vinegar

Read: Numbers 6:1-27

The vow of the Nazarite was voluntarily made by those who desired “to separate themselves unto the LORD†(v.2) for a determined season. “All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD†(v.8). During the time of his separation, the Nazarite was bound by three absolute restrictions.

*

First, he could “eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk†(v.4).

*

Second, “there shall not razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled†(v.5).

*

Third, during the days of his separation, “he shall come at no dead body†(v.6).

At the end of his separation, specific sacrifices must be made at which time “the hair of his separation is shaven†(v.19). At that time, the restrictions of the vow are removed.

The vow was offered voluntarily. Evidently, the Nazarite himself determined the length of the vow. Therefore, he decided how much he was willing to sacrifice. Yet, after the vow was made, its requirements were very strict. Consider the three restrictions placed on the Nazarite. As a whole, they illustrate the cost of discipleship for the believer today.

Sacrifice

First, the Nazarite could drink no wine or grape juice or eat anything that came from the vine. Wine and grape juice have a wide and varied use in typology. They picture many things. Yet, one Old Testament type remains fairly consistent. The fruit of the vine pictures joy – as in the joy of harvest.

*

Psalm 4:7 – “Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.â€

*

Psalm 128:3 – “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.â€

One who separates himself to the service of Christ must be willing to give up some of the joys of this life for the sake of the Saviour. Christ said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself†(Luke 9:23). To serve the Lord fully, you must be willing to deny yourself some of this earth’s pleasures. Sinful pleasures must certainly go. But God may ask you to sacrifice seemingly harmless pleasures for His service. If you really want to serve Him, you must be willing to sacrifice whatever He requires.

Shame

Second, the Nazarite could not cut his hair during the time of separation. If his vow was for a long time, his hair would grow long. But in the Bible, long hair on a man indicates shame (1 Corinthians 11:14). Someone who willingly takes upon himself that which causes shame has conquered his pride. The disciple must be willing to take upon himself that which causes the world to scorn and laugh at him.

“If any man will come after me, let him…take up his cross daily†(Luke 9:23). Paul speaks of “the offence of the cross†(Galatians 5:11). Peter teaches the believers who suffer for the cause of Christ to “rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings (1 Peter 4:13). True discipleship requires us to be willing to suffer shame for His name’s sake.

Separation

Third, the Nazarite was prohibited from touching any dead body. He must totally separate from death. Once again consider the requirements of discipleship as found in Luke 9:23. (You may have noticed that the three restrictions on the Nazarite perfectly match the three requirements of the disciple as found in this verse.) “If any man will come after me, let him…follow me.â€

The entire world is dead in trespasses and sins. In order to serve the Lord with all our hearts, we must follow Christ entirely and turn our backs on the things of this world. Christ told the would-be disciple, “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead†(Matthew 8:22). To follow Christ requires us to separate from the deadness of this world.

Paul taught this truth in Galatians 6:14 – “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.†Paul got to the point where the world had no attraction for him. It was dead (“crucifiedâ€) to him. We must separate ourselves from the death of this world if we would be true disciples.

lol sikhsangat.com

explains everytihing.

like I said, no one said not to thirst, to aim high. the point is to not be consumed by it.

If you've made up your mind, what exactly are you asking help for?

Something that could not have been achieved by taking too seriously that spiritual stuff - as that would invariably neglect the real.

if God is at the core of all things how can there be a reality that is not spiritual, I disagree with your duality.

It cant succeed in benefiting a person who doesnt know the ways of life: how to deal with people, how to get what you want, etc. Religion will only make things worse for him - because it will tell him "those things dont matter anyway.." .. "what matters is inner happiness" or something equally vague and useless.

I have experienced exactly the opposite of your sentiment.

How can a way of life that teaches you to love, tolerate and respect everyone not teach you how to deal with other people. A way which tels you reap what you sow, that you have to work hard to get what you want.

I think that you came to Sikhi with a preconceived notion of what it was, ignored the reality of it and wandered around in your mental image of what it is to be a Sikh and growing tired of your delusion are blaming Sikhism rather than yourself.

Nowhere are we taught not to participate in society at any level, the only teaching is that you should not let it consume you.

I'm not sure what you want help with.

It's pretty much a given that SIkhi saroop will grate with the mainstream society, it has *always* been like that, it's nothing new.

I don't want this to be an overly critical or mean post, but if your character didn't improve I can only assume that you didn't read/understand Gurbani; also Sikhi aims to 'wake you up' not send you into a deeper sleep, the point is to wake up to the reality around you and not be affected by it, not to isolate yourself form it.

You speak of Sikhism as a requirement to an end, a tool; I see it as a lifestyle dedicated to God and His bhagti, with worldly things being necessary but ultimately unimportant (in a Raja Janak kind of way) and something you should happily be willing to die for rather than give it up (thats the aim anyway).

You speak of Sikhism as a physical thing ("religion gets in your way") - the physical aspect of Sikhism is a uniform, and isn't what being a Sikh is all about

you must do what keeps your conscience clear, but I dont think you understand what Sikhi is at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=retreat

Anyone watch this?

Thoughts?

Aisha is pretty representative of what is wrong with western Sikhism today.

that link is broken, so use this one instead

if you want freedom of religion we have that in pretty much every country in the world outside of the middle east, and india...

i don't think its a credible reason for a khalistan

sikhism wasnt borne from us, its the other way around, itll take care of itself.

I call bullshit, if we needed it we wouldve got it in the 80s

i can see it now, a bunch of neophyte sikhs with no knowledge of their history running around banning things in the name of 'freedom' and we end up with a pos totalitarian country

imo the type of people we want as sikhs are people who will be sikhs no matter how badly they are persecuted, like the people who were sikhs when it was punishable by death

having a state back a religion is a big mistake, next you'll have the state police the religion; the last thing sikhism needs is central organisation and a bunch of idiots forcefully dictating what is and isn't sikhism a la islam in afhanistan/arabia etc

and like some other people said, we cant even run a local Gurudwara without beating each other up, how the heck are we gonna run a country, if we eserved it we wouldve got it in the 80s, of that i have no doubt

also it would only be idol worship if he thought the actual picture was Guru Sahib, he was bowing to the representation of Guru Sahib, not the paper it was printed on.

of course

Why is sanskrit and sanskrit texts essential for a Sikh to further himself ? Dont we have all that is required knowledge-wise in the Aad Guru Darbar? and Dasam Guru Darbar? Or is there a shortage of knowledge in these Granths that made Akali Guru Gobind Singh send 5 Sikhs to Kashi to "top-up" thier knowledge?

I dont know much about this in general, but your argument is ludicrous. Just because someone wants to read something else doesn't mean they don't value Guru Sahib. It's not heresy to be curious about other religious texts.

lol its so typical in the UK to find ppl that blame the hindus, GOI and the British for everything

like the rest of us are mindless drones with no capacity for individual thought

they don't force ppl to become amritdhari, how deeply one is involved is left up to one to decide

this is just ridiculous...the last thing i want to be doing is shouting expletives at a saroop of Guru Teg Bahadur Ji

I would not call it mocking, merely telling us what they really are.

We have demons and devte, the path of the gursikh is neither, it is right in the middle, with no discrimination between 'good' and 'evil', we hve to become nirgun, without paap, without gun - something that is only possible through human birth.

The hindu gods are devte, in jap ji sahib it says that they can't see waheguru. Maya is, by definition, that which makes you forget waheguru, so they are naturally bewitched by her, it is the natural state of things.

Guru Sahib is not saying good things about them, nor is he saying bad things about them. They have their own duties, which is not to bring us naam.

im guessing to stop ppl changing it in future

AAAAARGH

why did you quote mloco

ditto

I heard in a Sant Isher Singh recording somewhere online (cant remember where) that 108 (of 108 beads) mala of low avastha Sikh is equal to one mala of Brahmgiani.

this has been discussed before, search

i would say no, because the logic behind vegetarianism in Sikhi has nothing to do with taste, but with the composition of meat - it is composed of all 5 elements and puts greater weight on oneself, which makes bhagti harder.

Its like non alcoholic wine - we dont abstain from alcohol because of the taste but because of the effect, non alcoholic wine is basically fruit juice, you can't say that its the same to drink as alcoholic wine.

that has nothing to do with the topic

because no animal was killed in its production, and no you're not eating meat, you're eating soya, which is not rajas food.

I would say that this question misses the point that all the Gurus are roop of Guru Nanak, who is roop of Nirankar etc etc

whether or not Guru Gobind Singh Ji inclded their bani is non consequential.

try google