How could they be Saints?

[Guest JSS]

deep singhji....

looking back...i think i too may have been confused...well at least right now i am....

i just always thought shabad roop= waheguru....but not sure right now....if anyone konws what terms belong where....please clarify

[Deep Singh]

deep singhji....

looking back...i think i too may have been confused...well at least right now i am....

i just always thought shabad roop= waheguru....but not sure right now....if anyone konws what terms belong where....please clarify

I think these articles give a good explanation:

http://www.gurbani.org/webart20.htm (SHABAD-NAAM-BANI-GURBANI: WHAT IS IT?)

http://www.gurbani.org/webart22.htm (REALIZATION OF THE SHABAD OR NAAM)

Kulpreet Bhaji, you have read these articles before...i can tell.

[Pheena]

1. A Sikh in general sense that everyone who seeks the creator with honesty is a Sikh. We are all Seekers and Learners. We are all Sikhs regardless of ones religion. In that sense All the bhagats were Sikhs. Because they all were Seekers of their Beloved and they found their beloved and became one.

Pheena jee, Sikh are those who follow the hukam of dhan guru sacchay patshah Guru Gobind singh jees of having naam simran and the saroop of panj kakkars.. not just learner and seeker makes one a sikh.

Hanji piyario that is why i said, there are 2 ways to look at it. You have spoken of the # 2 choice, the SGPC Rehit, and in that case Bhagats were not Sikhs, because they did not take Amrit. That is what the Orignal Poster has asked, that the Bhagats and the Saints were not Sikhs so why are their Writings included in the SGGS. The Question only could be derived from teh Rehit of the SGPC which says "only" the Amritdhari are Sikhs. So did the Bhagats, Saints take Amrit to become Sikhs?? If so then what about the Time Line of their Births and Deaths?

[Pheena]

Sat Sri Akal:

"he question was asked to the 5th Nanak, Are you Hindu or Muslim? He spoke He is neither, why not then at that point Guru ji say he is a Sikh??"

It would be remiss to not mention that the same light that was held by the physical frame of Guru Nanak was also present in the physical frame called Guru Gobind Singh, who took Amrit from the Panj Pyare and was immersed into the Khalsa Panth, along with the Sikhs. He was a member of the Khalsa Panth after that, just like the Sikhs who took, have taken and will take Amrit from the Panj Pyare.

As per the Bhagats, it would also be very important to mention that the teachings of the Bhagats were chosen by the Guru Sahiban to be included into the Guru Granth Sahib. These teachings were treasures that Guru Sahib merged into its Shabad Roop. Regardless of whether the Bhagats were Sikhs or not is really not relevant. What is relevant is that they were teachings that Guru Sahib included in the Guru Granth Sahib to guide the Sikhs. It was the Akali Bachan to the Panth to guide them to the true purpose of humanity. Guru Sahib never said the Bhagats were Sikhs or not...but Guru Sahib did say to follow the Guru Granth Sahib, to become Sikhs and to become part of the Khalsa Panth (a Mughal spy record the words of Guru Gobind Singh Ji urging those gathered to abandon their olden associations and confinements and to become part of the Khalsa Panth by taking Amrit and becoming siblin

gs). Therefore, the Guru Sahib led by his word and his actions.

If this moorakh has said anything wrong against Gurmat, Daas begs forgiveness.

I completly agree with the Second Paragraph veer ji. It truely is irrelivent, but the question still deserves an answer.

And ofcourse veer that the same light was present all thru the 10 Gurus. Now i beg the question that, Was it necessary for the 10th Nanak to take Amrit? Was not Guru ji pure (Khalsa) before and after the Amrit Shakking Ceremony? But instead would it not be reasonable to think that Guru ji took Amrit to show us or as you said, lead by actions and example. Amrit is for those Sikhs who are still trapped by Maya, but is it necessary to those who came to this world to Save the World? Such as Guru Gobind Singh Ji, or Bhagat Kabeer ji, Bhagat Tarlochan ji...etc??

Forgive me if i have misunderstood your reply. Please do correct me.

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Singh Sahib Ji, forgive this moorakh as he does not have Brahm-Gyan. The question of whether the Gurus or the Bhagats needed to partake of Amrit is not something that this moorakh will even consider answering. Daas is only addressing the point that Guru Sahib did indeed take Amrit and was, therefore, a Sikh of the Khalsa, Panth.

How a Sikh would become a being beyond the touches of Maya without Amrit (which is the committment and the initiation to the Sikh Path) is beyond this tiny mind, as to obtain the Guru's Grace, it would seem that becoming a Guru Ka Sikh would be vital. How that can be done without without Amrit is beyond me.

[Niranjana]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

Sadhsangat I have another Silly question

My question is Bhagat Sain, Bhagat Kabir, etc and other Bhagats, were not sikhs or had no religion and are mntioned in the Siri guru granth Sahib ji and even wrote in the Siri guru granth sahib ji, but they weren't sikhs! and so my question is how are they considered holy people or saints with no religion and didn't follow sikhi :wub: :T:

Gur Fateh!

Bhai Sahib, have a read of the Teja Singh Bhasauria literature and you can see for yourself how the line of thought you possess in raising this question is exactly what led to him ripping Bhagat Bani out of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

If you wish to know more about Teja Singh Bhasauria, a summary can be found in the Encyclopedia of Sikhism (Harbans Singh) and also he is referenced by Madan Singh in his article on R

aagmala (available on the Tapoban site).

[tableji]

Niranjana Singh Sahib Ji...read ur PMs lol

[Pheena]

Sat Sri Akal:

Singh Sahib Ji, forgive this moorakh as he does not have Brahm-Gyan. The question of whether the Gurus or the Bhagats needed to partake of Amrit is not something that this moorakh will even consider answering. Daas is only addressing the point that Guru Sahib did indeed take Amrit and was, therefore, a Sikh of the Khalsa, Panth.

How a Sikh would become a being beyond the touches of Maya without Amrit (which is the committment and the initiation to the Sikh Path) is beyond this tiny mind, as to obtain the Guru's Grace, it would seem that becoming a Guru Ka Sikh would be vital. How that can be done without without Amrit is beyond me.

oh Piyario, im a Singh only by a name, nor am i honorable enough to be called a Sahib. I do not claim that what i've said is brahm-gyan, but simply thoughts produced by this ego/mind. But somehow i 'feel' what you have expressed in words, and i'd like to leave this discussion where it is stands. It seems i have found my answer in the subtle humility being expressed by you. Somethings are better not to question and some are better not to have been given an answer.

Waheguru

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Daas retires his ranting...may Guru Sahib shine his Grace on us all.