Jump to content
Guest Jacfsing2

How Missionary Jatha Got Influence?

Recommended Posts

Guest Jacfsing2

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh! How exactly did the Missionary Jatha get it's influence especially among the majority of those who aren't Amritdhari? Is there a reason why true Gurmat is being attacked by our own people? Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Define missionary? are you talking about christian/muslim abrahmic missionaries? or a certain Sikh missionary org?

Google defines missionary as "a person sent on a religious mission, especially one sent to promote Christianity in a foreign country."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
8 minutes ago, genie said:

Define missionary? are you talking about christian/muslim abrahmic missionaries? or a certain Sikh missionary org?

Google defines missionary as "a person sent on a religious mission, especially one sent to promote Christianity in a foreign country."

Missionary as in "Professors", and "Sikh Missionary Colleges". (I know how the other "Missionary" gets influence and it says something about our failures). Darshan Ragi and others are the ones I'm referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Missionary as in "Professors", and "Sikh Missionary Colleges". (I know how the other "Missionary" gets influence and it says something about our failures). Darshan Ragi and others are the ones I'm referring to.

I think there's always been missionaries around giving their own interpretations of gurbani and sikh history. Thing is instead of excommunicating them (as spgc has done to some) or no platforming banning them or physically fighting them at functions and events ......an intelligent approach should be used to counter their arguments and views.

People are more easily influenced if they think the person has credible evidence. If they pulling things out of thin air they are less likely to be believed and followed.

As for missionaries, we should encourage them to focus their energies to target non-sikhs into bringing others into Sikhi rather than split the panth into different sects of beliefs.

Edited by genie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
16 minutes ago, Koi said:

The influence? .....tooooo much belief in their own intellect 

Faith of any kind isn't based on logic, but rather trust. And Guru's faith is based on humbling yourself and admitting you don't know anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem stems from the undermining of jeevan wale gursikhs who used to do nishkam sewa of Guru ji through daily granthi duties and kirtaniya duties from the start ...even back in the Ranjit Singh kingdom times they were being undermined by crafty brahmin dhongi Amritdharis that's how the dogrey got their feet under the table and the sikh generals were overlooked when advice was being given .

Now every Tarlochan, Daljeet and Harjinder thinks he knows better than actual rehitvaan gursikhs  and worships and hangs onto the words of every fake DR, Professor, or Phd  coming out of uni ... even in totally disparate fields e.g. engineering, medical etc

got really upset when someone of this ilk referred to Gursikhs as the frock brigade...

 

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Faith of any kind isn't based on logic, but rather trust. And Guru's faith is based on humbling yourself and admitting you don't know anything.

yep it is believe it then you see/feel/hear it not  see/feel/hear it then you will believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Faith of any kind isn't based on logic, but rather trust. And Guru's faith is based on humbling yourself and admitting you don't know anything.

Yes partially I agree with you. You deffo need to have faith in guru ji but to have faith you must have the right interruption of what guru ji said or did. If you have some wrong so called 'learned people' interrupting things wrongly then people will be misled away from the real message and real spiritual meanings.

So for example we have low IQ low educated people taking some verses in SGGS Ji as literal stuff instead of metaphors as its meant to be taken because gurbani is mostly poetry. And these low IQ people have caused so much trouble in the panth by being dogmatic and violent by saying only their way is the right way everyone else's interruption is heresy and wrong.

So where people are going wrong is at the interruption level. We see this in other regions and their sects too... our folk haven't learn't to debate it out peaceful rather they resort to slandering and violently attacking each other rather than sitting down and understanding what actually did Guru sahibians said or did through historical evidence and through verbally and written traditions,etc.

I am even surprised by some things basics of sikhi has been peddling which I disagree on a fundamental level but i would rather give my own interpretation/understanding of how I see it not by slandering or violently attacking basics of sikhi and its people but just giving my view of what Guru Ji is saying. Eg Guru Nanak is/was not God .... I gave my evidence in other thread..... and Guru ji didn't perform charan di phul with his feet for baptism (which is unhygienic and would put people off). The verses in gurbani are meant to be taken as metaphors not literally.

Edited by genie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a jatha, certainly not in the traditional sense of the word. Despite some of the recent negative connotations the term jatha has taken on, being in a jatha is still mostly a force for positivity, or at least it should be. I mean, if you view the entirety of the Sikh faith as a tapestry or a quilt, then each jatha can be said to contribute their own unique segment to said tapestry of the Sikh identity, which serves to enrich and strengthen the whole. That's the theory anyway, lol.

As for these so-called missionaries (i don't understand why this word is used in relation to the issue it's describing but I guess it's too late to change it), my theory is that it's a government black op which originated from the Indian state, designed to undermine and weaken the Sikh faith over the course of decades. They gave us the short, sharp shock in the 80's through state-sponsored pogroms against Sikhs. This current phase is ideological subversion; a much slower, barely detectable form of attack that ultimately shares the same desired outcome as the violence against Sikhs during the 80's and 90's. 

The purpose of creating controversy regarding DG bani was to cause fissures in the quom. The appeal of anti-DG sentiment lies in the fact that it's managed to ensnare some well-meaning, high profile individuals - some via Sikh ideological appeal, others through various material inducements - who've unfortunately fallen for the quite convincing lies and half-truths being promoted. Who the actual leaders and organisers are of this movement behind the scenes, and who are those who've been duped into representing it's public face amongst Sikhs is quite simple to recognise. I really think there are some well-intentioned people who, in their desire to do the right thing according to Sikhi as they see it, are susceptible to being drawn into these games.

As for why non-Amritdharis are generally the target demographic for the anti-DG brigade, i believe it's as i mentioned earlier: a plan to denigrate Gursikhi as a whole by equating Dasme Paatshah's bani - and eventually Dasme Paatshah himself - with certain beliefs that supposedly don't seem congruous with the all-encompassing ethos of Sikh philosophy.  The aim is to proliferate the belief that Dasme Paatshah and his bani is equated with certain negative and controversial subjects in Sikh theology, which will then cause Sikhs to assume, "Do i really want to become a Gursikh when the figurehead who created the Khalsa harbours these opinions and ideas?" If people are hesitant to take Amrit, that's the end of Sikh orthodoxy. Everyone eventually becomes secular Punjabis, or Sunday Sikhs at best. No resistance, no problems for India. The python that is Hindu statehood consumes another victim.

Doubt. That's the end objective. Create doubt in the minds of Sikhs. Once we begin to turn our back on Dasme Paatshah, then it really is the end for us. How do you stop the growth of Sikhi? By undermining and gradually destroying the Gursikhi he gave us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, genie said:

I am even surprised by some things basics of sikhi has been peddling which I disagree on a fundamental level but i would rather give my own interpretation/understanding of how I see it not by slandering or violently attacking basics of sikhi and its people but just giving my view of what Guru Ji is saying. Eg Guru Nanak is/was not God .... I gave my evidence in other thread..... and Guru ji didn't perform charan di phul with his feet for baptism (which is unhygienic and would put people off). The verses in gurbani are meant to be taken as metaphors not literally.

Let's put this guys IQ to the test of his logic.  According to this poster Charan pahul did not happen because people would be put off by drinking Amrit from the feet of the Guru as its not hygienic.  Lets apply the same reasoning to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji giving Amrit to Punj pyare.  Once the Amrit is prepared people come up one at a time and are given Amrit by the punj pyare hands.  If all of Amrit has not been consumed by the new Sikhs.  Then the Amrit is passed around until all of it is consumed.  This involves every Sikh to put their lips to the bhatte and take a sip from the same bhatte and pass it on to the next Sikh.  According to science sharing drinks/saliva is NOT hygienic.  By sharing drinks a person can get strep throat, hep B, mumps, common cold, herpes, mono, etc.  Through saliva transfer of these viruses and germs can be passed on to the person sharing the drink with you.  In an Amrit sanskar sometimes there are 100s of people taking Amrit at once. According to Mr. IQ this is also not hygienic. Poster Mahakaal is no longer the champions of stupidity.  Poster genie, poster Mahakaal gladly presents you with the Stupidity title belt. 200 years from now poster genie's great grandchildren would apply his logic and say Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji didn't give Amrit through Punj Pyare to people because it's not hygienic.  It wasn't literal, it was meant as a metaphor.  This poster must have been enrolled into Trump University.

Edited by Akalifauj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

According to this poster Charan pahul did not happen because people would be put off by drinking Amrit from the feet of the Guru as its not hygienic.  Lets apply the same reasoning to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji giving Amrit to Punj pyare.  Once the Amrit is prepared people come up one at a time and are given Amrit by the punj pyare hands.

Problem with your argument is that I didn't make the reference to khalsa initiation khande di pahul ceremony for a reason as its not taken from SGGS Ji,  it is you making that comparison. I specifically made the argument for charan di pahul ceremony because it was allegedly from SGGS Ji that such idea was dreamed up by people wrong interpretation of gurbani according to my understanding. Many people have questioned if there was such a baptism ceremony of Sikhs prior to Dashmesh pitta's Khande di pahul ceremony. According to what I have read and understood there wasn't the so called charan di pahul.

If you have read SGGS Ji you would know yourself vast majority is written in poetry and philosophical sense. When verses are mentioned about drinking guru's feet water it doesnt mean literally drinking it. It is ment to be taken in poetic sense.

Literalist's have proved they have low IQ and limited education because they cant understand the concept of metaphors. So they apply everything they read from gurbani as in literal sense like the abrahmic cults do with their quran's and bibles.

Edited by genie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our own so called Gurdwara committees put these people forward. Darshan Sin is coming to Fresno CA USA next week. To stir up trouble again some well known Gurdwara Fresno (Doctor wala), Selma CA and Caruthers are well known to sponser there trouble makers over at least 15 years. People like Kala Afgana, Ghagga, Bhupinder Sin etc. The termites exist among us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a jatha, certainly not in the traditional sense of the word. Despite some of the recent negative connotations the term jatha has taken on, being in a jatha is still mostly a force for positivity, or at least it should be. I mean, if you view the entirety of the Sikh faith as a tapestry or a quilt, then each jatha can be said to contribute their own unique segment to said tapestry of the Sikh identity, which serves to enrich and strengthen the whole. That's the theory anyway, lol.

As for these so-called missionaries (i don't understand why this word is used in relation to the issue it's describing but I guess it's too late to change it), my theory is that it's a government black op which originated from the Indian state, designed to undermine and weaken the Sikh faith over the course of decades. They gave us the short, sharp shock in the 80's through state-sponsored pogroms against Sikhs. This current phase is ideological subversion; a much slower, barely detectable form of attack that ultimately shares the same desired outcome as the violence against Sikhs during the 80's and 90's. 

The purpose of creating controversy regarding DG bani was to cause fissures in the quom. The appeal of anti-DG sentiment lies in the fact that it's managed to ensnare some well-meaning, high profile individuals - some via Sikh ideological appeal, others through various material inducements - who've unfortunately fallen for the quite convincing lies and half-truths being promoted. Who the actual leaders and organisers are of this movement behind the scenes, and who are those who've been duped into representing it's public face amongst Sikhs is quite simple to recognise. I really think there are some well-intentioned people who, in their desire to do the right thing according to Sikhi as they see it, are susceptible to being drawn into these games.

As for why non-Amritdharis are generally the target demographic for the anti-DG brigade, i believe it's as i mentioned earlier: a plan to denigrate Gursikhi as a whole by equating Dasme Paatshah's bani - and eventually Dasme Paatshah himself - with certain beliefs that supposedly don't seem congruous with the all-encompassing ethos of Sikh philosophy.  The aim is to proliferate the belief that Dasme Paatshah and his bani is equated with certain negative and controversial subjects in Sikh theology, which will then cause Sikhs to assume, "Do i really want to become a Gursikh when the figurehead who created the Khalsa harbours these opinions and ideas?" If people are hesitant to take Amrit, that's the end of Sikh orthodoxy. Everyone eventually becomes secular Punjabis, or Sunday Sikhs at best. No resistance, no problems for India. The python that is Hindu statehood consumes another victim.

Doubt. That's the end objective. Create doubt in the minds of Sikhs. Once we begin to turn our back on Dasme Paatshah, then it really is the end for us. How do you stop the growth of Sikhi? By undermining and gradually destroying the Gursikhi he gave us.

Missionary is a positive term we should create more missionaries to target non-sikh people and bring them into sikhi.

As for Indian Gov and the hindutva powers at play trying to split the Sikhs up over controversial issues have been with us for decades/years possibly centuries. The DG and Anti-DM crowds has been around for years. People are swayed by arguments and evidence not by violence and shutting down free speech and right to bring up controversial subjects. I think there needs to be decorum, where such controversial subjects are brought up they are debated in a respectful manor so that people on the opposition side are not made to feel they or what they hold as bani is disrespected.

That's why its always best to organise conferences where things can be discussed and understood between all the scholars, historians, professors so that a consensus can be reached instead of outsider powers dictating to us covertly via their paid agents what we should learn and teach our people.

Edited by genie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Honestly, I don't know. I will look into the matter and see if some answers comes up. Bear in mind I was talking about regular Sikhs. Not the Gurus themselves. Even if there was a fire, it wouldn't have been Vedic in any sense. Well the difference is in what is meant and being suggested. To them "fire" means the whole Vedic shebang and a return to it. One can equally call out practises from Vedic times which are now obsolete and say "lets return to them!" right back to these groups. It's not hard to concieve in reality that certain things remained similar but the intention of disucssing the matter is important. In the case of weddings, there is very little information. Guru Sahib rejected the janeu for example, to which there is a Sakhi and Bani attached. But it is not until Guru Ramdas Ji that Sikhs get their own ceremony, and again I will repeat I was deducing with regards to the use of fire. Lots of ambiguity. Maybe the couple did just stay sitting or standing whilst Laavan were read by Sangat, maybe not. As for Sikhs such as my great-grandparents, that was just a matter of circumstance. One cannot use that argument to promote a return to Vedic style weddings.   Yes I'm aware that within Hindu weddings it is indeed Agni Devta. But we are talking about Namdharis, and from what I have seen, there is no invocation from Rig Ved - that's what I'm saying, we assume that the fire present in a Kooka wedding is considered as Agni Devta when in actual fact to me, it seems as though it's....just a fire. Which really has no particular meaning per se; just a continuation of one aspect of the ceremony. They read Suhi Mahalla 4. A fire is only Agni "Devta" if one believes and invokes.  
    • the fed is lying to all of us https://www.peakprosperity.com/the-fed-is-lying-to-us/
    • I have a english pdf of Rig veda , the oldest scripture of Hinduism, the oldest of the 4 vedas ,  and perhaps the most revered .  It starts with a hymn praising Agni and asks it to reside over the 'straw and fodder' of the havan. HYMN I. Agni. 1 I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
      The hotar, lavishest of wealth.
      2 Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers.
      He shall bring hitherward the Gods. Looking at the index of the scripture , I am surprised , Agni is like everywhere in it almost. So , yes the marriage rites are basically asking Agni devta . "Agni devta" is the main witness of hindu marriage .    EDIT ---- A hymn in another mandal says  HYMN LIX. Agni. 1 THE other fires are, verily, thy branches; the Immortals all rejoice in thee, O Agni So , I think Agni may not be the "fire" as in flames, but rather the heat energy pervading the universe, be it in form of fire energy, metabolic heat in body, nuclear heat inside sun, power plants, etc or the latent fuel inside wood , etc. It basically refers to the "heat" form of god . I could be wrong though. and I don't think I have enough time to go through the vast expanse of the text . 
    • So during marriages of 4th guru onwards , they married by fire ? and that includes Guru Gobind singhji as well ?  I am genuinely curious because of the many claims made by RSS about "reminding sikhs of their past" , this is also one that one commonly encounters, that ancient sikhs and gurus married by fire and that it wasn't until those evil pesky britishers who drove a wedge between hindus and sikhs and voila Anand karajs started  Whats the meaning of 'laav ' ? perhaps it could mean something altogether then ?  Anyways , regardless , I would reckon Hinduism have had far, far more changes to it considering its almost 10 times older than sikhism is (500 vs 5000 !) . Hinduism is so old infact, that rig vedic deities like Indra, Asvins , Maruts,  etc are not even heard of today , let alone worshipped  Sikhi is more pristine in comparison in the turmoils of time. 
    • Just use this:
×

Important Information

Terms of Use