Jump to content

Charan Pahul Amrit and it's maryada !


Recommended Posts

I do know that udasi panth of sikhism still perform charan pahul amrit to this day.

What i wanted to know was- what kinda maryada is given to you when you take charan amrit ? like are you given 4 kurahits too in charan phaul amrit?? what's a basic maryada?

Also another question is, after siri guru gobind singh ji replaced charan amrit with khanda da amrit ?? who was the first sampardha in the khalsa panth still carried on charan pahul intitation to people?

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neo,

If Udasis do Charan Pahul, then what does this have to do with the Sikh Tradition? We can argue until the cows come home that Udasis are Sikhs however the words of Bhai Gurdas Jee are very clear on the subject and the inconsistencies in other texts which speak of Gurgaddi being given the Baba Gurditta Jee (i.e. Baba Sri Chand Jee’s date of passing occurs before this supposed event) and the clear injunctions one can find in the puratan rehitnamas for the Khalsa not to do sangat with the Udasis or share food with them (if they were Sikh, surely such restrictions would not apply) point overwhelmingly to Udasis being a different Panth at best linked to the Sikh Community by mutual understanding during the dark periods of the 18th century and their founder being the son of Guru Nanak Dev Jee.

So Udasis’ using Charan initiation is no different to a whole host of sects and movements in India who utilised such a system of initiation, why then do we consider Charan Amrit as an acceptable alternative? Proponents have argued that 5 Singhs dipping their toes into the water would today be equivalent of Guru Sahib performing the same ceremony, but provide an example where such an initiation has been conducted in recent times and by whom?

For the record, I am not anti-or-pro Charan / Kirpan Amrit, however in the absence of tangible understanding or reasoning to validate this as an acceptable practice post the introduction of Khanda da Pahul by Guru Gobind Singh (and by acceptable, I mean deemed acceptable/ordained by Guru Sahib himself), it is difficult to view these practices without question. I am not suggesting that these practices were not used by Sikhs, but their usage not qualify their acceptability as Gur-maryada, rather like the actions of many Sikhs today to have trimmed beards, hold Maharaj’s Darbar in questionable locations etc etc may be ‘acceptable’ to (certain) ‘Sikhs’ of today, but are not acceptable by Gur-Maryada.

Gur Fateh!

Niranjana

Link to post
Share on other sites

Niranjana,

Thanks for your observations there.

Just to be clear : I don't consider Charan Amrit an valid intiation in Khalsa Panth because it's been replaced as Khanda Batta da Amrit as Siri Guru Gobind Singh Maharaj himself.. I was just wondering about charan amrit because I heard they are being mentioned in puratan texts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Gur Fateh!

"happy" - I have been away from the forums for sometime, this post does not necessarily mark a permanent return however, nonetheless in response to your question, please refer to the Rehitnama of Bhai Desa Singh:

Avoid Sanyasis, Bairagis, UDASIS, yogis, Shaivite mendicants, and Tantrics. Never eat their food. Those who follow any of the six Hindu systems may believe in them, but for a Singh they are not acceptable. [16, 33, 34]

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly for a singh...traditionally there were different maryadas for different groups..the singh maryada is strict and less open as this is the maryada of kshatriya panth akali nihang singh khalsa..never the less the udasis are etill extremely respected and ackowledged amongst ancienst sikh orders... :D :D :D :D :D

peace out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy - A Singh is a Sikh, and according to you so is an Udasi, fair enough, let's work with that assumption. You then go on to suggest the following; please for my benefit and perhaps others on the forum, you could expand a little further:

"singh maryada is strict and less open as this is the maryada of kshatriya panth akali nihang singh khalsa..never the less the udasis are etill extremely respected and ackowledged amongst ancienst sikh order"

1. As you are quite keen on references, please could you provide a reference for the following terms - (a) "Singh Maryada" and (B) "kshatriya panth akali nihang singh khalsa"

2. Udasis are indeed respected, they were instrumental during the violent times of the 18th century in working alongside the Khalsa, just like many others were as well ranging from Muslims, Brahmins and Rajputs. This in itself does make them Sikhs. The topic under discussion is charan paul amrit, which some today are advocating as an alternative initiation to Khande di Paul through an effective innovation (funnily enough the same people often accuse others of the same) namely, that 5 Singhs should dip their toes in water and make charan paul - please could you provide any reference for such a practice being ordained by Guru Sahib?

"the singh panth only eat food from the singhs..this is down to practiaclity and assurance that no one can be let near their food..this was done to prevent intuders contaminating the food...its practcality and knowlegde not STUPIDITY like the guys nowadays"

3. You are clearly referring to the explanation that Nihang Niddar Singh provides for the practice of Bibek within the Dal Panth (i.e. an Army needs to ensure that its food will not get poisioned etc, hence places restrictions on who can enter the kitchen). This is fine, however Happy, just a minute ago you argued "never the less the udasis are etill extremely respected and ackowledged amongst ancient sikh orders" - if this is the case, where has the "extreme respect" and "acknowledgement" gone when it comes to langar?

"however this does NOT at all suggest the the udasis were not sikhs because it is a well established fact that these udasis were very knowledgable and true sikhs of the gurus...theres SOLID historical proof of these facts"

4. Happy, again, you are one hand requesting references from everyone, yet yourself do not provide any and make blanket statements with very presumptious conclusions. What "SOLID historical proof" can you provide to confirm what you have termed "established fact that Udasis were true Sikhs of the Gurus" - note, no one is denying that they were knowledgeable and may have even used the Guru Granth Sahib as the basis of their parchar, but so did (and so do) many others today who I'm sure even you wouldn't term as Sikh.

In my initial post from last year, I have provided commentary pointing towards Sikh Texts and not any British Officer Documents or other third hand sources that would imply that Udasis, whilst bearing close relations to the Sikhs are not themselves Sikhs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to make this quick as I am at work,

santokh das's akhara beside darbar sahib ( I believe it is the brahmboota akhara) claim that they took care of langar.

As for the references for charan pahul amrit, if we agree that sau sakhi is the writing of guru gobind singh ji, then the 3 sikhs include

1) sahejdhari

2) charanpahulay

3) khalsa

I will come back with references in my next post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurfateh

within Sau Sakhi das founds that Charan Pahul is not from human feet but from corner of claoth covering Darbar Sahib dipped in water and that water.

Anway there are instance say in Bihar near Patna Sahib,where we find that Guru took offerng made to Rama by a Brahmin.both that Temple and Gurudwara in memeoray of that thing is there.

As per Suaraj Prakash,Guru was offered water from single Brahmins and another family full of kids,Guru took water from later(It is not writtan that they were Sikhs).Lastly Gangu Brahmin was a cook and not the Sikh.

Das does not find any probelm from eating from hands of non Sikh,if we trust them.Anyway Das did respect views of Bhai Balpreet Singh of AKj's Bebecki code of conduct.But such things that Sikh will not eat from the hand of non Sikh was first brought in by Babu Teja Singh Ji.

Perhaps Brits wanted Sikhs to be cut from Hindus and Muslims and could not lead them in freedm struggle but support Brits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sardar Moderator Singh

Veer Vijaydeep Singh, please could you provide some more information surrounding Babu Teja Singh in this respect - any references would also be helpful.

On the Bihar Gurdwara, please could you let the forum know of its name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Forward Backward Bhaji,

"santokh das's akhara beside darbar sahib ( I believe it is the brahmboota akhara) claim that they took care of langar."

This is a fair enough comment to make, but that’s all it is – a comment, or rather a claim, as yet unsubstantiated. As I have indicated above, it is accepted that Udasis have held close relations with Sikhs and in some cases continue to do so, however whether or not they use charan amrit as initiation has no relevance for us as Sikhs post- 1699 when Guru Sahib has formalised Khanda de Paul for all Sikhs. In effect, would you not regard Udasis cooking langar for the Darbar Sahib as being no different from the hordes of predominantly Hindu pilgrammes who help out in Bangla Sahib and Sis Ganj Gurdwaras today – that doesn’t make them Sikhs suddenly?

"As for the references for charan pahul amrit, if we agree that sau sakhi is the writing of guru gobind singh ji, then the 3 sikhs include

1) sahejdhari

2) charanpahulay

3) khalsa “santokh das's akhara beside darbar sahib ( I believe it is the brahmboota akhara) claim that they took care of langar.â€

This is a fair enough comment to make, but that’s all it is – a comment, or rather a claim, as yet unsubstantiated. As I have indicated above, it is accepted that Udasis have held close relations with Sikhs and in some cases continue to do so, however whether or not they use charan amrit as initiation has no relevance for us as Sikhs post- 1699 when Guru Sahib has formalised Khanda de Paul for all Sikhs. Udasis cooking langar for the Darbar Sahib is no different from the hordes of predominantly Hindu pilgrammes who help out in Bangla Sahib and Sis Ganj Gurdwaras today – that doesn’t make them Sikhs suddenly.

As for the references for charan pahul amrit, if we agree that sau sakhi is the writing of guru gobind singh ji, then the 3 sikhs include

1) sahejdhari

2) charanpahulay

3) khalsa"

Accepting the Sau Sakhi entirely as the works of Guru Gobind Singh is a tall order – even those who claim to accept it, very rarely do in entireity (i.e. Namdharis extensively use this work to justify their Guruship claims, however conveniently ignore references to Blue Dress and Jhatka, Nihangs use it to justify their attire, diet and Shakat-inspired Shakti Puja, yet ignore references to the Namdharis, negative aspects of the blue dress and so on).

However for the meanwhile, let us ‘assume’ that the entire work is that of Guru Sahib, what is the statement actually saying? That these are three types of Sikhs that exist currently or that these have been the progression of Sikhs into the final form as Khalsa or that as an observation this is the reality (rather like trimmed beards are today amongst pseudo-Keshadharis)?

Also, if charan paul is an acceptable alternative to Khanda Amrit for Sikhs, then why aren’t the hordes of non-keshdharis that attend Gurdwaras worldwide being administered this today or even for the past 150 years?

Does this statement in the Sau Sakhi indicate Guru Gobind Singh to have simply added on an additional initiation for the Sikh (the Khanda de paul) and hence created a separate Sampradha within the Panth, as proposed by McLeod and others who wish to justify their inability to accept the rehit of Guru Gobind Singh? This is fundamentally taking us back to the whole notion of Sikh being different from Khalsa.

Accepting the Sau Sakhi entirely as the works of Guru Gobind Singh is a tall order – even those who claim to accept it, very rarely do (i.e. Namdharis extensively use this work to justify their Guruship claims, however conveniently ignore references to Blue Dress and Jhatka, Nihangs use it to justify their attire, diet and Shakat-inspired Shakti Puja, yet ignore references to the Namdharis, negative aspects of the blue dress and so on).

However for the meanwhile, let us ‘assume’ that the entire work is that of Guru Sahib – even this does qualify charanpahul as a Sikh initiation today, if it was then why aren’t the hordes of non-keshdharis that attend Gurdwaras worldwide and even non-amritdharis being administered this today or even for the past 150 years? Does this statement in the Sau Sakhi indicate Guru Gobind Singh to have simply added on an additional initiation for the Sikh (the Khanda de paul) and hence created a separate Sampradha within the Panth, as proposed by McLeod and others who wish to justify their inability to accept the rehit of Guru Gobind Singh? This is fundamentally taking us back to the whole notion of Sikh being different from Khalsa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...