This is an archive of past discussions about Sikhism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

From December 2002 to May 2006

EVIDENCE?

Did anyone think to back any of these claims with evidence?

Why is there not a single quote form the SGGS here?

Im too busy on the article on Guru Nanak to even start with this! --Balvinder 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

EK OM OR EK ON?

Why do you keep typing EK ON KAR? ON IS NOT A WORD. Its EK OM KAR. OMMMMM. In those days people said OOMMM NOT ONNNNN...again....ON IS NOT A WORD...ITS OM...AND STOP acting like Sikhism & Hinduism are 2 different religions. YOu leave out lots of facts on how there similar. 71.119.249.226 08:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For your information, your comment was never deleted. It was merely moved to an appropriate section - see Talk:Sikhism#Ek_Onkar_2. Please read the explanation there. When starting a new conversation, please use the '+' button near 'edit' and select a topic heading. Do not add your comments to the top of the page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism Is An Anti-Religion

"There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim"? "In front of God, all are equal?" Forgive me, but seeing as the term "Sikh" was not coined until well after Guru Gobind Singh's death indicates to me that the philosophy advocated by Guru Nanak is not one of "hey, let's create a new religion!" but rather "let's realise that religion causes only strife in the long run because it creates a sense of division". I was born a Sikh, and no Sikh can tell me that they don't have at least some gut feeling of "us" and "them". This feeling is wrong. When Guru Gobind Singh and his Sikhs fought, they weren't fighting for "Sikhism because it's Sikhism". They were fighting for "Sikhism because it is designed to uphold principles of equality and to not withstand tyranny against your right to believe". In other words, Sikhs are to the world what the Samurai were to their Emperor - we protect with selflessness. Kind of like a real life Jedi Order if you will.

But we've got so mixed up in symbols and 'identity' (forgetting what they actually mean and just using them to propagate yet more division between an "us" and "them" that shouldn't even exist) that we've become the very thing Guru Nanak probably hated more than anything - a religion.

Max314 20:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

THat is your interperation of what he said. During that time, The hindus and Muslims were trying to prove which religion is the only true one. By saying that, he didn't mean that the religions don't exist. It means that in GOd's eyes, what religion you belong to does not matter. Its what you do, and how you live your life that matters. THe true principles of religion, at that time, had dimished, and corrpution, and miscomprehension of religion had taken over. And as for guru Gobind SIngh, the Khalsa did not fight for Sikhism means that they did not fight for their personal profit, or ambitions. They fought to defend themselves, and others from the Mughal Empire. THe SIkhs were the ones who stood up to the tryanny.

UNtill you read the Guru Granth Sahib, and comprehend it, you shouldn't openly claim your false misconseptions.

Do you comprehend it ?

I tend to agree, with Max314 that is, my understanding is that there is only the religion of humans, I've read the Adi Granth and "God is the harmony of all the Forms and Names that man gives Him. Only those who are ignorant of God's glory will insist on one Name and one Form for His adoration and, what is worse, condemn the use of other Names and Forms. Why go on about proclaiming that you belong to a separate sect and are distinct from those who adore God in other Forms and Names; thereby you are limiting the very God whom you are extolling, and I don't think Muslims today would have agreed with the Islamic empires persecutions of that era.

Of course it is my interpretation. Just like the interpretation we get from our elders is six hundred years worth of Chinese whispers by 'unparh' elders from one generation to the next. I believe that Sikkhism's principles are very common sense: be good, be balanced, live a life of moderation, etc...these are not religious doctrines, but a highly recommended way in which to live a fulfilling life. It's not about what you are 'allowed' or 'not allowed' to do.

Sikkhism? What IS Sikkhism? Sikkhism is a thought that says that every man is bound to his fellow man and is responisible for his own deeds with which ever power God has bestowed upon them. Ultimate secularism. It's a 'religion' that is based on ensuring that every other religion is safguarded in that everyone has a right to live as they want to live, even if it doesn't come under the 'highly recommended' bracket of the gurus. Man, I don't see why more people aren't excited by this. Sikkhism is the one unifying philosophy of all mankind of people of all religions. It's a religion BASED on protecting other religions. Isn't that just so awesome?

MAX

You will unfortunately find that one of the hardest things to teach people is to listen to somebody's argument instead of trying to push your own views. I've been searching the path to God for many years and I believe Sikhism is not a religion. We have no 'priests' (we follow what we believe to be true with the help of the wisdom of men past and present), we do not have to go to the gurdwara to be with God, and we have no rituals (the Khalsa is obtained through the heart: only God alone can initiate you). We should not protect religions, but rather a person's ability to search for the truth. I, more than anybody else, am blind to God's will. Seek your own path to God and ask yourself whether you are following God's compasionate, infinite and logical guidance, or the corruptable rituals and meaningless symbols of man.

AKJS 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Punjabi Translation

Hi I completed Punjabi Translation of this Page, Can someone please help me to update page on site!

How do you mean? Put it on the Punjabi Wikipedia and then I'll add a link to it here. Sukh 1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Guru's Name

I feel that there needs to be a uniform approach in naming the Gurus. I think a suitable comprise would be to give each Guru a full title when first mentioned (e.g. 'Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji', 'Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji') with a link to an appropriate atricle and then shortening the name when used subsequently (e.g. 'Guru Nanak', 'Guru Gobind').

And also sri is used with hindus, muslims get ustad and sikhs have GURU in front to symbolize respect

Thinking with a NPOV, there is certainly no need to add Sri and Ji onto every instance of the name.

82.37.160.212 02:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV on Sikh 'sects'

I'm a bit suspicious at this section and have removed it until it can be 'cleaned' up:

"There is an illusion about the sects of Sikhsim, such as Namdhari, Nirankari, Ravidasi, Balmiki etc. Actually these groups can not be called Sikh because their ideology and practice is completely opposite to the Sikhism. Namdharis have a living Guru and as such do not install the Guru Granth Sahib in the Gurdwara. Ravidasis believe in bhagat Ravidas (a pre-nanak saint of the bhakti-sant movement) as Guru Ravidas Ji, they do not uphold the 5Ks strictly and they perform Arti in the temple, which is called a Bhawan rather than Gurdwara. Balmikis install the Ramayana in the temple alongside the Guru Granth Sahib and honour Balmiki, the author of the Ramayana as Guru alongside Guru Nanak."

Points:

"illusion" - in whose eyes?

"their ideology and practice is completely opposite" - not the case at all. There may be points that conflict to mainstream Sikhism, but they are by no means 'completely opposite'.

Why is this under the persecution of Sikhs section?

The link to Maya goes to a disambiguity page. Should it go to the Sikh meaning of Maya? -- Anonymous, Oct 30, 2004

Also, early in the article it is stated that Sikhism should not be seen as a blending of Islam and Hinduism. Why not? This may not be to the liking of some but it is very very obviously a blending of the two. Perhaps Sikhs are not comfortable with this because it reduces the specialness of the religion (not to me, but perhaps to some). But in an encyclopledia where you state that this religion arose in a region where Hinduism and Islam were prevalent before it, and it takes beliefs from both, calling it a blending of the two cannot be incorrect.

Well, Sikkhism accepts SOME principles of Hinduism (such as ideas of balance) and SOME principles of Islam (such as the idea of monotheism)...but it also rejects a whole host of their other philosophies (e.g. the worshipping of idols in Hinduism, or the fact that God is limited by a single name - Allah), as well as introducing a whole host of new ones. So while "blending" is a term you could use, it is kinda crude, and I'm sure you can understand the derogatory inference some Sikkhs might take from that term. I mean, I certainly don't like being told that my religion is some 'half-way house'. That sucks. Oh, and I'm a Sikkh, by the way.

MAX

The part where it says that doing nothing but thinking of god is the path to salvation in this religion is very incorrect and in contradiction to later portions of the article which correctly state one of the primary teachings of this faith as: doing honest work, remembering god and sharing with others what you have.

Yes! You are correct! This is why Guru Nanak's teachings (paraphrased) were basically: "work honest and hard, protect your fellow man, love and cherish your family...and do all of this under the humility of God".

Guru Nanak spent three days meditating, reaching a state of 'Godliness' that Radaswamis think is the ultimate form of being. However, after reaching this state, Guru Nanak returned from his meditations (could be equated to Buddha reaching enlightenment under the tree) and talked of a 'middle path' of balance and compromise. Balancing 'miri' and 'piri' ('spiritual' and 'termporal/practical') in our everyday lives. SImply chanting God's name all day every day is the kind of thing one would associate with forms of aestheticisms that the Guru said were ultimately futile.

A common misunderstanding, and thanks for pointing it out! Max314 15:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the 'event' was not the baptism, per-se, but that he was, in turn, baptised by those whom he had just baptised. --Dante Alighieri 00:59 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the more details you add to an event, the more likely it is to be unprecedented, and the less remarkable that lack of precedent is. I guess there are many other unprecedented events in Sikhism and other religions. To point out this event as "unprecedented" looks to me like an apology, and hence not NPOV. In the next paragraph there's a similarly dubious statement, which amounts to me like saying that the founders where alive when they founded the religion: nothing surprising. FvdP

Hey, it's not my text. :) Still, it is notable that the founder of a religion defer to his disciples as worthy of inducting HIM into the religion he founded... right? --Dante Alighieri 01:12 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Right. (And note that I did not delete that fact !) But "unprecedented" is a bit too strong. FvdP

The baptism of Guru Gobind Singh seems to me very parallel to the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist. Not "unprecendented", but in fact an interesting parallel with Christianity. I think I'll wade in and point out the similarity (as NPOV as possible), and just to keep things interesting, I'll add a link back to here from the "Non-Christian baptism" section of baptism. I think I've been here enough to chance stepping on some toes! --Robertb-dc 17:32, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... "God inscrutably predestines all creatures and ordains that the highest creature, man, be served by lower creation. To argue which components of his beliefs are Hindu, which are muslim, is arguing like fools on which one religion in the world owns the intellectual right to profess the sole ownership of universal thoughts, ideas and movements such as kindness, giving, honesty, remembering the name of god, and respecting others." I find that POV in many respects. There are a few lesser POV problems elsewhere as well. I have not changed it, but I may have a go presently. Generally it's an excellent article I think, and maintaining the standard in an edit won't be easy. Andrewa 01:42 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

news item

here is an interesting news item [1] that maybe someone might want to use for this article. Kingturtle 20:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is the only scripture in the world which has been compiled by the founders of a faith during their own life time.

Is this really unique? Given that this was about a century after the first Sikhs, is it so different from, say, the compilation of the New Testament by early Christians? And what about the Book of Mormon? Josh Cherry 21:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the quote means to say that the hymns comprising the Granth have not changed since the life-time of the tenth Guru. Also, maybe, that the various hymns making up the Granth were written by the composers themselves, not by later followers (i.e. the Koran and the Bible were not written by Mohammed or Jesus or Moses or etc., but by followers). Too, I believe Mormons are considered a Christian sect. In any case Mormons believe the book was translated by Joseph Smith from a book compiled by a third party. It's been a long time since I read it but I do not believe the third party was a witness to the original events. —dcn, 3 Aug 2004

After a bit of reflection it seems to me that the Janam Sakhis, "Life Stories," of Guru Nanak are the most similar Sikh works comparable to the Koran or the Bible. They relate events of the life of Guru Nanak as well as containing some of his poetry. Some may have been written during the life of Nanak but many were composed after his death by his most devoted followers. —dcn, 3 Aug 2004

The Koran was not written by followers of Mohammed, insofar as it was not -composed- by them. The composition was the spoken word of Mohammed himself, inspired by God, and since the Muslims believe that the text itself was composed by divinity and that the poetry of the text is itself testamental, it is reasonable to assume that they would preserve the original Arabic text as spoken by Mohammed to the extent possible. This is analagous to the Guru Granth Sahib, which is the revealed word of god as given to prophets (the gurus). The Janam Sakhis would be better compared to the canonical biographies of Mohammed composed in the century or so after his death, e.g. Abu Jafar al-Tabari. The Gospels would compare. The Christians have no corresponding text to the Koran or the Granth. Graft 20:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. The believers certainly believe that and an impartial observer would admit to almost as much. The point so inadequately attempted was that, unlike other religions, the Sikh scriptures were written down during the life-times of the founders. They alone determined which writings (whether Sikh, Hindu, or Muslim) were divinely inspired. —dcn, 4 Aug 2004

This was a very good article but needs editing to eliminate some redundancy (and a little evangelism around the edges, but that was kind of sweet!)

Regarding NPOV, I wouldn't consider the french laws banning religious symbols an act of prosecution towards the Sikh community. These laws are explicitly not aimed at any religion, but instead forbid wearing any kind of religious symbols of any kind or religion (not like Germany, for example, where some states try to pass laws that will ban the Hijab but will allow Christian symbols). It is therefore an act underlining the secularistic attitude of the french state. Nonetheless, this will be difficult to be followed by faithful Sikhs, hence it would be good if someone would edit this article in a way that expressed how important it is to wear a turban (afaik, it is not a commandment to wear a turban but just to wear your hair uncut. But i'm not really sure, especially as I heard in the radio today that five Sikh students have been expelled from school in France as they were refusing to attend school without a turban.)

Please, gimmie a break. The law was enacted specifically to prevent the wearing of the Hijab even if it is a generic law against "religious symbols". It inadvertantly affected Sikhs. I think that maybe the persecution/discrimination section should be moved to another page and NPOV'ed a bit. Sukh 11:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Islamic view

Do Muslims consider Sikhism some kind of Islamic heresy? People of the Book? Dhimmis?

I've read somewhere that Sikhs may be considered People of the Book, but generally most Muslims and Sikhs don't agree with this. And as far as my understanding goes, any religions after Islam can never be 'recognised'. Also, if you have a look at "Similarities in belief" in the People of the Book, you'll notice the only thing Sikhism has in common is the belief in one God. Sukh 11:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're considered infidels by most Muslims. Which is kinda cool...makes you feel sorta rebellious, no? Hehe... Really cool. :::MAX

Sikh sex-"childlike curiosity"

"at all times" they must wear these?

What if they're having sex? Do they wear all the Ks then? And I've always wondered with the sword - surely that'll have to a) get sharpened sometime so they'll have to take it off; or b) when they go through those metal detectors-what then? Surely they cant take them through? Or maybe Sikhs dont travel? I dunno. Explanations would be awesome --Wonderfool 16:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Air India allows Sikhs to carry their weapon.

For practical reasons, most Sikhs will obviously remove some of the 5Ks - for example when flying. Although this isn't always the case. And for most Sikhs the Kirpan is ceremonial and doesn't need much in the way of sharpening. As to whether it is worn when having sex - well I'm not sure to be honest. I have never asked. Sukh 11:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed this text from the section on Sikhs Today as it didn't seem relevant in the context:

Sikhs operate a security firm, Akal Security, that provides security for major facilities such as Los Angeles International Airport. Another Sikh security firm provided security at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City until it was destroyed April 19, 1995.

Isidore 19:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ek Onkar

This phrase meaning "One Creator" in Sihkism is currently being debated on the Votes for Deletion page. One of the options is a redirect to this page.

I have voted to keep the article but it would be good to have input from people with a greater background in Sikhism. It would also be good to get some advice on whether it, Ek Omkar or Ik Om Kar is the most common phrase to explain the concept of one creator. Capitalistroadster 08:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Entry Defaced

Some 'thing' has seriously defaced this article with obscene comments and remarks. I don't know much about Sikhism to even attempt to fix it and I created an account here simply to alert those interested in the integrity of this article.

Meat Eating

Not banned, not encouraged. Not good karma, not a necessity, but no superstitions in extenuating circumstances.

You're eating the flesh of another animal. Forget karma...it's just amoral. Sikkhism is based on real-life principles, things that work on a common sense level. There's no 'spiritual blackmail' where there is this punishment-reward culture. It's about living in the here and now and acting responsibly for the sake of virtue and nothing else. Obviously, if you're in a situation where you physically NEED to eat meat because there is no other healthy alternative, then naturally, common sense dictates that you...er...eat to live. But if you can avoid slaying that cute little lamb to satisfy your appetite, then try doing it. Pretty simple, really.

MAX

That's an interesting thought--but it isn't really that simple. I mean, morality is subjective, and philosophical reasons for vegetarianism are equally so. Is there some written proscription against the unnecessary consumption of meat when plant-based nutrition is available? Or is this going to vary from Sikh to Sikh? Consider: some people consider it morally acceptable to eat lower-order or especially unintelligent animals (e.g. fish, insects, even birds) and not higher-order ones (cows, pigs, dogs). Some people consider it acceptable to eat only livestock, which are bred to that end. In the end it usually just comes down to regional social norms. Where does the superstition start and logic end? You can't really argue this in finite terms without relying on some kind of subjective guideline (an animal "IQ" cutoff so to speak). I'm really curious as to how much this concept pervades the religion.

That said, I think this belongs in the prohibited behavior article, where the topic is discussed in full. Maybe it was moved after this was added. Fearwig 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

nanak_panthis ?

Who are nanak panthi sadhus ? What is their relation with Sikhs ? Ramashray 12:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People who only belive about Guru Nanak and not the other guru's.

No, actually, the term "Sikh" was not coined until well after the death of Guru Gobind Singh. Before that and the formation of the Khalsa, all the Gurus' followers were referred to as "Nanak Panthis" ("Followers of Nanak's Order").

Max314 23:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Max - which moronic school did you go to? The term Sikh has existed before Guru Nanak and Guru Nanak uses it in his writings.

Okay, first up, straigten out your tone with me. Don't dare condescend me. You treat me with respect and I'll make sure you'll receive that same respect in return.

Second, the term 'Sikh' existed before Sikhism, of course, so I shouldn't have used the word "coined". It means 'learner' or 'disciple'. But the term itself was not applied as a generic term to the philosophy of the gurus until after Guru Nanak.

MAX

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

There's a section about discrimination against and persecution of Sikhs - that's all well and good, but shouldn't there also be something about instances of Sikhs' hostility to others? For example, the cinema bombings in Delhi two days ago, the riots in Birmingham, England last year.

At the end of the article, the author writes 'Sikhism recognises the concept of a Multi-level approach to achieving your target as a disciple of the faith.' Why does s/he use 'your'? Why should s/he not use 'a person's'?

Let's not jump to conclusions about who was responsible for the cinema bombings in Delhi. Does Islam include details of 11th September? I don't think so. I could also argue that the word 'riot' is a bit extreme for the protests that got out of hand.

I agree that that 'your' may be better as 'a person's'. Sukh 11:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

To further prove my point, maybe this article [2] could clear things up a bit? Sukh 16:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

I added the clean-up tag. The article is more than 30KB right now. It could and should be tightened up. Several paragraphs in the introduction are redundant or are more appropriate in later sections (like History of Sikhism). There are some NPOV issues here or there that should be addressed. There are sections that could probably be combined or eliminated (like Multi-level approaches - there's one line that is identical to another, earlier sentence). Also, do we need all those links? Maybe we could just pare it down to the five or ten most important articles, and half a dozen external links. Thoughts? --Skoosh 04:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out articles on other relgions and this one is small compared to them. If anything this article needs to be bigger so more information can be given on this great relgion. (unsigned by 172.198.39.2 23:19, 1 August 2005)

There is a Wikipedia policy to keep pages less than 30 odd KB. What needs to be done is to make this article summarise the main concepts and then have sub articles to expand on them. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism page- 62.8 KB

Hinduism page- 58.3 KB

Christianity page- 50.7 KB

Atheism page- 45.2 KB

Islam page- 39.6 KB

Sikhism page- 27.8 KB

None of the other religion articles have people wanting to "clean" them up and this particular one isn't even at 30 KB. Why do you want even less information given out on this religion? (Unsigned User:172.196.232.81)

Just because other pages don't follow the rules, does not mean this one shouldn't. As far as I'm aware, the reason for the 32KB rule is that certain browsers have trouble editing anything larger.

You need to stop looking at it as being "bigger is better". What should be done, is that the main concepts, history and customs need to be summarised with all the main points highlighted. These points then need to be linked to different topics. For example, mentioning "Ek Onkar" deserves a link to the article: Ek Onkar should detail the meaning behind it, its history and so forth.

Just because the information is cleanly organised and the main page isn't oversaturated does not mean that we have less information about Sikhism. The Sikhism article could be a model page for other religions to follow, although it needs a lot of work both in content and layout. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Either way, if we get rid of all the links at the bottom which aren't needed, we could free up a lot of space which could be devoted to other topics in Sikhism. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging Sikh and Sikhism

I'm proposing merging Sikh and Sikhism. They overlap quite a bit, and I do realise there is a distinction but I feel it can be accommodated here. We also don't need a list of Sikh names! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, but I note that "Christian" and "Christianity" are separate pages, so are "Jew" and "Judaism." --Peter Kirby 23:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this go against the plan to clean up the article? For example, according to the plan, mentioning "Sikh" would deserve a link to the article. Merging these two seperate articles would clearly oversaturate this page. (Unsigned 01:45, 12 August 2005 172.195.187.152)

Not really, there is plenty of space available for actual content if we get rid of a lot of the links at the bottom. Also a Sikh is a follower of Sikhism. Apart from physical appearance, I don't think there is much extra that needs to added here from Sikh.

If you're that bothered, why don't you add some content instead of arguing pointlessly? And get a user account! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I thought this was what the discussion page was for, having a discussion. No offense but you're the one turning this into an argument by using exclamation points and such. All I'm saying is that if someone wants to know what a Sikh is they should be able to read a seperate article instead of having to search the entire Sikhism article for it. If they want to know more about the religion then they can easily click on the link to the Sikhism article. Maybe we can import the information on Sikhs in this article to the Sikh article as this would put more information on that article and help with the "cleaning up" of this one. Peace. (Unsigned 10:49, 12 August 2005 172.195.29.152).

Indeed it is a discussion page ;) Just a small question - other than someone that follows the principles of Sikhism, what is a Sikh? If you take a look at the Sikh page (check history), you'll see that the main thing it expands on is Sikh names, little else. I've moved Sikh names to separate article: Sikh names. Also, Khalsa obviously has its own page.

I don't mind keeping them separate if that is the consensus. It's just that I thought the two pages will overlap so much that they can be accommodated using the main article. What do other people think?

By the way, please get a user account so that I know who I'm talking to. Also, please sign your comments with four '~'. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How many Sikhs are there?

According to Sikhism#Sikhs around the world, there are presently 23m Sikhs in the world, yet over at Religion in India#Sikhism, it claims there are 35m Sikhs in India alone! Clearly, at least one of these assertions is incorrect. Tomer ^TALK 22:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Indian Census 2001 [3] suggest that there are in fact just 19.3m Sikhs in India. Seems a bit low if you ask me so I might have misread it. Either way it's Census data that'll be pretty accurate (conspiracy theories aside!). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 07:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed edits by Harprit

"A large number of people following the Sikh religion tend to add some elements of Hinduism in their culture and beliefs as well. It is not uncommon for Sikhs to keep statues of Hindu gods in their homes. Scholars in these religions like to think of Sikhism as a derivative from Hinduism as they share many common beliefs."

What a load of bull! It is uncommon for Sikhs where I live to keep Hindu gods in their homes. Even if they do keep statues of aesthetic purposes that doesn't mean they worship them. For example, I have about 10 tiny Buddha statues - does that mean I'm taking elements of Buddism?! Scholars certainly do not think of Sikhism are a derivative of Hinduism. Is Buddhism a derivative of Hinduism? Is Christianity and Islam a derivative of Judaism? No!

Actually, Sukh, Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism, and Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. It was some centuries before Christianity was even considered a separate religion from Judaism, and Islam considers Judaism and Christianity to be earlier and subsequently corrupted incarnations of Islam. Buddha is seen as a Hindu reformer in many circles, and I've even heard Hindus say that since they're corrected the errors of Hinduism addressed by Buddha, that Buddhism is no longer necessary! (Not saying the claims are true, but it does show that many consider Buddhism to be a sect of Hinduism.) I don't know about Sikhism, but if the teachings of Hindu and Muslim scholars are accepted as scripture, then it's safe to say that there are at least Hindu and Muslim influences in Sikhism. kwami 18:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Not all Sikh people wear turbans due to cultural and time changes. Those who don't tend to do it because of discrimination or being a a country where it is not a general practice."

It is mentioned further down that "Sahajdharis" are slow adopters who don't don the 5Ks.

"Hindus, after Kashmiri pandits came to him for help when"

They were Hindus and Kashmiri Pandits did come for help. I also changed Urdu language to Hindi-Urdu and Persian language is present in the Guru Granth Sahib. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Revealed Religion?

Is this a revealed religion? If not then it should be called a human philosophy rather than a religion.

The definition of a religion:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I think Sikhism can safely remain a "religion". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Then it should not be called a revealed religion because it is a human philosophy. Right? PassionInfinity 03:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well:

1. Ek Onkar
2. Gurdwara, SGPC, Akal Takht
Well I think this refers to the religous clergy, which Sikhism doesn't have as such. Although someone needs to run the Gurdwaras. Amrit
Guru Granth Sahib
"The ultimate aim of a Sikh is not salvation or an entry into heaven or attainment of worldly riches but a permanent and lasting merger of one's soul into the divine Jot (God). The only way to achieve this is through recitation of God's name and singing of his glories and qualities so that these qualities permeate into one's soul and the person becomes one with God not only after death but in this life itself. This is known as the path of JEEVAN MUKTI or emancipation in this life itself." [4]

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

But that does not explain whether it was revealed on or not? PassionInfinity 09:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

See [5]: "The above references clearly indicate that Sikhism is not only original in nature but is also a revealed religion. It is a religion revealed by God through a line of ten Sikh preceptors. We may also add here that Sikhism is the first and the last religion revealed by God in the Indian sub-continent. " Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always winced at the reference to Sikkhism as a 'religion'. I think that Guru Nanak would be super-peeved if he ever saw that his philosophy was ranked alongside the theologies of Islam and Hinduism whose practices he personally disapproved of.

MAX

"Series" box

A question... I just noticed that all of the major religions have a "series box" with the subtitle "Part of the Series on _" except for Sikhism and Hinduism. Should one be added (for both pages?)

And BTW, how do I sign my username? I'm newly signed up (though I've edited pages before this.) Ridan 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it's up to you! If you've got the knowledge to do so, go ahead! To sign use four '~'. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to, myself, or I would have. I'm just putting it out in case anyone who reads this does know. Ridan 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

POV statement

I've kept an eye on this article because it's been in recent edit wars. I noticed that one of the statements was was deleted from the History section, and then restored with the latest edit by Sukh, is quite POV:

From the very childhood, Bibi Nanki saw in him the Light of God but she did not reveal this secret to anyone.

This is inherently unverifiable, and therefore ahistorical. It's fine to include it in a section on Sikh doctrine, but not Sikh history. kwami 18:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a blind revert to the original version. If you compare the difs [6] you can see why I reverted it. I'm actually indifferent as to whether it is kept in the page or not. Are there any sources that claim to acknowledge this fact? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, definitely a worthwhile revert over all. I have no idea myself about Bibi Nanki (I know practically nothing of Sikhism, except a very little I've picked up from Sikh friends who don't talk much about their religion), but I don't think it matters. If she kept it a secret, no one would know, unless it was revealed to them, which is POV. Unless perhaps she told this to people as an adult, in which case that should be made clear. But regardless, a simple statement of a religious revelation presented as fact presents the religion as objective truth. kwami 20:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Three Pillars of Sikhism

There was reference to the pillars at Langar, but, oddly, no article, so I added one. I'd appreciate expansion and review of it. Please see the talk page, and apologies for any errors I may have made, or controversies I might have unwittingly stumbled into. -SM 12:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Pantheistic or monotheistic?

I've reverted for the second time an anonymous edit attempting to change- in one place only- the description of the nature of Ek Onkar from pantheistic to monotheistic.

My reasoning is as follows,

It seems the long-settled opinion of editors of this page that it is pantheistic
The edit is anonymous, and was not thorough in editing the complete article, hence of questionable quality
Pantheistic makes sense in the context used
Pantheistic is used elsewhere on the web, though monotheistic is as well

I'd like to see a discussion resolve this, rather than more half-considered anonymous edits. Please weigh in.

-SM 22:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well in Sikhism I suppose both terms could be applied. God is considered omnipresent (everywhere!) but I don't know if that means the same as "everything is a part of a God". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It could be an expansion to the article, imminence vs transcendence in Sikh thought. It shouldn't descend into a simple edit war between the two. The choice of pantheist in the article seems considered and of long-standing. -SM 03:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Argh, sorry, that was me! I always had this thing about Sikkhism being referred to as 'monothestic'. I suppose you could call is 'monotheist pantheism' as a compromise.

The thing about monotheism is that is classes God as a distinctly OTHER being, but the fact that Guru Nanak talked of how God is timeless, formless, ever-present and present everywhere and is a part of every thing in the cosmos...well, that just wreaks of pantheism.

It doesn't bother me too much, I mean, after years of questioning, I've finally found my peace with what I believe to be the REAL message of Guru Nanak that was lost under one of the five 'demons' (pride...collective pride of a faith whose founding tennet was naught more than secularism), and I am also aware that some 'devout' Sikkhs would resent me for interpreting it in the way that I have, but I don't really care. I don't want to offend anyone, but I don't want to accept blind submission, either. Do what makes you happy, people.

MAX

Juvenile corporal punishment in Sikhism?

Does anyone know of an Sikh views on the matter?--220.238.44.174 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sikkhism doesn't make 'rules'. Just 'recommendations'. The gurus were adamant on forgiveness, however...but when the person you're forgiving starts taking the piss, then it's time to kick ass to put them in their place.

MAX

Separate Article on Sikh Peoples

Hello,

Pardon the arbitrariness, but I'm creating a fresh article focused just on the Sikh people - monastic order, religious leadership, laypeople, history with Hindus and Muslims, influence on Punjabi society, around the world, etc.

I feel a lot of information should be added about Sikhs but cannot be since this an article on the religion itself. It will also kill the length-space problem (this article is oversize)

The core articles concerning major world religions have separate articles about their adherents, so why not with Sikhism?

Thank you,

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Reference to Previous Debate

I understand there was a debate in August on merging the exact articles that I've now created.

I respect the debate and decision taken, but PLEASE UNDERSTAND that (1) The ARTICLE'S SIZE WAS AN ISSUE UP TILL NOW and (2) SIKHS CULTURAL, POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS LIFESTYLES, TRADITIONS IS A WEALTH OF NEW INFO NOT FITTABLE HERE.

I apologize for the arbitrariness of things.

Thank you, Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Space was an issue not because there wasn't enough space for proper information, but because there was lots of redundant information and there was lots of unnecessary links. There is plenty of space for actual information if the article is tightened/cleaned up.

I would support reverting the split because a lot of the information is relevant to the main article - such as The Five Ks and Khalsa. To make two good articles about 'Sikhs' and 'Sikhism' would require a lot of unnecessary duplication. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Consider, Mr. Sukh - almost every religion has a series of articles. Sikhism is compressed into one. It will considerably help the quality in the forseeable future if one has the freedom to discuss the adherents differently from the religion. Sikhisim is a major religion that should have a proper network of good articles.

To reply to your points: if the Five Ks and Khalsa are mentions on the Sikhs article, what does the main article lose, since Sikhs is an important branch that millions of Wikipedians can easily check into?

There is a lot of info about culture, history and community of Sikhs that one can research and input into the Sikhs article. Jai Sri Rama! - User:Rama's Arrow.

I'm certainly NOT advocating sticking everything about Sikhism into the main article. Of course Sikhism should have a series of articles. However, my opinion is that Sikhs and Sikh should redirect to Sikhism and from there there should be subheadings with the main points about Sikhism that expand to other articles.

What I AM arguing, is that the concept of being a Sikh and Sikhism as a religion are so intertwined, it makes little sense writing two articles. A Sikh is a follower of Sikhism and hence a proper description of Sikhism will describe what makes a Sikh.

"There is a lot of info about culture, history and community of Sikhs that one can research and input into the Sikhs article."

Exactly - there should be articles about "Sikh Culture", "Sikh History" and "Sikh Communities". Sikhs should redirect to Sikhism and from there on there should be summaries and links to these articles. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Sukh on above debate

OK I understand your points clearly.

"Sikhs" refer specifically to followers of Sikhism. As you say, we can have a small para in the article Sikhism, and a link to the article on followers of Sikhism. This has been done with Sikh religious philosophy.

The size WAS an issue, becoz the Wikipedia had specific recommendations about the size, and anybody editing the article would be warned that it was already oversized.

I don't think "Sikhs" should re-direct here: (1) Sikhism obviously is very clearly linked in the opening sentence of that article, and (2) the culture, communities sub-sections are so unitedly about the people, so what's wrong with having a different article on Sikh people? By themselves, these sub-sections would be too small.

Action

I think we should take action and organize the article Sikhism as you say. There should be a para on Sikh people, an intro to the main article Sikhs, which goes into the details of the Sikh community. This combines the crux of your and my arguments in my opinion.

Sikhism Separate Articles Linked from Above: (1) Religious Philosophy, (2) People (which includes communities, across the world, community history, culture)

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Well, I definately do think there needs to be expanded articles about Sikh people and the Sikh community. However, I still believe Sikhs should redirect here. Sikh, Sikhs and Sikhism are all about "Sikhism" or "Sikhi". From there on, we can have "Sikh people", "Sikh community" etcetera. Another reason why I think we should have them redirect here, is that many wikis link to Sikh and Sikhs and it would be more relevant to have a general introduction on Sikhism as opposed to an introduction on Sikh people. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

New portal on religion

Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim ^1m 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sikhism is a syncretic religion of Hinduism and Islam

This is a defining chracteristic and should be the first thing mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

67.183.93.122 14:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This belief needs to be mentioned, but it's not held by everyone. I've moved the information to the paragraph below because I don't believe it's the most important aspect in describing the religion nor do I think the phrase "was notably supported by the Mughal emperor Akbar" is relevant in that section either. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, so Sikh are like Jedi

...So Sikh are like Jedi, you're saying?

In reply to the first thing

Lucas must have got it from somewhere, eh.

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ek Onkar

Why do you keep typing Ek ON KAR? THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS ON...ITS PRONOUNCED EK OM KAR...OMMMMM...NOT ON ARYAN818 08:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the correct pronounciation is "Ik Ōaṅkār", but 'Ek Onkar' is the most commonly used spelling for the phrase. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IF you READ the Sikh scriptures, it clearly states ON (with an N). Once again, you have some people trying to project their personal beliefs onto others. (By the way, there is a REASON for the distinction; if I remember correctly, it involves a concept of One God before the creation, and a concept of One God AFTER creation. Don't quote me on that one - look it up yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.66.79 (talk • contribs)

ਇਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ or ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ is the spelling which is translitered into English as 'Ik Ōaṅkār'. If you can read Gurmukhi, you'll see that the Aira is there followed by a nasal 'n' making 'Oan'. 'Omkar' is a variant that is used, and that's listed there also. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

THe gurus never intended to seperate from Hindus...They believed in both Hinduism & Sikhism...Guru Nanak Dev ji was trying to unite everyone & didnt believe in religion...I mean most famlies in Northern India were Hindu & had the eldest son as a Sikh...Not only that but the Gurus had hardcore names like Har-Krishan Ji & Ram Das...DOes that sound like there not Hindu & only Sikh?...And why do u keep typing it EK ON KAR? What the heck is On? Its Ek OM Kar...

71.119.249.226 06:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ek Onkar, Ik Onkar, Ik Omkar, Ek Omkar, Ek Aumkar, Ik Aumkar, Ek Oankar, Ik Oankar - there are many ways to write it! Ek Onkar appears to be the most popular, but the other spellings are not necessarily invalid. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 24.81.188.120 and Deeptrivia

I've noticed that the person editing from 24.81.188.120 keeps trying to "Hindu-fy" the pages related to Sikhism and the Ten Gurus. Subtle changes, including where the Gurus were born, to adding modifiers to lessen the Gurus travels to the West and universal message to both Muslims and Hindus, while magnifying Hindu elements (e.g. in the manner of Hindu saints). I suggest we revert back to an earlier version before this clown changes everything to suit his agenda.

Update: I've traced this user as Deeptrivia , who made most of his selective edits in two days - Jan 3rd and Jan 4th, 2006. His objective, as seen on other websites, is easily found with a quick persual of Google, and other links on Wikipedia.

FURTHER UPDATE: User Deeptrivia apparently can't hide his Anti-Muslim, Hindu-Nationalist mentality concerning other topics either. There is a recent discussion on Google groups regarding ARABIC NUMERALS, where Deeptrivia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deeptrivia) proposes to change ARABIC NUMERALS to HINDU-ARABIC NUMBERALS on Wikipedia (German edition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.66.79 (talk • contribs)

How exactly have you traced back the IP address to Deeptrivia? And more to the point, if he has, in your words being 'Hindu-fying' it, why don't you add information that 'de-Hindu-fies' it? Rather than reverting it to an ancient revision?

And why does the terming of Arabic numerals (which are actually from India, as opposed to the Middle East) have anything to do with this page? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, I don't have time to play an endless Red-Queen hypothesis game of selective truth with idiots who choose to fabricate history to pander to their own insecurities. When did I say revert it to an *ANCIENT* revision? How about a more ACCURATE version, without distorting reality? Examples of how Deeptrivia shows an anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh bias:

Statement from version prior to Jan 4 [7]:

Currently, there are about 23 million Sikhs in the world, making it the fifth largest religion in the world. Approximately 19 million Sikhs live in India with the majority living in the state of Punjab ('greater Punjab' extends across the India-Pakistan border, but few Sikhs remained in Pakistan after partition in 1947). Large populations of Sikhs can be found in the United Kingdom, Canada, and United States. They also comprise a significant minority in Malaysia and Singapore.

Deeptrivia's version:

Currently, there are about 23 million Sikhs in the world, making it the fifth largest religion in the world. Approximately 19 million Sikhs live in India with the majority living in the state of Punjab. Large populations of Sikhs can be found in the United Kingdom, Canada, and United States. They also comprise a significant minority in Malaysia and Singapore.

Another one:

Statement from version prior to Jan 3 [8]:

The Guru Granth Sahib is a sacred text considered by Sikhs to be their eleventh and final Guru. Sikhism was influenced by both reform movements in Hinduism as well as Islam, particularly Sufism. Some consider Sikhism to be a syncretic religion, although this is not a widespread belief held by Sikhs. Sikh philosophy is characterised by logic, comprehensiveness, and a "without frills" approach to both spiritual and material concerns. Its theology is marked by simplicity.

Deeptrivia's version:

The Guru Granth Sahib is a sacred text considered by Sikhs to be their eleventh and final Guru. Sikhism was influenced by reform movements in Hinduism. Some consider Sikhism to be a syncretic religion, although this is not a widespread belief held by Sikhs. Sikh philosophy is characterised by logic, comprehensiveness, and a "without frills" approach to both spiritual and material concerns. Its theology is marked by simplicity.

Yet another one from entry 'Guru Hai Rai':

Statement of version from December 16 (last revision before Deeptrivia's) [9]:

Made several tours to the Malwa and Doaba regions of the Punjab.

His son, Ram Rai, distorts Bani in front of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb and is never again seen by the Guru. The Guru is believed to have said, "Ram Rai, you have disobeyed my order and sinned. I will never see you again on account of your infidelity."

- The Guru made his other son — Guru Har Krishan — Guru at the age of only 5 years.

Now Deeptrivia's from Jan 3rd:

DELETED the entire line regarding Aurangzeb and Ram Rai, yet claiming that he merely made a correction - "disambiguation Malwa (MP) and Malwa (Punjab))"

Made several tours to the Malwa and Doaba regions of the Punjab.

The Guru made his son — Guru Har Krishan — Guru at the age of only 5 years.

I could go on (check the Wikipedia history on Gurdwaras, Langar, Guru Nanak Dev, etc), but I hardly have the time to deal with bigots. Wikipedia's usefulness as a free and accurate knowledge compendium is severely limited by abusive users and those who wish to defend them; without constant peer review and elimination, it is an experiment destined to fail.

(Second, there are many ways to trace a user back to their IP address, but you only need a little bit of investigative work on Wikipedia and Google to pinpoint Deeptrivia (aka Deepak Trivedi). The Arabic numerals argument is RELEVANT HERE because it shows a SIMILAR PATTERN of Anti-Muslim, Pro-Hindu bias. If you care to disagree, show SOME EVIDENCE, as I have). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.66.227 (talk • contribs)

When did I say revert it to an *ANCIENT* revision?

You didn't. I was referring to some anonymous IPs that kept reverting changes to old versions, thus removing constructive edits in the process. If that wasn't you, I apologise.

None of your evidence even remotely points to Deep trivia. I think you may be getting confused with the 'diff' screens. See [10] and you will see Deep trivia did NOT change what you said, it was an anonymous IP. None of your 'evidence' points to Deep trivia (they were all anonymous IPs). I'm not sure why you have made this connection.

Wikipedia's usefulness as a free and accurate knowledge compendium is severely limited by abusive users and those who wish to defend them; without constant peer review and elimination, it is an experiment destined to fail.

I agree with you to an extent, but Wikipedia is not destined to fail. Its exposure and size is constantly increasing - if anything, this is THE place people will go to to learn about Sikhism.

Now I'm the only person that really 'watches' the Sikhism pages. I have a watchlist that contains most of the pages related to Sikhism and I do by best to check vandalism and new information, but ultimately I don't have enough time. You're more than welcome to set up a user account and add them to your watchlist too. That way you can fix any problems you encounter. Indeed the pages related to Sikhism are generally poorly written, not very informative and badly cited; they need a lot of work!

And as a final note, your message was unnecessarily aggressive. You could get your point across without being so over dramatic. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol! This is hilarious. Even though there was a request by user Sukh on the Indian noticeboard about POV, I thought I don't know enough to make any edits at all on this article (or was the request about the Khalistan article?). I've never made any edits to this article. I haven't even read it! I checked all articles that linked to Malwa before its FA nomination, and the disambguation you are talking about was done here: [11]. The other edit you are attributing to me was done by 24.xx.xx... more than two weeks later. On the numerals article, there's a fairly good agreement about the proposed name, and it's amusing that you even talked about it here. That discussion is purely about WP:MoS issues and as far as I am concerned, the proposal has nothing at all to do with religion or even history. You can check out my reasons here. I am also not a member of any google groups. About your sockpuppetry allegations, some bureaucrats have tools to detect it right away. I highly recommend you to go ahead and convince yourself with whatever tests you want. deeptrivia (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by 67.38.8.146

SIKHISM IS A DIFFERENT RELIGION THEN HINDUISM AND ISLAM...DISTINGUISHING THEIR DIFFERENCES SHOWS THE WORLD THAT THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS...IF U LOOK AT IT ALL RELIGIONS ARE ABOUT THE SAME FOR PETTY DIFFERENCES BUT IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT SIKHISM AND HINDUISM DO NOT HAVE THE SAME ROOTS AND ARE NOT SIMILAR IN OUR WAYS OR BELEIFS NOR OUR BELEIFS...NO OFFENSE TO MY HINDU AND MUSLIM BROTHERS BUT THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.38.8.146 (talk • contribs)

=

See, this is a problem.

Language.

We seem to need wrods for everything, and it is this human construct that limits our thought.

Sikkhism is a religion, yet it is not a religion. It is different from Islam and Hinduism, yet it attempts to reconcile and watch over them (and all other beliefs).

You have to understand the fundamentals and the context of what the Gurus were trying to achieve...and with whom they were trying to achieve it.

As educated and as knowledgeable as we become, examples are abound of intelligent human beings who resort to disgusting behaviour both indivisdually and in large groups (Atheists are no better, just look at th history and current state of Communist China). It is this human nature that the Gurus were trying to battle against. Of course, we are limted as humans and we need some kind of solid 'form' to point at and say "hey, that's a symbol that represents 'x' principles!". That's what the ten gurus did over their lifetimes, taking Guru Nanak's border-destroying philosophy, and then fortifying it with new borders to protect IT from being destroyed.

It's a fundamental paradox, especially when viewed out of context. But it's obvious that balancing the spiritual and the practical ('miri' and 'priri') are both required for surviving in the world.

Removed from Sangha

I removed this from the Sangha article because I don't really know what it means. "In Sikhism, Sangha is a Punjabi Jat Sikh community and there are two kinds. One is Ludh Sanghas and the second is Asees Sangha." I thought someone from this article might know what to do with it, since I don't. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)