While I understand the motive, changing from Sri to Shabad will have the same importance after 50-100 years of saying it a certain way. Take "Sat Sri Akaal" for example, not many think of the meaning when saying it anymore.
Thank you. This is a fair question, and it allows me to make the method of the article clearer.
The article does not say that the janeu and rakhri are the same ceremony. It states expressly:
“The Ang 471 Saloks speak directly about the janeu. They do not name rakhri or Raksha Bandhan.”
It later says:
“The janeu and rakhri are not historically the same ceremony.”
The argument is therefore not that both practices use a thread and must be treated as identical. The connection is narrower. What meaning and power are being claimed for the material thread?
Where rakhri is presented as carrying protection, blessing or spiritual force, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji gives a clear test. Guru Sahib examines the claimed jor, or power, of a physical religious thread. A thread grows old, breaks and is replaced. It does not acquire spiritual strength because a sister rather than a Pandit ties it.
Guru Sahib then gives the thread which does not break: compassion, contentment, self-restraint, truthful conduct, Naam and praise of the One.
Guru Arjan Sahib Ji also tells the Sikh where final protection rests:
ਰਾਖਾ ਏਕੁ ਹਮਾਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ॥
raakhaa ek hamaaraa suaamee
The One Master is our Protector.
That is why the title and conclusion of the article are deliberately limited: rakhri as a protective ritual cannot stand inside Gurmat.
The article does not reject the love between a sister and brother. It does not reject meeting, sharing food, exchanging gifts or promising to care for one another. Where the thread is only a family token, the article describes it as a cultural or family custom. It does not call it a Guru-given Sikh rite.
This leads to your larger question: when a practice is not directly named in Gurbani, who decides whether it is Sikh, cultural or outside Gurmat?
For a Sikh, Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji gives the governing answer.
Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the living Guru. A modern practice does not fall outside the Guru’s authority simply because its present name does not appear in Gurbani. The answer may come through the principle by which the Guru judges the claim made for that practice.
If Gurbani could answer only questions whose modern names appeared directly in the text, we would reduce the living Guru to a list of historical customs. The Guru instead gives principles, distinctions and tests through which changing practices and new claims can be brought under Shabad.
A practice may therefore fall into one of three broad categories.
It may be a Guru-given Sikh discipline.
It may be a cultural or family custom which is not itself Gurmat, but which does not conflict with Gurmat.
Or it may be contrary to Gurmat because the religious claim made for it conflicts with what the Guru teaches.
The important question is not only whether Gurbani names the object. It is what the practice is being asked to do. Is it simply expressing family affection? Or is protection, blessing, sacred force or religious duty being placed in it?
A custom does not become Gurmat merely because many Sikh families follow it. Popularity cannot create Sikh authority. Nor does one writer, scholar, institution or office create Gurmat by assertion.
The writer’s task is more limited. It is to bring the claim before the Guru, show the relevant Shabad, explain the point of application and remain open to correction. The Sangat and the Panth may undertake wider vichaar, but that vichaar is undertaken to hear and apply the Guru, not to replace the Guru.
It is therefore fair to call the movement from the janeu passage to rakhri an interpretation or application. The order must, however, remain clear: the governing answer comes from the Guru. The human application must show how it arises from Shabad and remain answerable to the complete Shabad.
In this article, the application is limited to the religious claim made for the thread. Where rakhri is only a family token, it remains culture and should not be presented as a Sikh religious practice. Where protection, blessing or spiritual jor is placed in it, the claim comes under Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s test of the material thread and Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s teaching that the One Master is our Protector.
That is the distinction the article makes, and I am grateful for the opportunity to state it more clearly.
While I understand the motive, changing from Sri to Shabad will have the same importance after 50-100 years of saying it a certain way. Take "Sat Sri Akaal" for example, not many think of the meaning when saying it anymore.
Thank you. This is a fair question, and it allows me to make the method of the article clearer.
The article does not say that the janeu and rakhri are the same ceremony. It states expressly:
“The Ang 471 Saloks speak directly about the janeu. They do not name rakhri or Raksha Bandhan.”
It later says:
“The janeu and rakhri are not historically the same ceremony.”
The argument is therefore not that both practices use a thread and must be treated as identical. The connection is narrower. What meaning and power are being claimed for the material thread?
Where rakhri is presented as carrying protection, blessing or spiritual force, Guru Nanak Sahib Ji gives a clear test. Guru Sahib examines the claimed jor, or power, of a physical religious thread. A thread grows old, breaks and is replaced. It does not acquire spiritual strength because a sister rather than a Pandit ties it.
Guru Sahib then gives the thread which does not break: compassion, contentment, self-restraint, truthful conduct, Naam and praise of the One.
Guru Arjan Sahib Ji also tells the Sikh where final protection rests:
ਰਾਖਾ ਏਕੁ ਹਮਾਰਾ ਸੁਆਮੀ ॥
raakhaa ek hamaaraa suaamee
The One Master is our Protector.
That is why the title and conclusion of the article are deliberately limited: rakhri as a protective ritual cannot stand inside Gurmat.
The article does not reject the love between a sister and brother. It does not reject meeting, sharing food, exchanging gifts or promising to care for one another. Where the thread is only a family token, the article describes it as a cultural or family custom. It does not call it a Guru-given Sikh rite.
This leads to your larger question: when a practice is not directly named in Gurbani, who decides whether it is Sikh, cultural or outside Gurmat?
For a Sikh, Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji gives the governing answer.
Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the living Guru. A modern practice does not fall outside the Guru’s authority simply because its present name does not appear in Gurbani. The answer may come through the principle by which the Guru judges the claim made for that practice.
If Gurbani could answer only questions whose modern names appeared directly in the text, we would reduce the living Guru to a list of historical customs. The Guru instead gives principles, distinctions and tests through which changing practices and new claims can be brought under Shabad.
A practice may therefore fall into one of three broad categories.
It may be a Guru-given Sikh discipline.
It may be a cultural or family custom which is not itself Gurmat, but which does not conflict with Gurmat.
Or it may be contrary to Gurmat because the religious claim made for it conflicts with what the Guru teaches.
The important question is not only whether Gurbani names the object. It is what the practice is being asked to do. Is it simply expressing family affection? Or is protection, blessing, sacred force or religious duty being placed in it?
A custom does not become Gurmat merely because many Sikh families follow it. Popularity cannot create Sikh authority. Nor does one writer, scholar, institution or office create Gurmat by assertion.
The writer’s task is more limited. It is to bring the claim before the Guru, show the relevant Shabad, explain the point of application and remain open to correction. The Sangat and the Panth may undertake wider vichaar, but that vichaar is undertaken to hear and apply the Guru, not to replace the Guru.
It is therefore fair to call the movement from the janeu passage to rakhri an interpretation or application. The order must, however, remain clear: the governing answer comes from the Guru. The human application must show how it arises from Shabad and remain answerable to the complete Shabad.
In this article, the application is limited to the religious claim made for the thread. Where rakhri is only a family token, it remains culture and should not be presented as a Sikh religious practice. Where protection, blessing or spiritual jor is placed in it, the claim comes under Guru Nanak Sahib Ji’s test of the material thread and Guru Arjan Sahib Ji’s teaching that the One Master is our Protector.
That is the distinction the article makes, and I am grateful for the opportunity to state it more clearly.