Samadhi Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Was just looking for the thoughts of some people here. Basically can you be a Sikh without taking Amrit( khandeh ke paul)? or should i say can you be a 'Sikh' without being a 'Khalsa' or joining the Khalsa panth (as in prescribing to wear 5 kakkars etc) A Khalsa is meant to be a Saint and A Warrior. But is it a must that anyone that wants to be a Sikh has to become a Khalsa? or is that a choice? e.g. like Nirmaleh (far as I no don’t take khandeh ke paul or do they ? ) if someone does not want to adopt the warrior lifestyle or adopt the 5k's does he have to go find another religion? Would like your views Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I think there is a quote in the vaars that says the people became sikhs of Guru Nanak by taking amrit at his feet... some people refer to this as saying you can't be a sikh without baptism from the Guru.. http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?word...=3&pauri=11 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaljug Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I think there is a quote in the vaars that says the people became sikhs of Guru Nanak by taking amrit at his feet... some people refer to this as saying you can't be a sikh without baptism from the Guru.. http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?word...=3&pauri=11 Fateh! Nirmalay still take charan amrit from their Vidya Gurdev. I'm sure the Udasis do the same. Not so sure of the Sevapanthis. K. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 A Singh must be a Sikh, but Sikh is not necessarily a Singh. There is a Sakhi that says Guru Gobind Singh asked Bhai Nand Lal and Bhai Ghaniaya to put there swords away (they wore them and presented themselves before 10th Guru to receive Khande da Amrit). Guru Ji said that they didn't need to wield these swords - the swords they should wield are those of the pen and of service, the Singhs were here to wield the swords of steel... This will not fit with many peoples education and thought, but it tells a different story as to the role and creation of Singhs back in the day.... i.e. Warriors. Muslim Dhadis and Rababis were Gurus Sikhs, as were Udasis, Seva Panthis (such as the non-Singh Bhai Ghanaiyia), as were the Pvanja Kavi lead by Bhai Nand Lal Goya, as were 10th Masters Muslim devotees like Pir Budduh Shah, as were non Sikh sangats to whom Guru sent hukumnamai etcetera. In the strictest sense of the word - IMO - a Sikh is one who becomes a devotee of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and listens, learns and applies the teachings therein. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Fateh singha.. Where have you read that sakhi, it sounds like a beautiful sakhi.. The view you have presented is beautiful and inclusive, but does'nt it contradict the above vaar of Bhai Gurdass? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I don't see that there is any contradiction. Bhai Sahib relays the perfection relationship - the perfect Guru (who is always perfect) and the perfect Sikh. I certainly am not even a glimmer of the Sikh that Bhai Sahib describes, even though I follow as much Khalsa rehit as I can. That Sikh is above rehits - it is a Sikh who has become one with the Guru. Bhai Nand Lal and Bhai Ghanaiya were such Sikhs, as recognised by their and our Master. I will try and locate the source of the Sakhi - I am just quoting it from memory. I am sure our more well read members will be familiar with it though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ । gur deekhiaa|ai sikhi sikhu sadaaiaa| Getting initiated by the Guru the disciple has become a Sikh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Amardeep, ਦੀਖਿਆ - is a variation of the Sanskrit word 'deeksha' which literally translates to 'teaching'. ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ । My translation of this pangati is: Gurus teaching (he who) takes and learns, Sikh (he is) called. Feel free to correct the above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I don't see that there is any contradiction. Bhai Sahib relays the perfection relationship - the perfect Guru (who is always perfect) and the perfect Sikh. I certainly am not even a glimmer of the Sikh that Bhai Sahib describes, even though I follow as much Khalsa rehit as I can. That Sikh is above rehits - it is a Sikh who has become one with the Guru. Bhai Nand Lal and Bhai Ghanaiya were such Sikhs, as recognised by their and our Master. I will try and locate the source of the Sakhi - I am just quoting it from memory. I am sure our more well read members will be familiar with it though. In DDT, Bhai Nand Lal jee is always refered to as Bhai Nand Lal Singh Jee. They say he did take Amrit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaljug Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Amardeep, ਦੀਖਿਆ - is a variation of the Sanskrit word 'deeksha' which literally translates to 'teaching'. ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ । My translation of this pangati is: Gurus teaching (he who) takes and learns, Sikh (he is) called. Feel free to correct the above. Yes, that's the broad meaning of the term, but diksha in Indian religions refers specifically to a ritual of initiation during which a shishya (disciple) is empowered by his diksha guru with mantras, rituals and secrets specific to a particular deity or cult. In its ideal and perfect form, diksha invests the shishya with the full powers of his guru, and the guru takes on the karma of his shishya. That's why there is such respect for one's guru in Indian religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism (and of course in Sikhi) - because shishya and diksha guru are considered inseparable. Deekhia holds much more meaning than the English translation to "teaching" can ever hope to convey. K. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Amardeep, ਦੀਖਿਆ - is a variation of the Sanskrit word 'deeksha' which literally translates to 'teaching'. ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ । My translation of this pangati is: Gurus teaching (he who) takes and learns, Sikh (he is) called. Feel free to correct the above. Brother, Dheekya in traditional Sikh circles means Amrit, getting Naam Dhaan from the Guru. If we go by this type of logic of what the linguistic meaning of a word is as compared to what a meaning of the word is in Sikh tradition then we can redefine all sorts of words. For example using this logic, since the term 'Sikh' means student, then does that mean that all the students who are studying math, biology in schools are all 'Sikhs'? Taking this type of logic further one can even say that all my school teachers since childhood were my 'Gurus' since Guru means teacher and my school and college are 'Gurdwaras'. This type of revisionist interpretation is flawed, and it is like a slippery slope with no end once you get into it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Hey guys, i m just going to quote my previous post, sorry for being broken record but this specific question on difference between sikh and khalsa keeps coming back on the forums. I don't blame the users on here because it's a critical one. Even parcharaiks who follow puratan maryada seem more concerned about being political correct in the gurdwara's then being straight up front blunt like soorma and put forward clear distinction and deep message of sri guru nanak dev ji sikhi. But i don't blame the parcharaiks who have families and in gristh jevan for being political correct especially when sikhs these days are quite paranoia and insecure about as little things like dhoof/scent being bhraminvaad and willing to declare their own independent fatwas against anyone who doesn't adhere to their mindset and label them as anti-sikh, being internal enemy of the panth. I think by looking at suppression in real sikh world all in on one hand where parcaharik cannot do deep vichars on certain crucial topics in sangat without being intimidated/harassed/defamation in media/newspapers. We should be all glad at the freedom of internet where one is not silenced expressing their views and their own surti understanding inspired by mahapursh or personal experience in Gurmat within framework of Gurbani. We should all be encouraging this questions even if it comes up from time to time as long as intent is there to do more khoj in Gurmat. Anyway here is what i personally think should not be taken as main voice of sikhawareness just my personal opinion To live lifestyle of Khalsa as given by sri guru gobind singh ji maharaj, you must take khanda da amrit- (5 kakars, recite 5 baniya, mool mantar, naam abhyaas gurmantar, do nishkam seva) To live lifestyle of Sikh you may or may not take khanda da amrit but as per gurbani but you must take gurmantar/naam mantar from puran bhramgyani/sant. Sikhi from socio-religious context requires student to take khanda da amrit, encourages student to be Khalsa and have only one ishatdev which is sri guru granth sahib ji and beleive in all 10 guru's/khanda da amrit/rehat maryada. Sikhi from wider context, same context where all the muslim and hindu bhagats were consider Sikhs in Gurbani. They were consider sikhs regardless of their various different types of initiations, socio cultural life style, rehni-behni, outer kriya, inner maryada. That is blunt truth no one can deny that. Ones who deny this very fact want to bind sikhi in their little box. But parkash of sri guru nanak dev ji sikhi destroy their little box that they live in, sikhi is anadi (aad sach, jugad sach, hai bhi sach, nanak hosi bhi sach). The real essence in initiation is gurmantar(naam) amrit, check out all the initiation in the eastern spiritual traditions, you will find naam amrit is common out of all, and core of all and essence of all, outer amrit varies/different ways of intiation ie- charan amrit, khanda amrit, amrit by holding hand of gurdev, amrit by gurdev putting hand on shish head. Bhagats in sri guru granth sahib got amrit by various ways by gurdev but common in those intiations was they got gurmantar. If Guru Sahib was against different ways of initiations(amrit) they wouldnt have included teachings of many bhagats(who got initiated different ways) in sri guru granth sahib ji. Sidhant of sri guru granth sahib ji and gurmat - sidhant emphasize more on naam amrit, getting gurmantar from guru (both from socio-religious context- panj pyares/as well mystic context) than set type of intiations and rules. In fact there are no such rules/regulations of how initiation should be in Gurbani. By taking all that into account, historically in the panth, charan amrit may be replaced by khanda da amrit in mainstream sikhi but in theory charan amrit still exist and its not lower than khanda da amrit because real essence of amrit in gurbani is decipher to- naam amrit which is common between all. In fact there is no set rules of khalsa being amritdhari khalsa or sikh being sehajdhari/kesadhari. In gurbani they both are used interchangably in some places to describe state and wider context being atamgyani. Here is an example of sikh from gurbani, guru ji giving updesh to jaigaso: Gur Satgur Ka Jo Sikh Akhaai So Bhalke Uth Har Naam Dhiyawai. Udham Kare Bhalke Parbhati Isnan Kare Amritsar Naawai. Updes Guru Har Har Jap Jaape Sabh Kilwikh Pap Dokh Leh Jaawai. Phir Chare Diwas Gurbani Gaawai Behndean Uthdean Har Naam Dhiyawai. Jo Sas Giras Dhiyae Mera Har Har So Gur Sikh Guru Man Bhaawai. Jis No Dyal Howai Mera Soami Tis Gursikh Guru Updesh Sunawai. Jan Nanak Dhur Mange Tis Gur Sikh Ki Jo Aap Jape Awreh Naam Japaawai. (305) === Here is an example of khalsa from gurbani (sri sarbloh granth), guru ji describing khalsa: Atam Ras Neh Jannehi Sio Haie Khalsa Dev, Prab Meh Mo Meh Tas Meh Ranchak Naeh Bhaid(v) || The one who has entered the sphere of atma(self), he alone is worthy of the title of the khalsa, he becomes one with me the guru and ultimately God.There is no difference. Khalsa and sikh are shown different in avastha if we do vichar on those two quotes, above quote- guru is giving updesh to sikh, if you wish to be called sikh of the guru, get up in amritvela and recite naam on amrit vela, do udham(try). I dont think above quote is refer to khalsa who is been described as atamrassaie in 2nd quote because atamgyani/atamrasaie/bhramgyani already tasted atam ras, amrit ras and is fully imbued in naam, there is noo need for him/her to udham or get up, gurmukh samadhi in atam ras is nirodh is ever lasting, naam is running 24/7- rom rom har dhavaie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 “In DDT, Bhai Nand Lal jee is always refered to as Bhai Nand Lal Singh Jee. They say he did take Amrit.” Thats their opinion, ithihaas states otherwise. I choose to disagree. Read the whole pangati – not focus on the word ਦੀਖਿਆ alone. We are talking about Gurus Sikhiya here, not just any Sikhya – with Guru’s Sikhiya (and acceptance-practice of it)– naam is contained and obtained. To say ‘Gurus teaching’ is not to understate anything – in fact, by adding the word Guru before Dhikiya – all the aforementioned interpretations cannot do justice – Guru Granth is Gurus Dhikiya – he who accepts it (ਲੈ) - ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ|| Mithar could you please provide evidence that Dhikiya in Sikh traditional Sikh terms means initiation - I am not disagreeing, would just like to know, ta. N30 – I totally agree with you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Diksha also implies a transfer of shakti, the Guru gives the disciple his shakti, without the transfer of shakti all is just empty ritual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mit Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I havnt taken Amrit yet, but if i get up and do naam simran at amrit vela, do my nitnem, does my bhakti go in vain, if i havnt taken Amrit. I will be honest, there is an organisation called Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha in Leeds,whom i highly respect, but there are certain individuals there that say that if you do not take amrit, you are not a sikh. Can anyone elaborate on this for me please? Light, Mit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Your bhagti is not in vain. Anyone who tells you otherwise has not done bhagti themselves. Guru Ji tells us that we are judged by our actions, your actions are of a Premi - in fact the kamai from these will lead you closer to Guru and the inevitable path of becoming his complete disciple. don't let anyone in better circumstances judge you, focus on your own life and development - Guru has already blessed you and will bless you further inwhat you desire when the time is right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekhane'ch Jannat Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 What we must realise is that being obsessive about labelling things can block the experience of the very 'things' that are being labelled. And at the same time we need to label the terrain to be sure where we are going, it is a subtle balance we must come to. Amrit is an outer imitation of an inner biochemichal process which occurs when our body functions to its full evolutionary capacity. Mind affects body and body affects mind, to scare people away from realising their potential by insisting they are initiated into certain rules is not suitable to the time we are now living in. In earlier times this was necessary for the protection of the truth and to impart moral discipline, but now this truth has become open and to protect it we must become it. SIkhi has a big part to play in this but it needs to stop being monopolised by Amritdharis and the web of complexity that is Sikh Identity being spun around Gurbani must be removed so Gurbani can shine in the world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Bravo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 "Complying with the Gurus orders [that all Sikhs should present themselves at Anandpur Sahib bearing arms] Bhai Nand LAL and Bhai Kanhia donned swords. When all the Sikhs were present within the darbar, the Guru gazed upon everyone one of them with great affection. While first addressing Bhai Nand Lal, he said 'What need is there for you to put on the sword? Take up the pen [the nib of] which I have sharpened for you.' In this very same affectionate manner [Guru Gobind Singh] commanded Bhai Kanhia, 'you should take up the sword of selfless service, seva, while we brandish the sword [of steel]." Darbari Rattan p.25 Piara Singh Padam - as mentioned in the 'The Darbar of the Sikh Gurus' Fenech. Fenech also mentions that Chaupa Singh Chhibbers rehitnama alludes to a similar sakhi - whereby Guru instructs Rai Singh, a Sikh scholar of Persian, to leave the battlefield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Waheguru 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaljug Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Read the whole pangati – not focus on the word ਦੀਖਿਆ alone. We are talking about Gurus Sikhiya here, not just any Sikhya – with Guru’s Sikhiya (and acceptance-practice of it)– naam is contained and obtained. To say ‘Gurus teaching’ is not to understate anything – in fact, by adding the word Guru before Dhikiya – all the aforementioned interpretations cannot do justice – Guru Granth is Gurus Dhikiya – he who accepts it (ਲੈ) - ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ|| Fateh, Veer ji. It's not about understating anything, Veer ji, the etymology was provided in the hopes that people may understand that 'teaching' here is more profound than the English word may be able express. This only adds to the depth of meaning when we say 'Gurus teaching'. But yeah, I agree with your message. :-) K. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 “In DDT, Bhai Nand Lal jee is always refered to as Bhai Nand Lal Singh Jee. They say he did take Amrit.” Thats their opinion, ithihaas states otherwise. I choose to disagree. Read the whole pangati – not focus on the word ਦੀਖਿਆ alone. We are talking about Gurus Sikhiya here, not just any Sikhya – with Guru’s Sikhiya (and acceptance-practice of it)– naam is contained and obtained. To say ‘Gurus teaching’ is not to understate anything – in fact, by adding the word Guru before Dhikiya – all the aforementioned interpretations cannot do justice – Guru Granth is Gurus Dhikiya – he who accepts it (ਲੈ) - ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ|| Mithar could you please provide evidence that Dhikiya in Sikh traditional Sikh terms means initiation - I am not disagreeing, would just like to know, ta. N30 – I totally agree with you. read this: http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?book...i=11&vaar=3 I don't have my translation of Bhai Gurdas Dhiya Vaaran by Bhai Vir Singh with me right now as I've given it to some one to borrow but I've seen him also make the same translation of this tukh (ਗੁਰ ਦੀਖਿਆ ਲੈ ਸਿਖਿ ਸਿਖੁ ਸਦਾਇਆ । ) as mentioned in this link. I am human and I can be wrong, but as far as I know all make the same translation of this tukh as I have mentioned. Your translation seems revisionist, not traditional. As for Bhai Nand Lal Jee, I've not read the Sakhi you have mentioned. You may very well be right, but can you provide information in regard to which granth that Sakhi is from so I can check it. DDT has a high level of credibility when it comes to the field of Sikh history. But at the same time I'm not a blind follower who will just follow something just because an organisation I respect makes a claim of it. For me something should make logical sense as well. Now considering Bhai Nand Lal Jee has written Khalsa Rehet Maryadha, Khalsa Tankhah Nama, it seems highly logical to assume that the man must have followed what he wrote, otherwise it might make him seem like a hypocrite to write something and not follow it himself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Bhai Nand Lal Goya did'n write the maryada,.. he penned it.... There is a difference between writing something down as a dictate, and making up words nad hukams yourself... so even if he was'nt a Singh, that does'nt make him a hypocrite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatehsingh Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Bhai Nand Lal Goya did'n write the maryada,.. he penned it.... There is a difference between writing something down as a dictate, and making up words nad hukams yourself... so even if he was'nt a Singh, that does'nt make him a hypocrite Or, did he even write or pen those in the first place? Bhai Kahn Singh in the Mahan Kosh doesn't seem to think so for one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 What is his arguments for not beliving so (apart from the anti-gurmat content included ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.