsa” was used for a specific territory or land that was directly controlled by the emperor. Guru Sahib used the word Khalsa for his Sikhs for many reasons. First, “Khalsa” is an army of God signifying that command of Khalsa is in direct hands of Waheguru. Second, there used to be many masands (agents) whom sangat gave their dasvandh. Since Guru Gobind Singh Ji ended the masand practice and ordered Sikhs to bring their offerings themselves it meant that all of the sangat became in direct control of Guru Sahib. This is why when Guru Sahib sent hukamnamas to sangat of particular area he wrote “….ki sangat mera Khalsa hai” meaning that sangat of that area was managed and controlled by none other (masands) but Guru Sahib. This was also written in another form as “…guru ka ghar hai”. Hukamnamas to Karam Chand, Gulal Chand and to other people reveal that the word Khalsa was used in the context of “direct control or managed”. All of such hukamnamas talk about offerings of money and other sources to Guru Sahib directly and not through masands. Having names like “Chand, Rai” etc does not mean that they were monay. Keep in mind that Guru Sahib never referred to Amritdhari Khalsa as His own but of Waheguru. “Mera Khalsa” therefore has to mean “under my command/control”. Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji have also used the word Khalsa in the same context. Third, Khalsa is he who seeks freedom. Giani Kartar Singh has written meanings of Khalsa in Persian and I suggest you read up on it.

So whenever the word “Khalsa” is used we need to look at the context it is used in to better understand its correct meanings. Gurbani has many words that have multiple meanings. For example “Amrit” can mean milk at one place and food at another. Therefore, to think that whenever Guru Ji wrote “Khalsa” he referred to Sikhs is uneducated. If you really want to the definition of Khalsa at an individual level then I suggest you read Khalsa Mahima. I believe you will not have any doubt left that monay are not Sikhs.

Hukamnama of Baba Banda Singh refers to Amritdhari individuals as “Khalsa of Akal Purakh”. He was a pooran gursikh of Guru Sahib and well acquainted with Sikhi. He would not have contradicted Guru Sahib by calling Amritdhari Sikhs “Khalsa”. Mata Sundar Kaur Ji has also done the same. Why would Guru Sahib claim hair to be his “seal” and give hukam to keep it in one hukamnama and then refer to monay as his Khalsa in another? Do you really believe Guru Sahib would contradict Himself? Absolutely not.

After Amrit Sanchaar of 1699 there were many Sikhs who had not taken Amrit but were slowly brought in the fold of Khalsa. Guru Sahib never made it optional and why would they? For what reason? Why would Guru Sahib create a split in the panth? Guru Sahib has stated that He established Khalsa by the Hukam of Waheguru. Hukam means an order which must be obeyed, hence, leaving no room for options. Sikhi is the path of submission not options. Baba Banda Singh was given Amrit by Guru Sahib. Why didn’t Guru Sahib just accept his Sikhi “of heart”? Simply because there was no option ever given to Sikhs to choose between being mona or Khalsa. Khalsa is a Sikh and Sikh is Khalsa.

Prior to 1699, Amrit in the form of Charna Amrit was given to Sikhs. The reference is found in Vaaran. Whoever wanted to become a Sikh was given Amrit and rehat. According to Bhatt Vahis Guru Harrai Sahib commanded the Sikhs to “keep hair, wear turban and abstain from tobacco”. Guru Gobind Singh Ji only changed Charan Amrit to Khanday Da Amrit and gave the authority to Panj Pyaras to administer Amrit because practice of “Deh Guru” was coming to an end and there would’ve been no more “charan of Guru”. Taking Amrit signifies obtaining Naam and becoming Guru-wala. Gurbani is clear that without obtaining Naam from Guru (Satguru) no one will ever achieve salvation. The Shabad you quoted also proves this point. A Sikh is supposed to wake up at Amrit vela and do naam japp. How can an individual do naam japp without knowing what gurmat naam is and without knowing how to meditate upon it? And more importantly how do monay obtain naam without becoming guru wala? The Shabad does not mention anything about sehajdhari. Many rehats such as respecting Gurbani, waking up at amrit vela, doing naam japp, seva, keeping arms, opposing caste and idol worship and worshipping only Akal Purakh had long been in practice before establishment of Khalsa. To even think that these rehats were only for monay is utter foolishness. Bhai Gurdas Ji says that a Sikh follows Gursikhi. Gurbani says that a Sikh is he/she who follows the hukam of Guru Sahib and only then will he/she be accepted in the house of Guru. Guru Sahib spent 240 years to unite the humanity by showing them one true path to salvation. He created one Panth (not two) and gave one Gurbani, one lifestyle and hukam to worship only One.

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 lions”. 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. The Bhagatratnavalee includes a conversation between the Sahajdharis and Guru Gobind Singh in which the Sahajdharis seem to differentiate between themselves and Sikhs or the Khalsa. Let me know if you want more details on this.

Rehatnamas such as Desa Singh, Chaupa Singh and Daya Singh clearly outline the rehat of Khalsa whereas not a single source talks about sehajdharis. Anti-Sikhi elements can easily be disregarded when compared to Gurbani and other sources. In Sikh tradition, Sikh history and rehat was passed down orally. Amrit ceremony and rehat has always been oral or seena baseena. However, there are numerous accounts such as Bhatt Vehis, bansavali nama, and other records that prove that only Khalsa rehat was in practice and mandated by Guru Sahib. The Bhatt Vehi Multani Sindhi Pargana Thanaysarâ is described by Piara Singh Padam as the oldest account of this event :

Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, tenth Guru, son of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji, in the year 1752 on Tuesday-the Vaisakhi day-gave Khande ki pahul to five Sikhs and surnamed them as Singhs. First Daya Ram Sopti, Khatri resident of Lahore stood up. Then Mohkam Chand Calico printer of Dawarka; Sahib Chand barber of Zafrabad city; Dharam Chand Jawanda Jat of Hastinapur; Himmat Chand water carrier of Jagannath stop up one after the other. All were dressed in blue and he himself also dressed the same way. Hookah, halaal, hajaamat, haraam, tikka, janeu, dhoti were prohibited. Socialisation with the descendants of Prithi Chand, followers of Dhirmal and Ram Rai, clean shaven people and Masands was prohibited. All were given Kangha, Karad, Kesgee, Karhaa, and Kacheraa. All were made Keshdhaaree. Everyone’s place of birth was told to be Patna, of residence as Anandpur. Rest, Guru’s deeds are known only to the Guru. Repeat Guru Guru, the Guru will help everywhere.

I hope it is clear now that monay are not Sikhs. A Christian is a follower of Jesus, Muslim if a follower of Mohammad and a Sikh is follower of Guru Sahib. Do other religions have options? No. Why is it that a non-punjabi has to take Amrit to become a Sikh whereas a Punjabi, who drinks, eats tobacco and never practices any rehat can call himself a Sikh? Only when a person takes Amrit does he become Guru wala, son of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and Mata Sahib Kaur Ji, born of Patna Sahib, and resident of Anandpur Sahib. Cutting hair is a cardinal sin for Sikhs and therefore, monay cannot be part of Sikhi. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh