Guest Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 How would you define each term? What is the definition of a 'Sikh' today? Bearing in mind that we have been blessed and ordered to take Amrit as per Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Hukam, and also, believing that all 10 Guru's were the same Jyot? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Who is a Sehajdhari Sikh? Sikhism is a religion of progression. Nobody is born a Sikh but SLOWLY we BECOME one. Basically, the stages of progression are the following - Sehajdhari, Keshadhari, Amritdhari. People progress from one level to the other ONLY when they develop the commitment and love. There is nothing wrong with this. Let's take an example. A man cuts his hair. He gets married and has children. He takes his young children to the barber for a hair cut. This individual cut his own hair knowingly. It was a deliberate act (for whatever reason). He knew what he was doing. The children were too young to know what was being done to them. On their part the act is not delibrate. It was something done to them, by their parents. Is the father a Sehajdhari Sikh. No. He is called a patit (apostate) - someone who has fallen by the wayside temporarily, still trying to develop the love and commitment for being a Sikh. Are the children Sehajdhari Sikhs. Yes. They did not know any better when they were taken to the barber by their father. It is not their fault. These Sehajdhari Sikhs will, when they develop love for the Sikh lifestyle, progress into Keshadhari Sikhs at some point. This is how some non-Sikh communities have called themselves Sehajdhari Sikhs. Nobody questions their love for Sikhi. It is their commitment that is unclear. If the love is there then why hesitate. http://sikhawareness.com/main/index.php?id=f55f513 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Punjabi Nationalist Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 I dont agree with that article. A Sikh is a Sikh and thats that. Some who are more religious and dedicated to their faith are going to aspire to become Khalsa. Others who are not so religious may not be so sure whether to make their faith their whole life. Its that simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Does someone know of any Rehitname which shed light on definitions for these terms? Would be good to see some sources to base definitions, not personal opinions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 'Rehit Bina Nai Sikh Kahavai Rehit Bina Dar Chota Khavai' Rehitnama Bhai Desa Singh jee. Ill find out the exact page number in Amrit Kirtan if you want 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 Forgive my ignorance but isn't Bhai Desa SIngh's rahitnama the same one that allows the drinking of wine? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mod Note: Bhai Desa Singh Rehitnama and indeed Bhai Gurdas Jee's Kabit Savayae are said to indicate the use of Wine as acceptable under certain circumstances. The latter material is not available in English, however if we do wish to pursue this topic further, please could we endeavour to provide some quotations/references where possible -maybe even begin a new thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 Bearing in mind that we have been blessed and ordered to take Amrit as per Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Hukam Who are "we" here? Can you elaborate for me? Because it seems from your post that he ordered Sikhs to take Amrit and become Khalsa? But modern days Sikh "Rehat Maryada" shows that you can't become Sikh, unless or until you take Amrit? Now, whom he was giving orders to take Amrit? A Patit, Saihajdhari, Keshadharis, or? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 good questions Admin. Also note that there are those who take Amrit and are still not pure in their hearts and there are those who are pure in their hearts and have not taken Amrit. JUST taking amrit can classify you as a Sikh, but you don't BECOME a sikh until you have COMPLETLY surrendered yourself to the Guru. For some it happens right when they ahve taken Amrit, for some it happens after the Amrit have been taken, and for some it never happens. You cannot generalize that all who ahve taken Amrit are Sikhs yea they have a title of a Sikh, but are they Sikhs in their hearts?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Who are "we" here? Can you elaborate for me? Because it seems from your post that he ordered Sikhs to take Amrit and become Khalsa? But modern days Sikh "Rehat Maryada" shows that you can't become Sikh, unless or until you take Amrit? Now, whom he was giving orders to take Amrit? A Patit, Saihajdhari, Keshadharis, or? I would have thought that was obvious, all of the above. So the question is, do we take Amrit as an 'option' or obligation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Singh_but_cant_Sing Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 It all comes down at the end is how much love we have for guru ji. Regarding taking Amrit, I think its always been an option, or else wouldn't Guru Gobind Singh ji simply have ordered 5 sikhs to come up to give their heads, but instead he ASKED for 5 sikhs and not ordered 5 sikhs to come forward. So its up to us to decide if we want to become guru wale sikh or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamuka Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 A Sikh is a Sikh and thats that. Some who are more religious and dedicated to their faith are going to aspire to become Khalsa. Others who are not so religious may not be so sure whether to make their faith their whole life. Thats what I've been taught so far but it seems the rules are being changed. Nowhere in the SGGS does it state that to be a Sikh one has to don a turban and a beard. Bhai Khanaya who lived during Guru Gobind Singhs time never wore a turban yet he was respected. I suspect certain quarters of the community want to experience the 'feel good' factor by trying to define todays Sikhs and make themselves feel all important just because they are a Khalsa. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mod-note: Whilst Sikh Lore indicates that Bhai Ghanaya Jee never was amritdhari, the instance of the turban is not so clear as you have put forth. Bhai Sahib was a Sikh no doubt and clearly the founding father of the Seva Panthis, however as per being Turbanned or not, please qualify this statement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 'Rehit Bina Nai Sikh Kahavai Rehit Bina Dar Chota Khavai' Rehitnama Bhai Desa Singh jee. Ill find out the exact page number in Amrit Kirtan if you want Ah Yes, the famous "Bhai Desa Singh's Rehitnama", used by many groups to justify their use of "Sarbloh" cooking vessels.... Bhai Desa Singh also mentions the following in his Rehitnama: With regards to Cannabis and Opium: "One ratti of Opium and massa of Cannabis. Eat them always happily. Increase drug take more than this. Increase of drug intake then mansuffers." ...from 'Rehitnameh', edited by Piara Singh Padam, Pa.148 ("ratti" = 8-grain weight of rice, "massa" = 3 ratti) With regards to alcohol: "Dohra - Another's wife, gambling, falsehood, theft, alcohol - know these to be the five vices in the world, he who forsakes them, know him to be a Singh. If going to battle drink alcohol. Any other day do not mention its name." ...from 'Rehitnameh', edited by Piara Singh Padam, Pa.149 With regards to Chatka: "If you eat a goat then do so after Chatka only." ...from 'Rehitnameh', edited by Piara Singh Padam, Pa.148 With regards to Adi Guru Durbar and Dasam Guru Durbar: "The scripture that is in both Granths, memorise" ...from 'Rehitnameh', edited by Piara Singh Padam, Pa.149 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheous Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 I would have thought that was obvious, all of the above. So the question is, do we take Amrit as an 'option' or obligation? From a personal view i would say that Amrit takes you ie. when 'you'(ego) cease to exist and realise(rather than understand) that everything is just being done. Some say God is doing everything - they say 'rab sub kuch kar da hai', personally i can see the duality in this relationship, 'you' - God, and me. By saying 'rab sub kuch kar da hai' there is still some ego, becuase you are still in the equation, by trying to relaise its 'being done' may be a better approach. Ms S Khalsa and forum , what are your views regarding taking Amrit, in the sense that; 1. if you turn up to a smagam and take Amrit from the 'Panj Pyare' do you automatically become a Khalsa? 2. Do you think that Bana should come before internal spiritual development? 3. Do you think there should be more stringent role taken by the panj pyare in the sense they should 'suss' out the Sikh before the ceremony? 4. Do you think you can reach a high spiritual stage without taking Amrit? Kind Regards Harpreet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 I really don't know what the fuss is all about in this discussion. a. a sikh is a disciple of a master b. this implies taking a form of initiation c. initiation ritual in SIkhi is amrit d. amrit exists in three forms: 1. charan da amrit (Sahajdharis) 2. kirpan da amrit (normally for women but not only) 3. khande da amrit (women can take but don't have to) One can look at those three types of amrit in a vertical way and see them as preparation for khande di pahul or one can see them horizontal way and see them as the expression of different ways of living Sikhi. The duties and rahit do differ from one type of amrit to another in the same way that in an army you have different regiments and special forces etc.. yet it is still one army. Puratan Sikhi is unity within diversity! When people are different but share same values they focuss on that unity (puratan maryada)! When everyone looks the same and follows the same life style they tend to look for ways of being different in beliefs and create dis-unity. (Neo-Sikhs). Even people like Prof Puran Singh, an important SIngh Sabha thinker recognised the importance of unity within diversity as expressed by the puratan maryada. see http://www.sikhreview.org/december2002/heritage.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 I dont know Harpreet Ji, I took Amrit because I felt it was an obligation, personal opinion. I wanted to know whether it is I guess, I feel it is. 2. kirpan da amrit (normally for women but not only) 3. khande da amrit (women can take but don't have to) As for the above, Im lost for words, just as well eh? :roll: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Sahajleen wrote: As for the above, Im lost for words, just as well eh? Yes isn't puratan maryada just womderful: women can actually chose from either kirpan da amrit or khande da amrit? SIkhi is definetly better than Rajneesh or the Wahabis! Honestly, I really don't know why so many SIkh girls (sometimes even amritdhari girls) have doubts about Sikhi and start "exploring" Wahabi Islam when they actually have Sikhi that gives women actually a choice! It's absolutely crazy to see people considering kirpan da amrit as being inferior to khande da amrit! This is such a wrong perception! It's surely different but not inferior! Just like women: different from men but not inferior! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 NarSingha - I'm not sure where u got ur quotes from, HOWEVER, Its vital to remember that all Rehitname includes wierd sections, i.e in Some Parts Bhai Desi Singh ee writes - wh mcleod says that desa singh is "clearly uneasy on the subject of meat" - in another section desa singh says, he who is born in a good family will NEVER touch meat or alcohol. Both you and I know that Rehitname alone are not reliable, and have to be confermed with Bani - tanakhah-nama, copy of a copy wirtten in 1718 (implying original tanakhah-nama was written in guru jis time) says "he is a khalsa who slays muslims" Here lets look at more Rehitname - Desa singh rehtnama "do NOT slay a goat in the langar, not even by the jhatka method; and do not permit other meat in the langar" and just after "never consume alcoholic liquor or eat meat" verses 105 and 107 not elts look a few more wierd quotes- "the singh protects cows and brahmans and smited muslims with immense vigour" "if one is not able to obtain employment with a khalsa one should seek some other service " I sincerely hope - fr your sake - you work for only a Sikh NarSingha ----------------------------------- Lallesh - You said that women can take khanda da pahul if they want, but chaupa singh rehtnama which u use to justify kirpan da amrit, also says "ONE WHO GIVES KHANDA AMRIT TO A WOMAN, IS A GREVIOUS SINNER" We have to see that some rehitname are NOT reliable! You can almost prove ANYTHING using rehitname! Main thing is to compare with Bani, BHai Gurdaas Jee diya vaara etc "the singh who takes it (khanda da pahul) will be SUPERIOR to anyone who takes any other form of initiation" -So are the other three equavilent to Khande- Di Paul? :roll: Now lets take a look at what Bhai Gurdaas jee says - Getting initiated by the Guru the disciple has become a Sikh, According to my knowledge th translation is a bit erroneous – I’ll get back to you with a better one For now- vaar 3 pauri 11 http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?Sour...o=03&Line_No=11 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 MrSIngh wrote: According to my knowledge th translation is a bit erroneous – How is it erroneous! In which language is it written, what are the cases and conjugations employed in this line? If you think Rahitname are unreliable then don't quote from them! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 How is it erroneous! In which language is it written, what are the cases and conjugations employed in this line? I'm not sure about the translation - and Yes I'll get back If you think Rahitname are unreliable then don't quote from them! taste ur own medicine :twisted: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sardar Moderator Singh Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 As far as I am aware, Historians acquire a certain Skill-set or training when assessing manuscripts and primary, secondary and other evidence...perhaps these need to be considered here too...judging a document written in the 18th century by 21st century socio-political conditions is perhaps not the best way to understand its contents... ...look into history and seek to understand why, when and how...there is the Sakhi where Guru Gobind Singh, upon leaving Anandpur Fort after the seize from the Mughal Armies, states that he will never trust Musalman, even if he (the Musalman) were to take oaths upon the Koran the number times equal to the specks of seseame seeds that would cover his arm were he to dip it in oil and then dip it into a sack of seeds... ...many use this to justify their misguided hatred agianst Muslims, others say that he never said this, because like you, they say it's not in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib... ...putting the scene in context, one can easily understand to who and why Guru Sahib made such a comment... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 MrSIngh wrote: Quote: If you think Rahitname are unreliable then don't quote from them! taste ur own medicine You're the one who has problems with rahitname,not me so please keep the medicine to yourself: I don't need it!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 LALLESH! How come u CHANGED UR POST COMPLETLY :lol: :lol: I REALLY wish I had quoted u there hahahahahah HILARIOUS :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr §ingh Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 LALLESH! How come u CHANGED UR POST COMPLETLY :lol: :lol: I REALLY wish I had quoted u there hahahahahah HILARIOUS :lol: Last edited by lalleshvari on Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total :hearme: P.s Niranjana veeer - point being, that some parts of ALL REHITNAME are unreliable SOME PARTS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 MrSIngh wrote: LALLESH! How come u CHANGED UR POST COMPLETLY I REALLY wish I had quoted u there hahahahahah HILARIOUS Quote: Last edited by lalleshvari on Tue Mar 30, 2004 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total P.s Niranjana veeer - point being, that some parts of ALL REHITNAME are unreliable SOME PARTS It's amazing to see how some people get all excited and happy on this site! I am really happy for you MrSingh! In fact there are other sites where a lot of people like get all high and happy at the semi-colons and conjunctions I put in my posts. I am sure you would be even happier there, sites like tapoban.org, sikhsangat.com, akj.org etc... You can't imagine how chardikala they are on those sites! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaNaDiAn_jAtTi Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 So could someone clarify the difference btw kirpan da amrit and khanda da amrit? and also how come some rehit namas are against it and some for? like why is there all this confusion.... isn't sikhi supposed to be more of a clear cut path....i'm lost 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.