Missionaries

[NaamTiharoJoJape]

What are missionaries? are they sant samajis? are they freelance and independent parchariks not affiliated with any puratan sampardayi/panthic organzation? are there any good missionaries? I have mostly heard bad stuff about these guys and they are usually a negative connotation. was singh sabha missionary? was bapu teja singh bhausaria the first missionary or so (was he one)? are most missionaries basically shankadharis and faithless folks like baljeet dehli, harjinder uk, neki (more of a commentator), dhadhrI? 

waheguru jio 

[intrigued]

Sikh Missionaries nowadays have a negative connotation in the panth. They are not puratan and majority don't believe in simran. They do ninda of Dasam Bani and often are Abrahamisized.

[dallysingh101]

9 hours ago, NaamTiharoJoJape said:

What are missionaries? are they sant samajis? are they freelance and independent parchariks not affiliated with any puratan sampardayi/panthic organzation? are there any good missionaries? I have mostly heard bad stuff about these guys and they are usually a negative connotation. was singh sabha missionary? was bapu teja singh bhausaria the first missionary or so (was he one)? are most missionaries basically shankadharis and faithless folks like baljeet dehli, harjinder uk, neki (more of a commentator), dhadhrI? 

waheguru jio 

 

3 hours ago, intrigued said:

Sikh Missionaries nowadays have a negative connotation in the panth. They are puratan and majority don't believe in simran. They do ninda of Dasam Bani and often are Abrahamisized.

I think the missionaries are simply the logical conclusion of trends started during colonialism. It's this weird mix of Protestantism, Victorian prudery,  logic and rationality with a Sikh outside casing. I don't blame them btw, they are just the products of (as mentioned before) politically motivated, western paradigms and frameworks being imposed on Sikhs after the dubious 'annexation'. I think essentially such an approach makes one (to paraphrase an old school english saying) unable to see the woods for the trees.  If you've been mentally conditioned this way, it's hard for some to shake it off. 

@intrigued I don't know what makes you say they are puratan (??) unless you mean 'puritan' as opposed to the Panjabi word puratan indicating something with an old provenance.  

[intrigued]

11 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

 

I think the missionaries are simply the logical conclusion of trends started during colonialism. It's this weird mix of Protestantism, Victorian prudery,  logic and rationality with a Sikh outside casing. I don't blame them btw, they are just the products of (as mentioned before) politically motivated, western paradigms and frameworks being imposed on Sikhs after the dubious 'annexation'. I think essentially such an approach makes one (to paraphrase an old school english saying) unable to see the woods for the trees.  If you've been mentally conditioned this way, it's hard for some to shake it off. 

@intrigued I don't know what makes you say they are puratan (??) unless you mean 'puritan' as opposed to the Panjabi word puratan indicating something with an old provenance.  

Oops i don't even know what I was trying to say. I edited it. I was prob saying they are against the puratan sampardais and stuff. Sometimes I type faster than I think lol

 

One thing's for sure they are definitely not puratan! 

[NaamTiharoJoJape]

Just now, intrigued said:

Oops i don't even know what I was trying to say. I edited it. I was prob saying they are against the puratan sampardais and stuff. Sometimes I type faster than I think lol

 

One thing's for sure they are definitely not puratan! 

so basically from the responses ive gotten from you and other veerji that these guys are ultra reformers 

abrahmic influenced folks who dont believe in a vast ammoount of gurmat that happens to tie in with vedic/indic beliefs 

hard to get these folks back at this point lol

k singh khalsa has some good videos on countering these people though 

[dallysingh101]

44 minutes ago, NaamTiharoJoJape said:

so basically from the responses ive gotten from you and other veerji that these guys are ultra reformers 

abrahmic influenced folks who dont believe in a vast ammoount of gurmat that happens to tie in with vedic/indic beliefs 

hard to get these folks back at this point lol

k singh khalsa has some good videos on countering these people though 

I don't think it's that hard. What they say would strike any one who is reasonably informed, and has some degree of intelligence and is in touch with their roots as obviously ridiculous.

Problem is that reformist movements had a heavy sway on minds because they produced so many pamphlets and tracts etc. historically.  So if you're inclined to simplistic binary thinking (duality inclined - which I think many if not most people are?), this simplistic stuff would appeal to you. If you see things in black and white, they'll reinforce your existing beliefs. Plus how many of our quom are essentially (at least) borderline unparh pendus! How are they going to get their heads around such things without falling into a ditch?

And I don't think it's good to describe Sikhi as 'tying in' with Vedic or Indic beliefs, rather, Sikhi has used metaphors and analogies from these sources to elucidate it's own truth.  Remember just the simple use of language like that was enough to whip duality inclined minds into a frenzy to reform away to insane levels, throwing the baby out with the bath water and whatnot. That's probably what gave Bhausaria the 'dohray' to try and remove bhagat bani from Maharaj ji! lol

 

PS - If you don't mind me asking, where in the US are you? 

[intrigued]

Karminder Singh PhD is a good example of the missionaries