Jump to content

Wer All Sikhs Pagh Wale?


shereepanjab
 Share

Recommended Posts

The problem is people read a few history books and think they know sikhi inside out. I think there's 2 groups. Theres those that will always live through the eyes of others, who will rely on reading someone elses interpretations and only adopt views which agree with theirs. And then there's those who experience it themselves and dont rely on others interpretations.

The biggest problem with sikhs today is they would rather accept someone elses opinion then search for the real answers which are within. For someone to claim that a mahapurash like bhai nand lal singh goya desecrated his kes is like saying bhai taru singh did not keep his kes. I think that people of a certain itellect asume they have the intelligence to make statements on Bhai Nand Lal Singh, that's the capacity of their intellect. As you progress in your Sikh jeevan a lot becomes clearer as our intellect becomes driven by gurmat and not manmat.

From my own life experiences I learnt that eventually as Sikh you have to keep your kes, take amrit and live in rehat. You cant move forward without doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

For someone to claim that a mahapurash like bhai nand lal singh goya desecrated his kes is like saying bhai taru singh did not keep his kes. I think that people of a certain itellect asume they have the intelligence to make statements on Bhai Nand Lal Singh, that's the capacity of their intellect. As you progress in your Sikh jeevan a lot becomes clearer as our intellect becomes driven by gurmat and not manmat.

Well said. Our "Sianpa", "Chaturai", fickle intelligence forces us to interpret and decipher what we want to as individuals. That’s why we fall in the trap of only reading scholars, historians or clerics views, a bit like the muslims have to in order to interpret the over elaboration of the Koran. At the end of the day we have the Guru’s Shabad and the GurMantar which can elevate us beyond the confusing interpretations or confusing views... if we so chose to accept that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my own life experiences I learnt that eventually as Sikh you have to keep your kes, take amrit and live in rehat. You cant move forward without doing that.

Let me clarify what I wrote earlier: not all Sikhs before the British invaded Punjab were amritdhari or keshadhari or 'pagh wale' That particular point is a fact just as it is today. Not every SIkh is an amritdhari or keshadhari. However, at no point did I say that you didn't need kesh or didn't need to take amrit on your life journey. You do! But you are kidding yourself if you believe that everybody in Punjab was keshadhari or amritdhari before the British invaded!! Many were, i'm not denying that. The names that we all know from history were such and countless more whose names we don't know too, I'm sure, and yes Bhai Nand Lal too! But every single person? That was what the original poster asked and I tried to answer.

Sarbloh, I can understand your feelings, but factually you were incorrect to use Sukhdev Singh Sukha and Harjinder Singh Jinda as examples. They were clean-shaven and cut hair young men when they joined the movement. Throughout their struggles they both kept and cut their hair, but towards the end of their journey's, still quite some time before they were hung, they did take amrit and keep their kesh. Were they Sikhs before they kept their kesh? I have no doubt they were. Is it vital for a Sikh to keep their kesh? Yes, but only when they yearn to do so from inside. Keeping kesh for the sake of it or as a general rule goes against the Sikh ethos: we don't get caught up in meaningless rituals and garbs.

I agree with the sentiments of the posters above, but disagree with the logic. I don't believe that keeping kesh and taking amrit is a means to an end, I believe that it is the ultimate culmination, vital to emancipation. Some of us do it earlier, fine, but what are we saying here? That anyone who does not keep kesh is not a Sikh? One of the previous posters has made that very statement. I vehemently disagree. No-one can tell somebody whether they are a Sikh or not. You neither have the right, nor the position. From a Worldly point of view you can, but that is meaningless to anybody other than the census researchers or grant authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my own life experiences I learnt that eventually as Sikh you have to keep your kes, take amrit and live in rehat. You cant move forward without doing that.

Let me clarify what I wrote earlier: not all Sikhs before the British invaded Punjab were amritdhari or keshadhari or 'pagh wale' That particular point is a fact just as it is today. Not every SIkh is an amritdhari or keshadhari. However, at no point did I say that you didn't need kesh or didn't need to take amrit on your life journey. You do! But you are kidding yourself if you believe that everybody in Punjab was keshadhari or amritdhari before the British invaded!! Many were, i'm not denying that. The names that we all know from history were such and countless more whose names we don't know too, I'm sure, and yes Bhai Nand Lal too! But every single person? That was what the original poster asked and I tried to answer.

Sarbloh, I can understand your feelings, but factually you were incorrect to use Sukhdev Singh Sukha and Harjinder Singh Jinda as examples. They were clean-shaven and cut hair young men when they joined the movement. Throughout their struggles they both kept and cut their hair, but towards the end of their journey's, still quite some time before they were hung, they did take amrit and keep their kesh. Were they Sikhs before they kept their kesh? I have no doubt they were. Is it vital for a Sikh to keep their kesh? Yes, but only when they yearn to do so from inside. Keeping kesh for the sake of it or as a general rule goes against the Sikh ethos: we don't get caught up in meaningless rituals and garbs.

I agree with the sentiments of the posters above, but disagree with the logic. I don't believe that keeping kesh and taking amrit is a means to an end, I believe that it is the ultimate culmination, vital to emancipation. Some of us do it earlier, fine, but what are we saying here? That anyone who does not keep kesh is not a Sikh? One of the previous posters has made that very statement. I vehemently disagree. No-one can tell somebody whether they are a Sikh or not. You neither have the right, nor the position. From a Worldly point of view you can, but that is meaningless to anybody other than the census researchers or grant authorities.

OK point taken, some of the famous Gursikhs that we know of were mona at certain times, we have seen that. However whenever we remember them we remember them in their GurSikh roop (yes that keshdari roop). Why the energy and focus on proving certain Gursikhs were specifically monay? What do you want to emphasise, that keeping kes is so difficult that one must be pure on the inside first. In reality this doesn't happen to most of us and keeping the outer form is the way of projecting our inner form.

The world views a Sikh in a certain way. A turban and uncut hair. What confuses the world is when we change the parameters in order to justify our own lifestyles. It's dangerous because it confuses people, it confuses our community. It's the fact that we don't have a united belief on many issues that we have fallen into these dark ages of confusion, where someone says drop the kes, or drop the kirpan or drop the nit-nem and we are willing to do that.

What do you want to gain by continuously highlighting Sukha and Jinda cutting their hair for certain reasons and not emphasizing at what state they were when they took their shaheedia? Why do you want to jump to conclusion that Bhai Nand Lal was a mona just because we cant see "Singh" in his signature or references. Why do you want to make out keeping kes is an obstacle rather than progessive? Maybe I am reading between the lines but certainly Dasmesh Regiment and Yourself seem to be adament on proving this theory, not just in this thread but in some others prior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you want to gain by continuously highlighting Sukha and Jinda cutting their hair for certain reasons and not emphasizing at what state they were when they took their shaheedia? Why do you want to jump to conclusion that Bhai Nand Lal was a mona just because we cant see "Singh" in his signature or references. Why do you want to make out keeping kes is an obstacle rather than progessive? Maybe I am reading between the lines but certainly Dasmesh Regiment and Yourself seem to be adament on proving this theory, not just in this thread but in some others prior.

I don't think I have made this statement elsewhere Rupinder, and I know that I have not continuously highlighted the issue of cutting one's hair. In my last post I made it clear in bold terms that keeping one's kesh is an important part of being a Sikh. In any case why so aggressive? Nobody is adamant in proving their theory. This is a discussion forum which means people can discuss different opinions and views. That is all we are doing :) Let's read the lines rather than looking between them for something, that most certainly in my case, simply is not there.

The world views a Sikh in a certain way. A turban and uncut hair. What confuses the world is when we change the parameters in order to justify our own lifestyles. It's dangerous because it confuses people, it confuses our community. It's the fact that we don't have a united belief on many issues that we have fallen into these dark ages of confusion, where someone says drop the kes, or drop the kirpan or drop the nit-nem and we are willing to do that.

I totally agree with what you have said here, but looking back to the question asked by the original poster I don't think that making baseless statements and looking at our short history nostalgically is the answer. Just one small example, Pir Buddhu Shah; how do we explain his role as a non-amritdhari Guru-ka-Sikh? Not everybody is able to attain the level of being an amritdhari, although that should be our direction! Not everybody has the genuine yearning inside of them to keep kesh, despite the divine knowledge gifted to us through contemplation of the Almighty that this is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut the communist crap. Kesh is foremost for a Sikh. We are not a bunch of sheep that we have to see and follow what others say. Pir Buddhu Shah was a sufi saint who admired Guruji. Tommorow people will say Aurangzeb was also a Sikh who got deviated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhai Nand Lal Ji a mona "are fantastic examples of non hair"

:LOLz:

Bhai Nand Singh Ji in Tankhah Naama :

This is the directive of Guru, that if the son of a Sikh shaves the head,

His posterity will be ruined, and if a shaven one becomes Sikh, his

descendants will flourish.

would a "mona" say this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut the communist crap. Kesh is foremost for a Sikh. We are not a bunch of sheep that we have to see and follow what others say. Pir Buddhu Shah was a sufi saint who admired Guruji. Tommorow people will say Aurangzeb was also a Sikh who got deviated.

Not everybody has the genuine yearning inside of them to keep kesh, despite the divine knowledge gifted to us through contemplation of the Almighty that this is the way to go.

I never made this discussion about not keeping kesh, merely pointed out the fact that many Sikhs did not and today do not keep their kesh. Whether this is because they think they know best, are following their own matt or are simply not ready is besides the point. Why get so het up when I have said the same thing you have ie. keeping your kesh is the way to go for a Sikh?! Perhaps answering the following question will resolve where we disagree. I believe that even if you don't keep kesh you are still a Sikh, albeit one who should be on the path towards keeping your kesh. Apne, if you don't keep your kesh can you be considered a Sikh?

ps I never said Bhai Nand Lal had cut hair, somebody else did in an earlier post :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use