tSingh Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Thought it worth exploring the nature of non-Singhs at the time of the formation of and just after, the Khalsa. Bhai Trilochan Singh in his book gives examples of hukamnamay written by Guru Gobind Singh ji, Mata Sahib Devi and Mata Sundari in which various non-Singhs (Chands, Rais, etc) are referred to as 'mera khalsa' or 'sarbat da khalsa'. In case some would argue that Singh is simply missed off, further into the same hukamnama a reference is made to a Singh in contrast. Bhai Trilochan Singh gives his own explanation which I'll divulge later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 gurfateh gurmukho, may waheguru bless your efforts. I am really looking forward to this! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted May 28, 2007 Report Share Posted May 28, 2007 still waiting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Veer T Singh Ji, just a polite reminder re unfinished business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I've read the book and it is awesome, i recommend it for everyone to read. He talks about the Khalsa being the inner-circle of the devotees sorounding the Guru, the elite of men given speciel rights and knowledge, whereas the non-initiated are still followers of the Guru, but they are not a part of his inner circle, they are the Sehaj Dharis on their way towards Maharaj. He also acknowledges the fact that our Matas name was not Kaur as most people today write, and he mentions and analyses the Sehajdharis role througout sikh history and their rehitnama Wajib Ul Arz. One could argue however, that Guru Gobind Singh calls them his "khalsa" in refference to them having taken Charan di pahul, or simply because these sikhs are under his guidance as there are no masands in between.. This is the argument that people on sikhsangat use in Guru Maharaj calling non-singhs his khalsa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Bhai Gurdass ji most emphatically emphasizes the need for charan di pahul, so it's probably the former explanation Amardeep ji. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 The disbanding of the Masands and the creation of the Khalsa and near simultaneous events and I think it is Sri Guru Sobha or one of the other near contempory texts that describe the actions of the Guru in one line. (Guru) disbanded the Masands and Created the Khalsa. The Khalsa would have been the Sikhs who had possibly taken Charan Amrit before the Khanday Di Pahul and therefore have direct contact to the Guru without the Masand intermediatories. These Sikhs would have been close followers in the Gurus entourage or Sikhs from far off places where the Masand system did not exist or for one reason or other they did not have Masands as intermediatories. With the creation of the Khalsa and the disbanding of the Mahants then all Sikhs by default became Khalsa as they were no Masands to act as intermediatories. The Khalsa Sikhs in far of places may not have had occasion to come to Punjab and take Amrit and become Amritdhari. However the two titles Khalsa as an Amritdhari Sikh and Khalsa as a Sikh who had direct access to the Guru seems to have been used used at the same time. This explains why many person without Singh in their names were referred to as Khalsa in the Hukumnamas. Over time the Khalsa came to just mean Amritdhari Sikhs. The other Sikhs became Sehajdhari which as the name implies who at some stage were meant to take Amrit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 according to Mcleods analysis the meaning of Sehajdhari is actually a person that follows the spiritual aspect(piri) of Sikhism, but has not adopted the psycichal appereance yet... Nanakpanthi is another name they are given if i correct,as they have not adopted the rehit of Guru Gobind Singh yet, even though they practice naam with sensere devotion.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 McLeod is wrong on this as he is wrong on some other things to do with Sikhism. Sehajdhari means someone who takes to the Khalsa in stages. This is proven by the fact that during the 20s and 30s the Sehajdharis had their own organisation of which each and everyone of their presidents took Amrit in the end. The Sehajdhari rehatnama states that a Sehajdhari should keep his Kesh. This is the least of the requirements required of a Sehajdhari. If you look at most of those claiming to the Sehajdharis today they have cut hair so they do not even meet the minimum requirements of a Sehajdhari. McLeod confuses a lax cut hair person belonging to a Sikh background as a Sehajdhari. If anyone person belonging to a Sikh backgroup could automatically become a Sehajdari then there would be no need for words such as Sir Gumm in the Rehatnamas. Sehajdhari is a term for those who coming from various non-Sikh backgrounds who are interesting in becoming a Sikh and are going towards Khalsa baptism in stages. As the Sehajdhari rehatnama states the first of these stages would be to keep their Kesh. It's natural hat if one wants to eventually become a member of the Khalsa then one has to start to keep some of the same Rehats as the Khalsa has in order to get used to them. The McLeod definition of Sehajdhari is a new one and one which has come about because due to lax parchar quite a number of Sikhs choose not to keep their Kesh nowadays. Ordinarily a person born into a Sikh household would keep his Kesh and and at some stage he would take Amrit. Nanakpanthi is a term for those families who at some stage had a connection with Sikhism prior to Khalsa baptism. They never went through the stage of Khalsa baptism and have kept their beliefs in Sikhism as a family tradition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehtab Singh Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 Sehajdhari is a term for those who coming from various non-Sikh backgrounds who are interesting in becoming a Sikh and are going towards Khalsa baptism in stages.Thats the definition I heard on Sukhsagar radio once. Sehajdhari is someone of a non-Sikh background working towards taking Amrit, and to begin with he/she could be without kesh, although they do have to keep it at some point. As for those who don't have Sikhi saroop but are born in Sikh families, they are called patits. These are not my words, but what I heard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 Veer T Singh Ji, just a polite reminder re unfinished business. i second that, come on tsingh take a wee wee break from whatever project you are working on, take ur laptop or smartphone in wee wee room and posts your thoughts on this topic..hehe 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.