Hoping to Discuss Sikhism

[nbf12345]

Good Evening and Sat Sri Akaal,

I hope I'm not intruding somewhere I'm not welcome, but I was hoping there perhaps may be some members who would be willing to engage in a dialogue with me in regards to the multitude of questions I have on the history and religion of Sikhism?

Let me introduce myself first. My name is Andrew, I was born in Liverpool, England, but currently reside in Worcester, Massachusetts. I attend graduate school for history in Boston. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but am without doubt an apostate, as I have rejected faith from my life. That said, I have an enormous interest in Sikhism inspired by long conversations with a Sikh coworker, and indeed have a stack of about twenty books on Sikh history scattered across the table next to me as I'm currently writing an historiographical paper on the Sikh Diaspora for one of my classes.

I have the most incredible respect for Sikhism, indeed of all the world's religions it seems the most soundly constructed in equality, love and righteousness. But as I say, as I lack faith personally I am not looking for a religious experience.

Rather, I was wondering if anyone would like to help me with a polite but frank discourse on the aspects of Sikhism which so fascinate me yet elude my understanding. As I think only someone within Sikhism can offer a true perspective on so many of the issues of the curious about.

Again, there's nothing for anyone to gain from this other than helping someone reach a greater understanding of the religion.

But, if only would care to talk to me, please let me know! I would be happy to talk to anyone, and hopefully I have enough understanding of Sikhism to be able to engage with people on a level on which I am least familiar with the terminology and basic concepts involved.

Thank you kindly for reading, and have a wonderful evening,

Andrew.

 

[mahanpaapi]

https://www.scribd.com/user/4596728/Divine-Wisdom-Nanaksar-Gursagar

[amardeep]

Hi Andrew,

Welcome to Sikhawareness. Feel free to ask any questions you might have,- I am sure there are plenty of people interested in helping you with your research.

[nbf12345]

Thank you so much for your reply. I guess if I could start off, I'm just trying to wrap my head around some terminology, which I think as an outsider I might not be understanding the subtleties of. I wonder if anyone had any opinions if my thoughts on these words are incorrect, or perhaps not quite on the right track:

Panth - As I understand it, is the Panth simply the global community of all Sikhs?

Khalsa - This seems trickier, I understand it's historical creation under Guru Gobind Singh Dev ji. But what does it mean today, do you say someone IS Khalsa? Is A Khalsa? Follows Khalsa? Not all Sikh's are associated with this word assumedly. Does it mean simply maintaining the Five K's? Does it mean a community of all Sikh's who follow certain ways of living?

Sahajdhari vs. Amritdhari - Is anyone who has not been initiated as an Amritdhari automatically a Sahajdhari? Can a Sahajdhari express their Sikhism in any manner? It it necessary for a man to wear a turban and go unshaven for example?

Keshdhari - In regards to the above two terms, what exactly does Keshdhari mean?

Quam - This one is tricky, is it perhaps the concept of some sort of physical nation of Sikhs? As opposed to a religious Panth?

Anyway! That's a start!

Thanks so much for reading,

Andrew.

[amardeep]

I will try my best to answer and hopefully others can assist and contribute:

Panth - yes. Global community of Sikhs regardles of ethnic background, caste, gender etc.

Khalsa - a global brotherhood of the initiated Sikhs who have taken amrit baptism. All Sikhs are part of the panth, but all Sikhs are not part of the Khalsa. By belonging to the Khalsa brotherhood you live a certain lifestyle which regards your free time, spiritual practices, how you spend your money, how you manage your thoughts, etc.

Sehajdhari vs. amritdhari - amritdharis are basically the Khalsa Sikhs. Sehajdhari are those Sikhs who have not taken Amrit but are still following the basic tenets of Sikhi. A majority of the Sikhs are sehajdharis and always have been.

Keshdhari - a sikh who keeps his hair uncut but has not taken amrit yet... In early Sikhism the keshdhari and amritdhari was the same... Later in history you start seeing people who keeo their hair uncut without having taken amrit. The uncut hair used to be the main symbol of the Khalsa amritdharis.. Now things have changed a bit and it appears the Kirpan (dagger) has become the main symbol.

 

-Qaum is just a persian word for panth (which is the sanskrit word). Sikhs use them interchangeably.

 

[paapiman]

23 hours ago, nbf12345 said:

Sahajdhari vs. Amritdhari - Is anyone who has not been initiated as an Amritdhari automatically a Sahajdhari? Can a Sahajdhari express their Sikhism in any manner? It it necessary for a man to wear a turban and go unshaven for example?

Definition of Sehajdhari - People, who are born in non-Sikh families, but have love and faith in Sikhism. Historically, there were many people, who loved the Sikh Gurus, but followed their own religious practices. These people were termed as Sehajdharis.

Also, people who are sincerely trying to follow Sikhism, but are not Baptized yet, can also be classified as Sehajdharis.

 

Bhul chul maaf

[nbf12345]

Thank you so much for your kind replies.

If I could ask a further question in regards to the idea of the Khalsa?

In modern Sikhism, do they essentially serve as a core of people who, having taken amrit, maintain the strict ideals of Sikhism as a sort of service to the Panth as a whole?

Does this reconcile with the foundation of the Khalsa by Guru Gobind Singh Dev ji? Was it always intended to be a select group of Sikhs? Or did the Guru intend for all Sikhs to follow the way of the Khalsa, or perhaps be amritdhari in other words? And was it a later date that sehajdhari's emerged as an alternative level of Sikhism?

I know that's a very simple analysis of a complex issue, but I'm ignorant of the historical development and what Guru Gobind Singh's intentions were.

Thanks so much!

Andrew.

[paapiman]

5 hours ago, nbf12345 said:

Or did the Guru intend for all Sikhs to follow the way of the Khalsa, or perhaps be amritdhari in other words?

All Sikhs are required to get Baptized. Baptism ceremony is mandatory in Sikhism. Even before the formation of the Khalsa, Sikhs were Baptized by the Gurus (all previous 9), but the ceremony was different.

Sehajdharis (the ones born in non-Sikh families) are not obligated to get Baptized.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

On 2016-11-20 at 4:04 PM, amardeep said:

In early Sikhism the keshdhari and amritdhari was the same...

I don't think this is the case.

11 hours ago, nbf12345 said:

In modern Sikhism, do they essentially serve as a core of people who, having taken amrit, maintain the strict ideals of Sikhism as a sort of service to the Panth as a whole?
Was it always intended to be a select group of Sikhs?

Khalsa was the army only. They should uphold the core principles passed down by the 10 Gurus and they should be ready to fight in battles at a moment's notice. And so the disciplines for being a warrior, keeping yourself healthy, etc all followed. These disciplines are not required by the general Sikh population.

Quote

Or did the Guru intend for all Sikhs to follow the way of the Khalsa, or perhaps be amritdhari in other words?

No he did not intend all Sikh to be in the Khalsa army. Of course he wanted the khalsa army to be as big as possible but he also recognized that many Sikhs would be unfit for the army.

11 hours ago, nbf12345 said:

And was it a later date that sehajdhari's emerged as an alternative level of Sikhism?

I think words like Sehajdhari and Amritdhari emerged during British Rah to categorize Sikhs.

When these words are understood in the context of Guru Granth Sahib, they mean the same thing. However when understood in the context of public sphere then they are referring to two very different groups of people.

5 hours ago, paapiman said:

All Sikhs are required to get Baptized. Baptism ceremony is mandatory in Sikhism. Even before the formation of the Khalsa, Sikhs were Baptized by the Gurus (all previous 9), but the ceremony was different.

Sehajdharis (the ones born in non-Sikh families) are not obligated to get Baptized.

A lot of families gave 'Khande da Amrit' to children after they are born. However we do not call these children Amritdhari.

 

All Sikhs were initiated by their Gurus via Charn Amrit. This was a tradition wide spread in India. So all Sikhs were baptized by Gurus. All Sikhs of 10 Gurus were baptized by the Gurus. Some did it through Charn Amrit , others did through Khande da Amrit.

However unlike previous Gurus, Guru Gobind Singh ji's baptism was for creation of Khalsa army also, so not all Sikhs underwent this special initiation.

[amardeep]

Bhagatsingh: The Chaupa Singh Rahitnama talks about the Keshdharis and the Sehajdharis.

[SatKartar]

no old document mentions amritdhari, only sehajdhari and kesdhari, so amardeep is right. 

[BhagatSingh]

10 hours ago, amardeep said:

Bhagatsingh: The Chaupa Singh Rahitnama talks about the Keshdharis and the Sehajdharis.

Amardeep that's interesting. Do you have the reference on hand?

[amardeep]

6 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Amardeep that's interesting. Do you have the reference on hand?

I'll look it up tonight. If I remember correctly it gives the procedure for Panj Ishnaan and then says "This applies both for keshdharis and sehajdharis".

[amardeep]

Found it! @BhagatSingh

 

[BhagatSingh]

On 2016-11-25 at 4:15 PM, amardeep said:

Found it! @BhagatSingh

Cool stuff.

I am also interested in seeing references to adopt 'Singh' and 'Kaur' second names. Some people say Kaur isn't mentioned. It would be interesting to see the original source where it is mentioned (if it is mentioned).

Do you have reference to 'Singh' and 'Kaur' on hand?

 

[amardeep]

9 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Cool stuff.

I am also interested in seeing references to adopt 'Singh' and 'Kaur' second names. Some people say Kaur isn't mentioned. It would be interesting to see the original source where it is mentioned (if it is mentioned).

Do you have reference to 'Singh' and 'Kaur' on hand?

 

I'll see what I can find. There are rahitnamas that talk about the name Singh for men and Devi for women. I have'nt seen kaur anywhere.

[BhagatSingh]

8 hours ago, amardeep said:

I'll see what I can find. There are rahitnamas that talk about the name Singh for men and Devi for women. I have'nt seen kaur anywhere.

Which makes sense.

@jaikaara bhaji told me that in the Rajput community, they commonly refer to other Men as Singhs regardless whether they write Singh in their name or not, . And I know from my own experience that in India, Women are referred to as Devi. One example is the modern phrase "Deviyon aur Sajjano", which is used as "Ladies and Gentlemen".

[jaikaara]

15 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Which makes sense.

@jaikaara bhaji told me that in the Rajput community, they commonly refer to other Men as Singhs regardless whether they write Singh in their name or not, . And I know from my own experience that in India, Women are referred to as Devi. One example is the modern phrase "Deviyon aur Sajjano", which is used as "Ladies and Gentlemen".

Kaur comes from Kunwar which actually means prince and Rajput ladies generally had Kunwar attached to their names in the past is what i recall of mentioning . It was giving a masculine form to the females from their tribe and they too were trained in Shastarvidiya and horse riding .

[BhagatSingh]

Just now, jaikaara said:

Kaur comes from Kunwar which actually means prince and Rajput ladies generally had Kunwar attached to their names in the past is what i recall of mentioning .

Hmm I remember now.

How come Rajput women had Kunwar as a name and not Kunwari?

[Tina Kaur Bains]

On 11/20/2016 at 0:20 PM, nbf12345 said:

Thank you so much for your reply. I guess if I could start off, I'm just trying to wrap my head around some terminology, which I think as an outsider I might not be understanding the subtleties of. I wonder if anyone had any opinions if my thoughts on these words are incorrect, or perhaps not quite on the right track:

Panth - As I understand it, is the Panth simply the global community of all Sikhs?

Khalsa - This seems trickier, I understand it's historical creation under Guru Gobind Singh Dev ji. But what does it mean today, do you say someone IS Khalsa? Is A Khalsa? Follows Khalsa? Not all Sikh's are associated with this word assumedly. Does it mean simply maintaining the Five K's? Does it mean a community of all Sikh's who follow certain ways of living?

Sahajdhari vs. Amritdhari - Is anyone who has not been initiated as an Amritdhari automatically a Sahajdhari? Can a Sahajdhari express their Sikhism in any manner? It it necessary for a man to wear a turban and go unshaven for example?

Keshdhari - In regards to the above two terms, what exactly does Keshdhari mean?

Quam - This one is tricky, is it perhaps the concept of some sort of physical nation of Sikhs? As opposed to a religious Panth?

Anyway! That's a start!

Thanks so much for reading,

Andrew.

Hi andrew - are you lecturing for a class at university on history ?  Do you have further contacts of Sikh Historians who can provide an academic view into the subject ? I can connect you out to folks whom have more direct experiences and knowledge than myself. 

In my humble opinion answers to your questions :

1. Panth - Is Path. The path to walk together, individual paths combine to form the Path of the total collaborative Qaum.

2. Khalsa origins of word Persian. Literal meaning Pure. Hence Whaeguru Ji Ka Khalsa (Purity belongs to God). Khalsa Fauj - is the army that was created in 1699 by Guru Gobind Singh jee. Qualities & attributes of khalsa at very basic level  Daya (Compassion),  Dharam (Righteous), Himmat (Courageous), Mukkham (Strong leader), Sahib (Masterful). Khalsa Fauj are baptized sikhs representing Saint - Solider trained in Spiritual (Gurbani) and Weapon (Shaastrya) Vidya (studies). Baptized sikhs will wear all 5 K's externally alongside the internal attributes.

3. Dhari literal meaning is person (man/woman).

Sehaj literal meaning origins sanskrit twin roots, Saha (together) and Ja (born) - thus meaning born together with oneself hence innate. 

Amrit literal meaning origins sanskrit is nectar. Loosely converted to  "Ambrosia of Gods Name" which can come in a multitude of forms including, Gurbani Shabad (Words),  Time of Day ( where gods name recited, chanted spoken), Person, Food (i.e milk, water), flowing nectar inwards from the crown chakra. Also used in baptizing ceremonies as water.

Kesh literal meaning is hair (assumption origins are punjabi, need to confirm).

Combining Dhari at the end of each 3 above gives an overview concept as a person in Sikh Faith. 

[Tina Kaur Bains]

Note : Translations to english of of asian languages does not provide justice, as often there is not a 1:1 interpretation. Hence some essence if lost in translation more than often.