Bhai Hakikat Rai Wasnt a Sahajdhari

[BhagatBalmik]

A great article written by Dr. Sukhpreet Singh Udoke on Bhai Hakikat Singh. Some hindu organizations are promoting the idea that Bhai Hakikat Singh was not Amritdhari but a sahajdhari and wore a topi. Dr. Sukhpreet Singh answers back for the Sikh view. This was published in Sant Sipahi Magazine Sept. 2002

[Mehtab Singh]

[dalsingh101]

Sometimes I see such things as 'revisionist'.

Truth is that you meet a good few Amritdharis who appear to have issues with the idea of accepting prominent Sikhs of the past as being sehajdhari. Another example is the one of Bhai Nand Lal and the periodical controversy over his being Amritdhari or not that pops up.

Whether the above is a manifestation of this is another issue (I don't know?) but at some stage we should face the wider topic.

History shows us that Khalsa Amritdharis did remarkable things in the past - no one is ever denying that, but trying to write out sehajdhari contributions isn't on.

[BhagatBalmik]

Bhai Sahib

I believe its also mentioned in Bhatt Vehis that Hakikat Rai took Amrit and became a Singh. There is effort by some hindu groups to rewrite sikh history to show that Gursikhs like Bhia Mani Singh and Bhai Nand Lal Ji didn't take Amrit. Here is a great example of this http://www.info-sikh.com/PageRSS2.html

Also, about Bhai Nand Lal Ji does anyone know of any source that mentions if Bhai Sahib took Amrit so we can put this argument to rest. Waheguru

[Bijla Singh]

Another example is the one of Bhai Nand Lal and the periodical controversy over his being Amritdhari or not that pops up.

There is no controversy over Bhai Nand Lal Ji being a true Sikh of Guru Sahib. He had obtained Naam from Satguru and become a Sikh. Even before 1699, he was an Amritdhari because he had taken charan Amrit. His name along with Bhai Kanhaiya Ji are being misused by monas to justify their apostasy. Sehajdhari refers to someone who is a non-Sikh and slowly adopting the Sikh rehat. Term Sehajdhari after 1947 has been exploited to the extent of including monas and patits whereas this was never the case in the past.

Bhai Hakikat Singh is being misrepresented in the history to make him part of the Hindu society but the fact doesn’t change that he was a Sikh.

[dalsingh101]

What about Kaura Mal?

A respected Sikh who actually smoked - of all things!

That's not excuse smoking but another example of revisionism. Also about mona's excusing their apostasy. What about teh majority cowardly Amritdharis who NEVER put themselves forward when violent action needs to be taken against outsiders in the diaspora.

What kind of <edited> in a tiger skins are they?

[Bijla Singh]

What about Kaura Mal?

A respected Sikh who actually smoked - of all things!

1. Where is the evidence that he was a Sikh? Which source claims that he actually took Naam/Amrit?
2. Smoking is against Gurmat. One cannot be a smoker and a Sikh at the same time. Granted he helped Sikhs and he was respected by the Sikhs but that doesn’t make him a Sikh.

Your attempt to justify people’s anti-Gurmat behavior and practices as “Sikhi” and trying to define Sikhi based on history rather than Gurbani and Vaars is a clear example of revisionism.

What about teh majority cowardly Amritdharis who NEVER put themselves forward when violent action needs to be taken against outsiders in the diaspora.

What kind of fake jackasses in a tiger skins are they?

Completely irrelevant. Is this another attempt to justify your own apostasy? You think you can do better? Then take Amrit and lead by example rather than trying to look at others’ faults just to give yourself some consolation of your own weakness. Is there any rehatnama that advocates Sikhs to take violent actions or else they are apostates?

You fail to understand the fact that there is a fine line between making mistakes, taking wrong decisions etc. and committing bajjar kurehats. Latter makes one an apostate whereas the former doesn’t. This topic is about Bhai Hakikat Singh. Do you have any evidence to prove that he was a Hindu?

[dalsingh101]

Where is the evidence that he was a Sikh? Which source claims that he actually took Naam/Amrit?

Smoking is against Gurmat. One cannot be a smoker and a Sikh at the same time. Granted he helped Sikhs and he was respected by the Sikhs but that doesn’t make him a Sikh.

So I take it you think Rattan Singh Bhangu made that up or something?

Completely irrelevant. Is this another attempt to justify your own apostasy? You think you can do better? Then take Amrit and lead by example rather than trying to look at others’ faults just to give yourself some consolation of your own weakness. Is there any rehatnama that advocates Sikhs to take violent actions or else they are apostates?

Nope, COMPLETELY relevant. It says a lot that pub brawlers types have to defend the Sikh community these days and people like yourself hide behind dogma as if it will cover up your own weaknesses.

The point being made regards people's failings - there are a lot going on - and if we are going to point fingers (fair enough) , lets widen the context to get a truer picture of what is going on in terms of abject failures of meeting what being Sikh entails. That old game of dogmatic types to hide behind their physical form and castigate those who fail in this department whilst cowardly ducking any action requiring some courage and risk, whereas those being condemned as apostates and whatnot step up like MEN is an issue that rears its head periodically and needs to be nailed at the outset.

[Bijla Singh]

So I take it you think Rattan Singh Bhangu made that up or something?

You did not address my points.

It says a lot that pub brawlers types have to defend the Sikh community these days and people like yourself hide behind dogma as if it will cover up your own weaknesses.

You are sidetracking the discussion here. Let’s assume I am weak and hiding behind my computer (even though you have not presented any evidence), how does that make a mona a Sikh? How does that make you a better person? You have not presented any evidence to show that Amritdharis are not defending the Sikh community and the Panth now has to rely on “pub brawlers”. I commend those who stand up but that doesn’t make them Sikhs.

lets widen the context to get a truer picture of what is going on in terms of abject failures of meeting what being Sikh entails.

The first thing for you would be to look at yourself and then point at others. You seem to have problem with the fact that an Amritdhari is a Sikh and not anyone else. Those who take Amrit and fail to keep any rehat are no different if not worse.

That old game of dogmatic types to hide behind their physical form and castigate those who fail in this department whilst cowardly ducking any action requiring some courage and risk, whereas those being condemned as apostates and whatnot step up like MEN is an issue that rears its head periodically and needs to be nailed at the outset.

Once again, you are defending monas like they are all angels and true heroes. It is foolish to categorically call them good based on a few good men. At the same time, you are categorizing all Amritdharis as cowards. Where is the evidence? Even if I assume for the sake of argument that Amritdharis are not showing enough courage, it does not make monas Sikhs. Amritdharis being weak does not support the argument of monas being Sikhs. An apostate will always be an apostate regardless of his courage. Not too long ago, majority of the Panth was Amritdhari and when things changed, the majority became apostates and the sad affairs of the community are in front of us. It is Gurbani that defines a Sikh and one who commits bajjar kurehat is not a Sikh. Those who deny this fact turn their back on Gurbani which is not the character of a Sikh.

I do not mean to say that monas are bad or inferior people or Amritdharis are better and superior. My simple point is that Bhai Hakikat Singh was a Sikh and those who commit bejjar kurehats are apostates whether they are courageous or cowards is irrelevant.

[dalsingh101]

The first thing for you would be to look at yourself and then point at others.

<edited> Try taking that advice yourself.