Talk:Ravidasi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Punjab (India) workgroup.

[edit] Ravidasi discrimination

Ravidasis continually face discrimination because of their Dalit status, and Sikhs are continually undermining their own vailidity and unique history by focusing on the formal separation of Ravidasis from Sikhs in the 1920s.

Djalo24Djalo24

That's fair enough - but please don't remove the category. You can add additional categories too that show Ravidasis as a separate religion, but at the same time many scholar believe it to be a sect (which we must discuss whether you or I agree with it or not). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate what you are saying, but the Ravidasi Religion is NOT a sect of anything else because it has its own history. If certain scholars say it is, then we must also therefore recategorise Sikhism, because many scholars and Indian communitites see it as a sect of Hinduism, or simply a syncresis of Hinduism and Sufism.

Completely agree with you actually. That's why the article on Sikhism dicusses syncretiscm and shows that many people to consider it a syncretic religion. It also clarifies that most Sikhs don't believe this to be true. Similarily, this article shows that Ravidasis don't consider themselves Sikhs but that many people believe them to be a Sikh sect.

Although the key difference between the claims of Sikhism being a sect of Hinduism/Islam is that Sikhism does not believe or use the Vedas or Qu'ran. Whereas Ravidasis use the Guru Granth Sahib. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that there is dicussion within the Ravidasi community about whether to remove the Guru Granth Sahib and to replace it with the Ravidass-Deep?

Another point, you know that there is some declaration within Sikhism that states that a Sikh is someone who "professes no other religion?" If a Ravidasi does not claim to be Sikh, and in fact professes to be Ravidasi, then s/he is in fact not Sikh.

Can I also request that you do not put your article at the top of an article on the Ravidasi religion, as it is primarily concerned with educating about the Independence of the Ravidasi religion, and not its disputed relationship to another one please.

No I did not know there was such a discussion. However, regardless of the outcome of that discussion, the Ravidasi relationship with Sikhism is important.

Yes, I know about the second point you mention. However, I've been keen to stress that Ravidasis form part of the "Sikh religious domain" and not necessarily a part of the religion (which is open to interpretation even if the Rehat Maryada states something else - not all Sikhs follow the SGPCs guidelines and rules).

I'll move the point further down for you. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd be interested to know what you think of the artice Universal Sufism. My email address is hsnbsh@hotmail.com if you want to dicuss things in depth. Minority religions are my personal interest, as I study anthropology.

I'll check out the article as soon as I have time. Please feel free to add more information on such minority topics (it's very interesting!). Please make sure you don't use copyrighted images though because they will be liable for removal. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sukh: As far as Guru Granth Sahib is concerned, its compilation was never intended for a preexisting/potential religious group at the time it was compiled. It is ironic that it has been identified with sikhism so much while most of the rituals that surround Guru Granth Sahib or most of the visible sign of sikhism today have no mention in the Guru Granth Sahib. As a work, it is a compilation and compilation, well, is a compilation. Reason, it should have least to do with sikhism is that not all the saints, who sikhs have endorsed as Gurus over the centuries have their teachings in it (only 6 has). So it will be wrong to say that it belongs to or is a property of Sikhs. Since it is a compilation, anybody can and should be able to follow it. Sikhs have identified their 10 gurus but that doesn't imply that Ravidassis can't have their one guru and still claim it as their holy book. Ravidassis respect it as mush as sikhs do and if they don't follow certain rituals that sikhs follow, that shouldn't upset the sikhs. Had Guru Granth Sahib been specifically created by a sikh (by today's definition, since we are talking in present) and for sikhs, it could have been well argued that its followers should only and only be called sikhs.

Such a phenomenon exists in every culture i.e two religious groups following one reloigious book. As far as whether Ravidassis are sikhs, sikhs themselves have answered this question. They have the "Rehat Maryada" which rules out Ravidassis completely for the good of both religious groups. We (Ravidassis) believe Guru Ravidass to be supreme guru of our faith while sikhs by virtue of the order of their 10th guru, claim Guru Granth Sahib to be supreme and living guru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajusu (talk • contribs)

The Guru Granth Sahib was designed as a book for all of humanity not only Sikhs. I can't say I'm a fan of the excessive possesive nature that Sikhs have over the holy book, nor am I a fan of the fanatacism imposed by some Sikhs as to how the Granth can be used/installed.

I respect the Ravidasi's beliefs and have no problem with them worshipping whatever way they please. However, there are even Ravidasis who consider themselves Sikhs and so it's not as simple as saying "Ravidasis" are not Sikhs. Please remember that the definition of a Sikh is not the preserve of the SGPC's Rehat Maryada (contrary to what some may say). Right-wing Sikh groups would be more than happy to say Ravidasis aren't Sikhs because of their belief in Ravidasi as their supreme guru, so please don't think of this an an imposition by somebody with an agenda. The simple fact of the matter is that Ravidasis have very similar beliefs and practices to Sikhs and as such *may* be classified as Sikhs. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravidasia

In my area (Moga, Punjab), the followers of Guru Ravidas are called ravidasiA. Note the terminal "A". (The capitalization on R was dropped intentionally for visual emphasis).Buntygill 07:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhs consider themselves a higher caste ?

Or do they ? Its extremely ironic they consider Ravidasis a separate religion purely on the basis of caste which goes against the essence of the Guru Granth Sahib (notice I did not say 'Sikhism' because from many an observation) Sikhism has become its own victim or the very antithesis of the GGS, in fact one can take the whole principle of the GGS that the whole human race is ONE or that God is ONE (OM) OMniscient, OMnipotent and OMnipresent while noticing that Sikhism today seems to have gone against the very grain of what the GGS espouses due to the political distortions over the past 200 years with the Singh Sabha or Tat Khalsa movements managed by colonial rule.

Talk:Ravidasi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ravidasi discrimination

[edit] Ravidasia

[edit] Sikhs consider themselves a higher caste ?

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search