Jump to content

Bhai Hakikat Rai Wasnt a Sahajdhari


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

<edited> Try taking that advice yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use