ex sikhs are not sikhs

[dallysingh101]

7 hours ago, SinghPunjabSingh said:

@MisterrSingh 

I don't believe we share any mythological history with Hindu's.

Though Gurbani does make use of exclusively Hindu mythology in order to illustrate to pantheists that there is only One Ik Onkar that we need focus on.

Have you read Bachitar Natak? 

[californiasardar1]

17 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

@californiasardar1

What do you think of this?

 

 

 

 

The term "sehajdhari Sikh" was meant to refer to someone from a Hindu background who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a fully practicing Sikh. It is not meant to refer to monay born into keshdhari Sikh families (or families that have keshdhari Sikh ancestry).

The whole notion of a "sehajdhari" is someone who is a slow adopter but is in the process of adopting Sikhi. The term "sehajdhari Sikh" has been misinterpreted to suggest that just remaining a "sehajdhari" is some sort of legitimate form of being a Sikh. And as I said, it has been misinterpreted as referring to what we refer to as "monay."

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

 

The term "sehajdhari Sikh" was meant to refer to someone from a Hindu background who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a fully practicing Sikh. It is not meant to refer to monay born into keshdhari Sikh families (or families that have keshdhari Sikh ancestry).

The whole notion of a "sehajdhari" is someone who is a slow adopter but is in the process of adopting Sikhi. The term "sehajdhari Sikh" has been misinterpreted to suggest that just remaining a "sehajdhari" is some sort of legitimate form of being a Sikh. And as I said, it has been misinterpreted as referring to what we refer to as "monay."

You do know there are independent accounts from the late 1700s that refer to Khulasa Sikhs (as differentiated from Khalsa Sikhs) that directly correspond to what we'd call sehajdharis today. No one is under any illusions that the panj hathiar armed Khalsa form is central to Sikh identity and that dasmesh pita elevated Khalsas, but to ignore historical evidence isn't good. Kaura Mal is a well known historical sehajdhari for instance. 

Plus I think a lot of people would take what Bhai Jagraj Singh says with some seriousness. This is not someone who didn't undertake serious study and practice of Sikhi. 

[californiasardar1]

8 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

You do know there are independent accounts from the late 1700s that refer to Khulasa Sikhs (as differentiated from Khalsa Sikhs) that directly correspond to what we'd call sehajdharis today. Nooneis under any illusions that the panj hathiar armed Khalsa form is central to Sikh identity and that dasmesh pita elevated Khalsas, but to ignore historical evidence isn't good. Kaura Mal is a well known historical sehajdhari for instance. 

Plus I think a lot of people would take what Bhai Jagraj Singh says with some seriousness. This is not someone who didn't undertake serious study and practice of Sikhi. 

 

Did "Khulasa Sikhs" refer to khalsa Sikhs who got haircuts?

[dallysingh101]

4 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

Did "Khulasa Sikhs" refer to khalsa Sikhs who got haircuts?

No, that's a different thing all together - patit. People who take amrit and then break the kureits. 

[californiasardar1]

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

No, that's a different thing all together - patit. People who take amrit and then break the kureits. 

 

Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but the term "khulasa Sikh" seems to correspond to the definition I gave of "sehajdhari:" people born in Hindu families who had an affinity for Sikhi but had not transitioned to being keshdhari Sikhs yet. As far as I can tell, it does NOT refer to people born into keshdhari families who decided to become monay.

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but the term "khulasa Sikh" seems to correspond to the definition I gave of "sehajdhari:" people born in Hindu families who had an affinity for Sikhi but had not transitioned to being keshdhari Sikhs yet. As far as I can tell, it does NOT refer to people born into keshdhari families who decided to become monay.

I think it's broader than that. Plus I think there is a massive difference between a keshdhari and a committed amritdhari myself. I know plenty of keshdharis whose lifestyle is not remotely different from monay.  

[californiasardar1]

17 hours ago, SinghPunjabSingh said:

 

I did not agree with Deep Sidhu campaigning for SSM as I wanted Bhagwant Mann to defeat Congress and the Badals. Nor do I see Deep Sidhu as some sort of superhero. But one thing Deep Sidhu certainly was = a Sikh. A sehajdhari one yes but emphatically a member of the Sikh Panth and one who had done more for Sikh interests in the last 18months than you have.

So sehajdhari Sikhs are all denouncing Sikhi?

Does the mere fact that they are not Kesdhari at this point in time means they are denouncing Sikhi and have no connection to the Sikh Panth and hence no right to even turn up to the Gurdwara?

 

What did Deep Sidhu do for Sikh interests? Sorry, but farmers' interests are not equivalent to Sikh interests. If Sikhi is ever going to expand, it would be helpful if jatts stopped trying to pretend their interests and Sikh values/principles are one and the same.

As far as his impact on Sikhi, a generation of stupid Punjabis who are addicted to social media now think that as a Sikh is is perfectly okay to shave every day and cheat on your wife and have an extramarital affair because, after all, Sant Baba Shaheed Deep Sidhu did so! So Deep Sidhu has has a negative impact on Sikhi, which is less than my non-impact.

 

Sehajdhari Sikhs are declaring that they don't want to be identified as Sikhs. Maybe you should go ask them why.

Anyone can go to a Gurdwara. You know that. I don't know what point you are trying to make by bringing up that kind of hypothetical.

[californiasardar1]

17 hours ago, SinghPunjabSingh said:

Do you believe the Sikh community comprises 2% of the east Punjab population or just over half of the current population there? If you believe that Sikhs are only the 2% in Punjab (ie only those who are Amritdhari and Kesdhari like the Badal's) do the Sikhs really have any right to protest against Genocide? Have you ever complained about Genocide against Sikhs?

So should Sikhs give up without even trying to bother achieving something?

So if according to your definition Sikhs and moneh constitute 0.1% (1 in a 1000 Americans) of the American population and Sikhs such as myself and yourself constitute 0.01% (1 in 10,000 Americans) of the American population ... then surely logic would dictate that members of 0.01% demographic in the States would find it difficult to find a spouse from the same background as themselves. Would you not agree? And if so, is your strategy that Kesdhari Sikhs simply die out as a Qaum but criticise moneh harshly enough so that they never consider becoming future members of the Khalsa Panth due to your one man agenda of hating on them (as the RSS would like you to do)?

Do you not see that it suits the enemies of Sikhi just fine to define membership of the Sikh Panth as narrowly as possible in order to define Sikhs as small a demographic minority as possible?

So the Arabs of Mecca and Hindutva thinkers and Vatican chomo's all realise that the more inclusively you define a group the more power there is in numbers. But you sitting in sunny Cali think that by defining Sikhs as small and powerless demographic that it somehow helps your community and indeed yourself (in finding a spouse)?

 

What is your point in asking me all of these hypothetical questions?

 

There is essentially no future for keshdhari Sikhs.

How can keshdhari Sikhs have a place in the future when, even in a Sikh forum like this, everyone is passionately trying to normalize and legitimize hair cutting?

 

Every day I thank Waheguru that I will never marry and have children. Attempting to raise Sikh children in the future would be too difficult (certainly beyond the capabilities of someone like me). How on earth would I be able to convince children to move towards Sikhi when it has been declared that you can just be a "sehajdhari Sikh" (whatever that means) and not follow any rehat? How on earth would I be able to convince children to live like Sikhs when there is no community for them to be a part of?

[californiasardar1]

On 4/6/2022 at 6:38 AM, SinghPunjabSingh said:

Do you not see that it suits the enemies of Sikhi just fine to define membership of the Sikh Panth as narrowly as possible in order to define Sikhs as small a demographic minority as possible?

So the Arabs of Mecca and Hindutva thinkers and Vatican chomo's all realise that the more inclusively you define a group the more power there is in numbers. But you sitting in sunny Cali think that by defining Sikhs as small and powerless demographic that it somehow helps your community and indeed yourself (in finding a spouse)?

 

Wow, what a profound insight!

I am glad that more "liberal Sikhs" have taken the initiative to normalize interfaith anand karajs. This provides the basis for us start counting the Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Atheists who like turning up to the Gurdwara on their wedding day in an exotic costume to take part in an "exotic ceremony" as Sikhs! Look at how many people we can gain by being inclusive in this way! And while we are at it, we can automatically give membership to anyone who they are related to!

Also, why don't we count all Punjabi-speaking Hindus as Sikhs? After all, most of them have been to a Gurdwara at one point or another.

Actually, that gives me another great idea. Think of all of the random tourists who visit Harmandar Sahib every day! Many of them probably matha teked. And even if they didn't they probably held their hands together at some point (mimicking what others around them were doing). Since they showed such respect for Guru Ji, let's include them as Sikhs too!