Kirpan da Amrit

[Niranjana]

Gur Fateh!

Incidently, on the note of Charan da Amrit, this is also maintained with the Sikh Dharma (3HO) institutions, albeit not referenced as such. Take a look at the "Sikh Vows" provided by Yogi Bhajan (on SikhNet) for an understanding of the commitment it involvs (it is slightly different from the manner that Lalleshvari suggests for Sehajdharis, but this is the usual 3HO trademark!).

Also to pick on the note re: Kirpan da Amrit, I received this Amrit when I was born and was witness to my youngest sister receiving hers. I'm not sure about the reasoning vis-a-vis eating from the same utensils as my mother is not Amritdhari although my Father is (and it no such restriction was specified to him by the Nanaksaria Sants who administered Amrit to him and his brothers/my uncles, although I note that most modern rehit specify elaborate dietary restrictions over and above avoiding Halal with regard to sharing food, utensils et al).

SAT SRI AKALLLL!!!

[Guest]

Take a look at the "Sikh Vows" provided by Yogi Bhajan (on SikhNet) for an understanding of the commitment it involvs (it is slightly different from the manner that Lalleshvari suggests for Sehajdharis, but this is the usual 3HO trademark!).

Can i get the direct link where yogi bhajan provided Sikh Vows??? ..

Also are you suggesting that 3ho sikh slightly follow charan amrit tradition than khanda batta da amrit??

Thanks in advance.

[Mr §ingh]

Someone anonymous send this to me and asked me to post this..so here we go -

Singh132 has demolished some your other arguments so I will just make comments on just the few that need to be commented on.

1. Chaupa Singh Rehatnama. Have you actually read this Rehatnama because you seem to have used the rehat about Sikhnis being told to teach religion to their husbands from Bikramjit's post on Sikh Sangat. It seems strange to me that you keep on going on about this and that book but you never seem to write down what it says. It's not the done thing to make a big fuss about something and then when you are asked for evidence say it's in this book go and read it ! Give me the page number of the Chaupa Singh Rehatnama and I can check it. If you haven't read it then don't go on about it like you are an authority on the subject.

2. Khalsa Dharam Shastar. Are you aware of the history of Avtar Singh Viharia ?. He was so ultra sanatan that even the sanatan sikhs of Amritsar Singh Sabha criticised him for his views. His only claim to any influence was the fact that he was a chela of Baba Khem Singh Bedi. As it seems that this is another book that you have not read I will give you a example of what the Khalsa Dharam Shastar contains, it's a translation by Harjot Oberoi.

From Brahmin to Nai, including chippe and jhivara all those belonging to the fourfold caste system are not allowed to partake food cooked or touched by the outcastes. This implies that just as the four Hindu castes can be polluted by the untouchables, similarly in the Sikh Khalsa religion all persons belonging to the four castes can be polluted too. Those Sikhs who belong to the untouchable groups ( like Mazhabi, Rahtia and Ramdasia Sikhs ) constitute a separate caste. These untouchable castes do not have the right to proceed beyond the fourth step in Sri Amritsar ( Golden temple ) Members of the high castes should take care not to mix with persons belonging to the lower castes. If someone seeks to do so he forfeits his claim of belonging to the higher castes

Khalsa Dharam Shastar pages 321-322 as cited by Harjot Oberoi in construction of religious boundaries page 106.

Can I ask whether the above quote is in line with Gurbani ?. How does it view the fact that Guru Nanak mixed with people of all castes and religions ?. Though some of the Rehatnamas put an emphasis on giving a higher status to some castes based on the personal bias of the writer but none go so far as to advocate a replication of the Hindu caste system into Sikhism. If the Khalsa Dharam Shastar can advocate such anti-Gurmat practices cannot it's advocation of Kirpan Da Amrit be seen as another retrogressive step this time in the case of women ?.

Bhulla Chuka Maaf

Btw GREAT ARTICLE BY AMRITPAL SINGH Ji :yo:

[Guest Javanmard]

Interesting to see that MrSIngh has to rely on someone else's brain to give replies and that the "anonymous source" doesn't quote Khalsa Dharam Shastar directly but through Oberoi...

[Singh132]

lalleshvarai and Narsingh,

If someone asks for a quote from a source ie. Where is "X" written? And the answer is "It's in Sree Guru Granth Sahib!!", that's not much of an answer. The person has to provide a direct quotation. I have read the Chaupa Singh rehitnama more than once and I have YET to come across any reference to Kirpaan Amrit. Either provide the quotations from this rehitnama with references, or admit you have lost this debate.

I have no real issue with the "Amrit" article on kirpaan amrit. He has not tried to prove that this was some puraatan maryada, he has just explained what he saw and doesn't try to convince anyone that this is the correct method.

"Actually, the writer of ‘Pram Satra Granth’ is trying to say that even ‘Kirpan Da Amrit’ was not allowed for the women. The ‘Charan Pahul’ was the valid baptism for them. "

I have never heard of a Pram Satra Granth. I can't find it anywhere in any literature. If this is the only source for the concept of kirpaan amrit, then those quoting it must give some information on it. Where can it be found? Who wrote it? When? etc.

The Khalsa Dharm Shaastar: That's a great document. Besides advocating caste, it also has interesting ideas like giving special seating arrangements for those in the lineage of the Gurus.

And Narsingh: my approach to rehitnamas is the same as ALL scholars of Sikhism. Padam himself writes that he doesn't take any rehitnama in its totality and all we can do is compare between them and use them as supplementary texts. I expressed the purpose of referring to them: it was to show that multiple documents refer to khanday kee paahul for women, yet none, NONE refer to kirpaan amrit.

I've had the same trouble with you before, please don't side-track the debate with other questions and information. Answer the question put to you: where is the reference to Kirpaan Amrit in Chaupa Singh rehitnama? What other proof do you have? Either answer these questions or admit you have lost this debate.

[Guest Javanmard]

have you actually read the whole Khalsa Dharam Shastar? Obviously not as it is out of print and only accessible in certain libraries. I have and it's true it talks about caste and lineages but you're placing these quotes out of context.

I do not agree with Bhai Avtar Singh Vahiria on the caste issue at all but I do know that kirpan da amrit and charan da amrit are not his inventions.

You want to discuss kirpan da amrit read the sources first!!!

[Singh132]

Laleshvari,

That's an awfully ignorant argument. Of course I havn't read all the Khalsa Dharm Shastar. I've read enough to know what it says in summary and who wrote it, and why etc. This is no puraatan granth. It's a book published around 1914. As for me taking things out of context; please give the context in which "low caste Sikhs" shouldn't bathe in the Sarovar and the context in which people in Guru lineages should be given special seating in darbaar and revered by all Sikhs. Please provide the context I'm missing.

Stop beating around the bush: WHERE IN CHAUPA SINGH REHITNAMA IS KIRPAN AMRIT MENTIONED????

This is the traditonal debate method I've seen used by Lalesh. and Narsingh. Change topic, and when you've lost, try to end the debate by making some crazy demand "go learn english!" or "wait for the website to come out!" and now "go read a book that is out of print and largely unavailable!". Great technique. Just admit you have no point and let's move on.

[Guest Javanmard]

Chaupa singh rahitnama mentions it as kes da amrit and dates it before 1699.

get the text now and read it! You can either chose to read McLeod's translation or his latest book on Rahit or Piara SIngh Padam's compendium of rahitname.

Get any of those three texts and read them. If you want to be spoon fed well you know what to do...

any university teacher would tell you the same thing as I am doing: read it for yourself and stop asking for exact quotes like a child!!!

[Singh132]

I've got Piara Singh's book right here. What the heck are you talking about? This is not spoon-feeding, it's giving some direction to what you're talking about.

I wasn't able to find any reference for kirpaan amrit, because now you've told me that I'm looking for "kes amrit".

According to the version of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama in the Padam book, Kes Amrit, is not kirpaan amrit, and has nothing to do with this topic. In fact, the description of Kes Amrit says "Hath khanda pakar kay vich fayroh..." ie. Take a Khanda in your hands and stir it within (the bata). And on top of that, IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN BUT ALL SIKHS. There's no mention of this being for women at all. Khanday Kee Paahul is prepared and then given to Daya Singh, Sahib Singh, Himmat Singh, Dharam Singh and Mohkam Singh. After them, it is given to Dhanna Singh, Hari Singh, Meva Singh and Jodh Singh by the Punj Pyaaray.

In fact, the story of "kes amrit" is the same as the one for Khanday Kee Paahul. He dates the event as 1754BK when the traditional account says 1756BK. This is not a big difference since some accounts even put it at 1752BK ie. Bhai Nandlal Rehitnama and Bhai Prehlad Singh Rehitnama and Bh. Rattan Singh Bhangoo. "Kes Amrit" is prepared by a Khanda and in fact, can be referred to as "Khanday Kee Paahul" as well.

In another version of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, edited by Shamsher Singh Ashok, indeed the rehitnama does mention that Chaupa Singh prepares "kes amrit" with a kard. But this amrit is also not made for women, but made for male Sikhs who receive it. Chaupa Singh prepares this amrit and then Guru Gobind Singh administers it to him and then Chaupa Singh gives it to 4 other Sikhs by the names of Dhanna Singh, Hari Singh, Sewa Singh, Jodh Singh.

This version in Ashok's book and the version in Padam's book are totally different. It seems to me the Ashok version glorifies Chaupa Singh as the first one to prepare amrit and then first to receive it. The version in Padam seems very much more like the version in all other sources. It seems that the Ashok version of Chaupa Singh's rehtinama has been changed to give chhiber Brahmins a more prominent role in the Panth. The Padam version is clearly more accurate.

Laleshvari, that was a pathetic attempt at getting out of a blatant lie. Your "kes amrit" reference has been shown to have nothing, NOTHING to do with this topic. Even if we accept the version in Ashok, even then, this Kard-Amrit/Kes Amrit of yours was administered to men, and has nothing to do with being given to women. You have been discovered. Just admit you have no basis to your belief in Kirpaan Amrit for women. Next, I suspect you will begin to declare that amrit for women is wrong.

Women and Men are both Khalsa of Satguru Gobind Singh. Both receive Khanday Kee Paahul and both keep the same Rehit. This is Khalsa. Khanday kee paahul for women has been acknowledged in various rehitnamas. Kirpaan amrit for women cannot be found anywhere.

Please keep your sanatanist Brahmanized version of Khalsa to yourself.

[Guest Javanmard]

Well the type of kirpan amrit mentioned in CHaupa SIngh Rahitnama may well have been to men as well but the fact is that women were administred that amrit after 1699. Fact is that the kirpan da amrit mentioned in Chaupa Singh rahitnama does not mention the panj pyare or even panj banian. Fact is the amrit mentioned in Chaupa Singh rahitnama is NOT the 1699 amrit. Although it is not called kirpan da amrit it is mentioned in a different way. In fact one could see it as a preparation to the amrit of 1699. I am happy you read Chaupa SIngh Rahitnama but kard and khanda are two different things and I think you do know that!

I never called you a liar nor did I lie! I do believe that we can keep this debate decent and civilised which by the way is the disctinctive characteristic of this forum. thanks for the moderators for keeping the standards high!!!

[Singh132]

the fact is that women were administred that amrit after 1699

Really? Fact eh? Based on what? What do you base your assertion on that women received kirpan amrit?

You havn't addressed the fact that the Padam version says "kes amrit" was prepared with a Khanda. You also havn't addressed the fact that the Ashok version is so completely different from anything written anywhere else and seems to glorify Chaupa Singh as the creator of the kes amrit and the first to receive and give it. This is in clear contrast to the Padam version where the kes amrit story is in fact the story of the first Khanday Kee Paahul.

This is a clear example of a rehitnama being changed, in this case to give the Chhiber Brahmins prominence in the Panth.

So let's sum up: "kes amrit" is in fact prepared with a khanda in the version generally accepted as unadultered and is the story of khanday kee paahul. The only version that refers to a "kard" is an adultered version , and this "kes amrit" is not mentioned anywhere else. And on top of that, the "kes amrit" is given to men.

Please do show me now where it says women should receive kirpan amrit. Anywhere.

[Guest Javanmard]

As far as my memory goes Kahn SIngh Nabha mentions it in Gurmat Martand as well as charan di pahul and he does not consider them anti-sikhi.

You're assuming that I consider kirpan da amrit inferior: you're wrong :wink:

You should calm down as well: it's a debate not a personal attack. If I tease people it's only in the context of the debate never on a personal level.

There are slight changes in the text of the Chaupa Singh Rahitnama: you assume it was a change that introduced kirpan da amrit instead of khanda: that's your opinion which is based on ideology.

I don't believe in any ideologies be they Singh Sabha, RSS, Marxist, Capitalist etc...

Ideology is a mental idol!!!

I don't even believe in Akal Purakh... I love Akal Purakh!!!

SIkhi is not about believing: it's about loving!

Kirpan da amrit is mentioned in other sources which I have mentioned earlier on.

[Niranjana]

Can i get the direct link where yogi bhajan provided Sikh Vows??? ..

Also are you suggesting that 3ho sikh slightly follow charan amrit tradition than khanda batta da amrit??

Thanks in advance.

Gur Fateh!

Not exactly Neo Jeeo, 3ho aka Sikh Dharma do follow the disciple of Khande da Amrit in full and to their credit are very discipled in their observance and maintenance of their rehit.

The vows I refer to are not those given during the Amrit Sanchar, these are standard (although with some variations in places, say no 40th Pauri for small Anand Sahib, wearing Bana 3HO style etc) but rather the vows are taken by those members who wish to become Sikhs, however are not taking Amrit (i.e. Khande Di Paul) as yet.

...i.e. new chap or chappess, having done Kundalini Yoga YB style, likes of the look of what he/she sees vis-a-vis YB and/or his representatives in the classes and gets introduced to Sikhi...wanting to become Sikh, they are administered Charan di Paul and given the aforementioned vows...it is granted, that thereafter most members go on to become Khalsa Singhs and Singhnees through full Khande di Paul, but the Vows (read Charan di Paul) is the route used for new individuals to become Sikh...

...I know this only from my personal involvement within 3HO groups in the past and some friends I still have within the organisation...please feel free to ask any further questions on this front.

Interestingly, there are many links between 3HO and AKJ sangats both in terms of outlook and in terms of personalities...but that is another story!

GUR BAR AKAAAAL!

[Singh132]

There are slight changes in the text of the Chaupa Singh Rahitnama: you assume it was a change that introduced kirpan da amrit instead of khanda: that's your opinion which is based on ideology

What would make more sense? One version of the "kes amrit" matches all other accounts, more or less, in terms of punj pyaaray, khanda, etc. The other version that glorifies Chaupa Singh is found nowhere else. Which one, logically, seems to be the adulteration? That's right. The one that glorifies Chaupa Singh. That eliminates the use of a kard for amrit completely.

As for your "other sources" , I don't recall any other except the Khalsa Dharam Shastar. Please tell me of others. And if you can, refute the mention of Khanday Kee Paahul beind administered to women found in the Chaupa Singh rehitnama and also in Prem Sumarag.

[Guest Javanmard]

You forget McLeod's critical edition as well as his latest book on Rahit.

Also: I am not against women taking amrit it's just that for them in the Budha Dal and at Hazur Sahib the procedure is different! That's it! I am in no way trying to enforce things on people.

[Narsingha]

Singh 132, why is it any text that speaks of something u do not agree with automatically contains adulterated information? Help me out here. If this is the way you are going to attempt to debunk or discredit historical facts it is weak...

[Singh132]

Narsingh,

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your comments. Laugh because they're so misguided or cry because I am to stubborn to just give up and not bother explaining AGAIN.

See, there are 2 (TWO) versions of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama in regards to the incident of kirpaan amrit. Clearly he didnt' write a volume 1 and a volume 2, so one must be adulterated or fake. The one in the Padam version is a recounting of Khanday Kee Paahul where a Khanda is used and amrit adminsitered to punj pyaaray. This account is the same as in other historical accounts and rehitnamas.

There is then a 2nd version of the rehitnama in which a kard is used by chaupa singh to make amrit, he then is administered this amrit by Guru Sahib, and then Chaupa Singh further gives to 4 other Sikhs. This version is not seen anywhere else. This story is not found anywhere but here. Various scholars have commented that this version seems to have been created to give Chhiber Brahmins a prominent place in the Panth, by making Chaupa Singh a big hero.

So, simply by the facts, it's clear this is not "historical fact".

Make sense?

More proof for kirpan amrit though? anything? Even if we accept the Chaupa Singh version that has kard amrit, this type was given to men. How do you conclude it was given to women? Where is support for this belief?

[Narsingha]

Singh132, dont beat around the bush...if u accept one version of Bhai Chaupa Singh's work, say so...if not, move on. Dont pick and choose and give into your inherent bias and create your own version of events. Now, please tell me which version you accept.

You also seem to want to dismiss/ignore the texts myself and lalleshvari mention that speak of kard da amrit...why so? You ask for proof, and we mention these texts, and you seemingly ignore them....is there a reason behind this?

[Guest]

Sometimes I find it ridiculous that singhs of Gurus times and singhs the ones wrote Rehtnamas are being judge by modern sikhs on bases of their castes.

[Singh132]

Narsingh,

Nice try. Read the literature before debating. No scholar accepts any version of the Chaupa Singh rehitnama in its entirety. Padam, Randhir Singh, Ashok, McLeod all write that the Chaupa Singh rehitnama has been changed. No one (except it seems you) would accept the entire rehitnama in its entirety. Go read what I wrote above.

Back to the topic though! Show me your proof that "kard amrit" was given to women and this was the accepted method for them. The debate over Chaupa Singh is really an aside. Even the version that speaks of the Kard Amrit doesnt' indicate that it was given to women. Answer the question or admit you have no more proof. Let's do this: list the sources you have that indicate kirpaan amrit must be given to women or was given to women. These sources must be pre-20th century as well.

[Narsingha]

I repeat my post again...for your benefit..

You also seem to want to dismiss/ignore the texts myself and lalleshvari mention that speak of kard da amrit...why so? You ask for proof, and we mention these texts, and you seemingly ignore them....is there a reason behind this?

[Singh132]

Narsingh,

I don't think you understand the conecept of "debate". I also can clearly see you don't know when to give up and admit defeat. I've asked you again, besides the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, what other source have you given? I can't find them? The others you provide are the "Khalsa Dharm Shastra" of 1914 and the Hazoori Maryada Prabodh of 1967. Those are hardly "puraatan" sources.

I've already shown you two puraatan sources that clearly say women should receive Khanday Kee Paahul.

Now Narsingh, it's up to you to give me any more sources you have. Let's for a moment assume I didn't discredit the Chaupa Singh reference you've been going on about. Please show me any, ANY reference to women receiving Kard Amrit. The Chaupa Singh reference you cited shows this amrit being given to men. Nothing about women. In fact, the same Chaupa Singh rehitnama goes on to say that anyone who does not give a Sikh woman Khanday Kee Paahul is a tankhaiyaa. This totally destroys your point.

A request to the moderators: lets either have some new facts from Narsingh/Laleshvarai or shut down this thread and let the readers decide for themselves who has the more convincing case.

[Guest]

as requested, this thread will be closed soon, ill leave it open for about 12 hours more for any last messages.

[Singh132]

I got interested in the much touted "Khalsa Dharam Shastra" and decided to go do some research at my University. I found some interesting stuff in my review that I thought I should certainly share and perhaps the Sanatanists can answer....

Gurmantra is most important (agreed), and must be received in the EAR from a personal "Satguru" (pg. 72). The "Satguru" should be a distinguished member of a Guru Lineage. If one is going to live as Grahisti, then the person giving the Mantra must also be Grahisti and if the person is a recluse/ateet, then the giver of the Mantra must also be ateet (pg 70). Paahul is not as important as receiving Gurmantra. Paahul is simply the preparation of the soul for gurmantra (54-55). The "Satguru" who gives the mantra should also then be a life long guide.

Sikh Women indeed do not receive Khanday Kee Paahul. They instead should receive Charan Paahul. Unlike what has been said here, the ONLY condition in which Kirpaan Amrit should be administered to a woman, is if she has a SON. No other situation (pg. 134). At the age of 9 or 10, the male child should be given Kirpaan Amrit.

Sikhs of "lower castes" can sit in the same sangat, but not in the same Pangat ie. Langar. Vahiria argues that if the lower castes were given equal rights, "those already in the ranks of the Panth might renounce their faith in disgust" (pg. 235). The Gurus didn't eliminate caste (God forbid), but just wanted to reduce the pride of the higher castes (pg. 242).

Furthermore, All Sikhs are in fact Hindus according to Vahiria. Anyone who does not believe in killing cows and does not believe in "non-Indian religions" is a Hindu (pg. 25-27).

So now, I was wondering, do Laleshvari and Narsingh also believe that ONLY a woman with a SON can receive kirpaan amrit?

This "reference" of yours is a manual on how to become a Malechh Khalsa. Thank Satguru Gobind Singh that he has had this much kirpa on his Khalsa that nonsense views like this have died away. And I'm certain he, nor his Khalsa, will let them come back up again.

[Guest]

hmmmmm............. :evil: :shock: