Talk:Sanatan Singh Sabha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Help post citations

There is a statement in the article which reads: "However, there has been growing acceptance of Hindu and Sikh unity, primarily on the fact that they are both Vedic and Dharmaic religions." Will someone please help add the following citation for it:

Guru Nanak Dev, "Japuji Sahib", verse 5, lines 7 & 8.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The above statement has since been deleted from the article. However, there is a statement that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is regarded as the Fifth Veda. The above citation may be added for it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 06:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


The next statement reads: "According to Vish Ayengar, all the spiritual traditions of India are inspired by the Vedas." The citation for this is available as citation # 11 in the archived version of the article "Hindu" as edited by GMoneyBags at 19:37, 31 January 2007. Will someone also please help add that citation for it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The above statement has since been deleted from the article. Please ignore the request for posting a citation for it. Thanks.Kanchanamala 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Kanchanamala, didn't notice your comments earlier. The reason I deleted the statements from article was because they had been posted by a AnthroExpert1, a sockpuppet of blocked user Maleabroad and were not only uncited but also trollish with their reference to anti-Hindus and neo-Buddhists. If interested, you can read more about Maleabroad's vandalism, trolling and POV pushing at multiple wikipedia articles here. Abecedare 06:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Please check this out: There is a statement ending in "Guru Granth Sahib Ji ... the fifth veda." The following citation can be added for it.

Guru Nanak Dev, "Japuji Sahib", verse 5, lines 7 & 8.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 06:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No help needed anymore. I helped myself. Thanks.Kanchanamala 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Note about the remark "Guru Granth Sahib Ji ... the fifth veda.": Guru Nanak Dev ji never claimed that Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda. In fact, Guru Granth Sahib ji came into existance - in its present form - only after Sikhism's Tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh ji, annointed the Holy Book as The Eternal Guru of Sikhs. Consequently, this remark and reference is not correct. Correct interpretation of "Japuji Sahib", verse 5, is as follows:

thaapi-aa na jaa-ay keetaa na ho-ay. aapay aap niranjan so-ay.
He cannot be established; By doing it cannot be done. He Himself is Immaculate and Pure.

jin sayvi-aa tin paa-i-aa maan. naanak gaavee-ai gunee niDhaan.
Whoever serves Him receives honor. O Nanak sing - "Only Lord has endless Virtues".

gaavee-ai sunee-ai man rakhee-ai bhaa-o. dukh parhar sukh ghar lai jaa-ay.
Sing, listen, and keep your mind humble. For your pains, take home every peace.

gurmukh naadaN gurmukh vaydaN gurmukh rahi-aa samaa-ee.
The Guru’s Word is the Sound-current, wisdom of the Vedas and remains the ultimate protector.

gur eesar gur gorakh barmaa gur paarbatee maa-ee.
The Guru is Shiva, Gorak and Brahma; the Guru is Paarvati and Lakhshmi.

jay ha-o jaanaa aakhaa naahee kahnaa kathan na jaa-ee.
Even knowing Him, I cannot describe Him; He is beyond description in words.

guraa ik dayhi bujhaa-ee. sabhnaa jee-aa kaa ik daataa so mai visar na jaa-ee.
The Guru has extinguished this doubt:All creatures have only the one God – May I never forget this!

SikhiWiki website: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Japji_Sahib_Pauri_5

The substance of the citation supports the viewpoint. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for re-inclusion

The statement was earlier removed by Abecedare for quite valid reasons. However, I have deemed it fit to re-include it for the following reasons. I trust and hope that Abecedare and other fellow editors will be able to share my reasons.

1. The statement helps the article significantly.

2. The cited source has been published in the electronic media since 2001, and the author has respectable academic credentials.

Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japuji Sahib

Kohliji, if Guru Nanak Dev's 'baani' helps some people to believe something differently from you, please allow them. Freedom of thought and belief has been a strong point in our culture. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Praahji, I've just modified the text of the article to address your concern. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article should only include facts and not views

My sincere apology to the contributors who have added views and explanations.

I suggest that only

  • facts
  • opinions from well-known authors commenting specifically on Sanatan Singh Sabha, provided there is a balance,

be included here.

--Vikramsingh 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thrash things out on this page before making radical modifications to the article. I say this even though I am not the creator of the article. Thanks.Kanchanamala 02:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kanchanamala ji,

The version you have restored includes many things that are purely personal views. It contains many things that are objectionable to either one or the other side.

For example:

Sanatan Singh Sabha is a Sikh organization formed by some hinduism-influenced Sikhs (called Sanatan Sikhs) in 1873.

"Hinduism-influenced Sikhs" is historically misleading. The people involved were leaders of the Sikh community, including direct descendants of Guru Nanak.

The Sanatan Singh Sabha regards Sikhs to be Hindus by the definition that a "Hindu" is someone who practices karma and bhakti (of God) in any way for the achievement of Moksha.

What is the source of this? Is it from a Sanatan Singh Sabha book?

Because of their view that Sikhs are Hindus, Sanatan Sikhs are largely considered to be heretics and blasphemers.[citation needed]

That is an objectionable view.

According to Vish Ayengar, all the spiritual traditions of India are inspired by the Vedas.[1]

Vish Ayengar cannot speak for Sanatan Sikhs. It is true that Sanatan Sikhs accepted the Vedas.

Many Sikhs also worship in Hindu mandirs, and participate in Hindu rituals.

True. But many Sikhs today will disagree with this.

It is noteworthy to mention that Sikhism discourages Idol-worship and ritualism.

There are rituals in Sikhism. It is true that Sikhism discourages Idol-worship, however there were idols of the Gurus in the Golden temple. Please read the book by Prof. Oberoi.

Vedas do not have any religions significance in Sikhism.

This is controversial. I can quote Gurbani to support either views.

This is intended to be a historically accurate article, which does not take a specific side.

--Vikramsingh 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vikram,

As a fellow user of Wikipedia, I am delighted to have your response. I got involved with this article while cruising. I like to see as many articles trying to represent different viewpoints. It does not matter if they are not perfect. A Sikh is not expected to agree with a Sanatan Sikh. Also, Sikhs can have disagreements among themselves. Wikipedia makes it possible for all of them to coexist.

I am not a Sikh. I am a Hindu. But I am glad that there are more than one article on Sikhism. I do not know who created this article. But someone has created it to make one more viewpoint available to the users of Wikipedia. I only try to help any article which happens to come my way. That's all. Can you, will you, share my disposition to accommodate viewpoints that do not agree with us? Let the Sanatan Sikhs, whoever they are, have their say. I am confident that the Akal Takht is fully competent to uphold the traditional viewpoints. Wikipedia has greatly empowered its users including you and me. Let us try to help if we can and choose to do so. Let us not use our powers to disassemble and destroy articles. Sat-sri-akaal praahji. Thanks.Kanchanamala 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Vikram Singhji, bhai, please thrash out your suggestions here before making any radical modifications in the article. Also, observations that are unnecessary and contentious, do not belong in the article. Sat-Sri-Akal. Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection

To the usage of following 2 phrases: -

  1. "There are also Hindus, mainly from Punjab, who follow Sikhism, believing that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda."
  2. "Guru Nanak Dev says that the word of the Guru is [also] the Veda"

In '1' above, being a Hindu and following Sikhism as claimed in the above sentence is impossible. This is followed by a vague but extraordinary claim "Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda".

In '2' Guru Nanak is quoted out of context to prove that he supported the vedantic philosophy. The contributor of the '2' phrase either does not seem to have read the complete AGGS (Aad Guru Granth Sahib) or is driven by some prejudice. If you disagree with me, please come here and debate on Sikhism's view on Vedas.

I am going to wait for the editors of this page to come and debate for a few days, after which these line will either be modified or totally removed. -- A. S. AulakhTalk 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Aulakhji, I have been helping this article ever since it was created. This article is about the Sanatan Singh Sabha, and not about Sikhism. I don't know who created this article, but the followers of the Sanatan Singh Sabha should have this opportunity to have their say. You have every right to disagree with them, but that does not mean that you should try to gag them. Please be considerate. I am restoring the original version of the article. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Kahnchanamala, without discussion you have again restored the content which is flawed for several reasons: -

  1. Deliberate attempt by taking Guru Nanak's Philosophy out of context by saying "Guru Nanak Dev says that the word of Guru is [also] the Veda". This is total misrepresentation of Guru Nanak. Additionally, there is no citation for this phrase. Even a citation will not prove this phrase as this is totally wrong because Guru Nanak, in entire AGGS, has never said so. Please read AGGS.
  2. Who said this line, "There are also Hindus, mainly from Punjab, who follow Sikhism, believing that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda."? The 2 page theory that you cite does not say anything like this in this section. This is again a highly dubious information.
  3. Who is Vish Ayengar? Is he a well known theologist with lot of credibility in interpreting AGGS?.
  4. The 2 page theory by Vish Ayengar does not satisfy a reliable source condition for wikipedia; it does not have any references or citations as all.

Please do not restore this flawed content without discussion on it is complete. Thanks, ---- A. S. AulakhTalk 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Aulakhji, it would be fair if one follows one's own advice first before asking others to follow it. The original version seems to have been replaced without talking with other editors. That's not fair. I shall once again restore the longstanding original version. Please do not make any changes in it, least of all revert it to your version, without thorough discussion. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kanchanamala, you are continually failing to get the point that I am raising here. First off, my objection was registered on the talk page above on 23rd Nov 07. I did not simply change the text (though is highly flawed and is against wikipedia policy). Waiting for more than a month, I made the changes to the text. You jumped in then, without any discussion on the topic and reverted the changes I made to the text. I reverted you changes and asked you come to the talk page and discuss. You put some text below my objection but failed to understand the points and did not put any explanation to the objections in points. Then I further explained the points for your convenience and put more direct information in my comment above and restored my edit. Now again you are coming back and restoring the content with replying to the points. This is unethical and you will be in violation of wikipedia 3RR policy by continuing to push your POV without much substantiation of your points. ---- A. S. AulakhTalk 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Aulakhji, before I proceed with your claims, permit me to ask you one question. Are you a follower of the Sanatan Singh Sabha? I'm not. Are you? Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kanchanmala, this question is irrelevant. It will be appreciated if you can concentrate on the itemized issues above in my objection. Thanks, -- A. S. AulakhTalk 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Aulakhji, I am neither the creator of this article, nor a contributor. Ever since my attention was somehow drawn to this article, I took an interest in it, and have helped improve it. I have assumed that this article is created by the followers of Sanatan Singh Sabha, and have respected their views.


1. Regarding the statement in the original article namely, "There are also Hindus, mainly from Punjab, who follow Sikhism, believing that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda."

(a) This observation does not have a citation. But then, not all observations in Wikipedia articles invariably have citations [Cf. Article on Aulakhs].

(b) You say this observation is dubious. Do you have any documentary evidence for saying so?

(c) You have raised a point that one cannot be a Hindu and a Sikh at the same time. I shall modify the statement to read "who respect Sikhism".

(d) If the followers of Sanatan Singh Sabha believe that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda, it is their religious freedom.


2. Regarding the statement in the original article namely, "Guru Nanak Dev says that the word of the Guru is [also] the Veda."

(a) You say that this is not Sikhism's view on Vedas. The article ascribes the statement to Guru Nanak Dev, and not to Sikhism.

(b) You say that "Guru Nanak, in entire AGGS, has never said so." The article does not cite AGGS for this statement.

(c) You say that there is no citation for this statement. The article does have a citation. The citation is from Guru Nanak Dev's Japuji Sahib.

(d) The citation in Panjabi reads, "gurumukhi naadam gurumukhi vedam" and so forth.


I shall now restore the original version of the article. If you should have any further concerns, please air them on this page. Let us not give anyone the impression that we are engaged in a peurile revert war.

Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Reply to user:Kanchanamala

Dear Kanchanamala, thanks for coming to the itemized points in my objection above. Please see my rebuttal embedded in your comments (italicized) below.

You said "I am neither the creator of this article, nor a contributor. Ever since my attention was somehow drawn to this article, I took an interest in it, and have helped improve it. I have assumed that this article is created by the followers of Sanatan Singh Sabha, and have respected their views."

Its not an issue of who created the article. The few lines that existed on the article were flawed. You mention that you have helped improve the article, unfortunately I see no improvement at all. Contrary to the claim, you are pushing to maintain flawed content, note the lines that you are pushing to maintain. Later, in the comment above you mention that you "assumed that this article was created by followers of Sanatan Singh Sabha" and you "have respected their views". Again, I did not raise any objection to the affiliation of the person who created this article. Neither, did the above objection (registered by me) mean that one should not respect the views of followers of Sanatan Singh Sabha. However, Wikipedia has policies and they have to be followed.

On my objection on the unsourced claim "There are also Hindus, mainly from Punjab, who follow Sikhism, believing that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda." you gave an itemized (a,b,c,d below) comment, see my response to them below each:-

(a) "This observation does not have a citation. But then, not all observations in Wikipedia articles invariably have citations [Cf. Article on Aulakhs]".

I do not understand why you picked the example of article Aulakh to support your view. Feel free to tag, challenge and discuss any objection you have on that article on the talkpage of that article. However, I would like to mention here that one mistake is no justification of the other, so if any other article has unsourced claims you cannot simply put unsourced claims everywhere on wikipedia.

(b) "You say this observation is dubious. Do you have any documentary evidence for saying so?"''

In fact, this claim itself is extraordinary. Please note that for this you will have to first substantiate with reliable sources that one can be a Hindu and Sikh simultaneously because a Hindu cannot be a Sikh and a Sikh cannot be a Hindu. Wikipedia has its own documents for rules. Please refer Cite your sources, Reliable Sources and When to cite. Additionally, since the "extraordinary claim" is being made by the statement above, the responsibility of providing documentary evidence to support this claim falls on the shoulders of the claimer or the maintainer of that claim.

(c) "You have raised a point that one cannot be a Hindu and a Sikh at the same time. I shall modify the statement to read "who respect Sikhism" ".

Again, you will need to refer to Cite your sources, Reliable Sources and When to cite for this so that you properly cite the claim made by the new statement that you are proposing.

(d) "If the followers of Sanatan Singh Sabha believe that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda, it is their religious freedom."

Who are these followers? Since you are pushing to maintain this line, are you that follower? If not, where was this claim published that - the person (who has this view) is a follower of Sanatan Singh Sabha, and because of so and so logic they believe Guru Granth Sahib is the 5th Veda. Furthermore, how is this related to religious freedom? Religious freedom is about having religious views and practicing them freely. This is yet again vague inappropriate claim. Is Sanatan Singh Sabha a religion? If not, they must be following some religion, does that religion say that Guru Granth Sahib is the 5th veda?

See embedded my response to your itemized comments (a,b,c,d) on my objection to the claim "Guru Nanak Dev says that the word of the Guru is [also] the Veda."

(a) "You say that this is not Sikhism's view on Vedas. The article ascribes the statement to Guru Nanak Dev, and not to Sikhism."

Guru Nanak is the founder of Sikhism, are you saying here that Guru Nanak's philosophy is Sikh philosophy are different?

(b) "You say that "Guru Nanak, in entire AGGS, has never said so." The article does not cite AGGS for this statement."

Perhaps you are not even paying attention to what you are pushing to maintain. Please note that the text that you have been reverting off and on is citing Japuji. Where did the world get Guru Nanak's composition (Jap) from? Where can you find Guru Nanak's complete philosophy about different subject?.. AGGS, right?

(c) "You say that there is no citation for this statement. The article does have a citation. The citation is from Guru Nanak Dev's Japuji Sahib."

First, Guru Nanak did not write Japuji in English and you cannot cite Japuji in the way you are doing in the article and say "Guru Nanak says...". The entire sentence in its current form, that I objected to, claims that Guru Nanak says that "the word of the Guru" is "also the Veda" hence claiming that Guru Nanak is saying Vedas are the revelation by the Guru. Where in Japuji did Guru Nanak say that?

(d) "The citation in Panjabi reads, "gurumukhi naadam gurumukhi vedam" and so forth."

This is new and was not present in lines that I objected to. Where did you cite this source? Is this in English? If not, please check if other language sources can be cited on English Wikipedia. If its in English go ahead an put the sourced claims from this source on the article pointing to the pages in the source where these claims have been put forth.

Towards the end of the comment you said,
"I shall now restore the original version of the article. If you should have any further concerns, please air them on this page. Let us not give anyone the impression that we are engaged in a peurile revert war".
The objection is already there on the talkpage and pushing personal POV without reliable sources is not encouraged on Wikipedia until you can substantiate the claims with accurate references.


-- A. S. Aulakh

Dear Kanchanmala, I second the objection raised by user A. S. Aulakh above. The content you are forcing is against Wikipedia policies. Please do not keep reverting it otherwise you will violate the 3RR policy. Thanks , Roadahead (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Folks, I have done my best to help the original article. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


it would be better if it does not contain your perspective of SikhismAjjay (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Ajjay, while you are chilling, I shall find time to make one more attempt to save the original article. I don't know who contributed it. But somehow my attention was drawn to it, and I started improving the article without affecting its contents. If a perspective of Sikhism is noticed in the article, it is not mine. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)