Sehjdhari Khalsa, Please READ

[SAadmin]

source: from tapoban.org

Nearly 3 years after Baisakhi of 1699 Guru ji wrote letters (hukamnamas to some sahejdhari Sikhs - non amritdhari) on 6 February 1702 signed (characteristic authentic Nissan of tenth Guruji) by Guruji. The following is the text of one of these written to Sikhs presumably in Patna as the letter is preserved there.

"Ek Oankar Satguru ji. Siri Guru ji di agaya hai Bhai Mihar Chand Karam Chand, Guru rakhega. Guru Guru japna janam saurega. Tusi mera Khalsa ho. Ik sau ik 101) rupiah haathi di phurmais hukam dekhde he sitabee hundee karai bhejni. Ar hor jo kichh Guru ke namit ka hovai so apai lai avna. Hathiar banh ke avgu so nihal hogu. Us di ghaal thai pavagu Guru naal rahgu. Guru ke navit ka hovai so horus kise no nahee dena ar masand, masandiay naal naahee milna, nahee mannanna, Jo sikh mile so mail laina. Vadheek dikkat naahee karni. Mera hukam hai sangat. Sammat 1758 miti Fago 10, satran Ath 8."

This is its translation.

Ek Oankar Satguru ji. This is the command of Siri Guru ji (for) Bhai Mihar Chand and Karam Chand Guru shall protect you. Remember and recite Guru your life shall become worthwhile. YOU ARE MY KHALSA. Your name has been proposed for arranging 101 Rupees for (procuring) an elephant. On seeing this command immediately send a draft, and anything else offered in the name of the Guru, you should bring with you. Those of you who will come adorning weapons shall be blessed, their efforts shall bear fruit and their loyalty to Guru shall be upheld. Anything offered in the name of Guru is not to be handed over to anyone else. And you should not socialise with a Masand or a Masand follower nor honour them. Any sikh who intends to join (sangat) should be admitted, you should not create too much hinderance. This is my command to the Sangat. Sammat(the Indian Bikrami calendar) 1758 Date Fago(Faggan the last month of the Indian year) 10 (Western calendar 6 February 1702) Lines eight 8.

This letter is in the Harimandar Sahib Patna (Hukamname edited by Ganda Singh, Hukamnama No. 55, published by Punjabi University Patiala, 1967)

Very important points that emerge from this Hukamnama are:

1. This is an actual document signed by tenth Guru ji nearly 3 years after the Baisakhi 1699 rather than some doubtful Rahitnama hence reflecting the actual view or attitude towards the sikhs to whom letter was wirtten.

2. The letter was written to two persons who from their name are obviously not Singhs but with 'Chand' surname hence not amritdhari.

3. The most odd thing is that Guru ji clearly says "Tusi Mera Khalsa Ho" ie You are my Khalsa". This is unusual in the sense that it means Guruji was not reserving the term Khalsa only for Amritdharis but for some Sahejdhari Sikhs as well.

4. Guru ji appears to be more concerned about by-passing the Masands for remitting the offerings directly to Guru ji rather than anything such as urge them to get baptised.

5. In terms of physical appearance (such as kakkaars etc) again Guruji is more particular about the Sikhs arriving with weapons on their person rather than fomally being baptised and bearing "Singh" surname.

6. In order to secure against any forgery Guru ji put his characteristic Nissan (usually brief Mool Mantar in his own hand) on the letter and even gave the number of lines of text in the letter as 8 at the end of the letter. This was the usual security arrangement. Comparison with numerous other such letters by Guru ji confirms that this is an authentic letter.

7. The rigid definition of a Khalsa that we are now given to accept does not seem to apply here. The main criteria for a Khalsa Guru ji appears to be emphasising is not to use the Masand channel to approach Guruji but to have direct connection with Guru ji. Indeed this is what the word "Khalisah" meant in the then existing usage of this term in the Mughal revenue administration of that time.

Similarly there is another letter written to the Sangat in Dhaka (Bangladesh) addressed to Bhai Brindaban and Gulal Chand (ibid. Hukamnama 57) with almost identical text such as "Tusi mera khalsa ho" and commanding again 101 rupees to be arranged and coming with weapons on and not socialising with Masands.

[Singh47]

could it be possible that maybe they had taken Amrit before 1699 in the form of Charan Pohul?

[SAadmin]

yes, that could be possible too but it does not mention anywhere above.

[Singh47]

It doesnt say anywhere they they arant Amritdharis either.

Khalsa was used by the previous Gurus before Guru Gobind Singh Jee. Anyway, I found this written by someone anonymous in tapoban.org in answer to this

http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1...799&t=58799

That's not much of a find.

Even Gurus before Guru Gobind Singh were using the term "Khalsa" to refer to certain sangats.

Khalsa means that land which is governed directly by the King, without an intermediatary. There being no masand, that sangat would be a "Khalsa" sangat.

Khalsa in that context is different than the Khalsa we refer to as being amritdhari.

It was a hukam of Guru Gobind Singh that all Sikhs receive Khanday Kee Paahul. No ifs ands or buts.

Author: ...

Date: 10-29-05 11:22

Proof that Gurus before Guru Gobind Singh used the term "Khalsa" for sangats they directly adminstered without an intermediatery:

Hukumnama of Guru Hargobind Sahib in Dr. Ganda Singh's book "Hukumnamey" pg. 67, "Poorab dee sangat Guru da Khalsa hai, uprant Guru dee aagyaa hai...." and makes the order for the service required.

Guru Gobind Singh jee's desire that all Sikhs receive Khanday Kee Paahul comes from a lot of sources, " The Rehitnamas clearly say a number of times that all Sikhs should receive Khanday Kee Pahul and the famous quote "pritham rehit ye jaan, Khanday kee pahul chhakay...." from the Bhai Desa Singh rehitnama comes to mind first.

Sainapati, the writer of Gursobha in 1711, declared that “it was the wish of Gobind Singh that all Sikhs turn Khalsa .†Similarly in the Amarnamah by Nathmal, a document appended to a copy of the Gursobha and dated October 8, 1708 the Guru “commanded the Sikhs to be courageous and to come to him for taking amrit â€. It thus seems that Khalsa identity was indeed intended for all Sikhs

But was the Sahajdhari identity considered an acceptable form of Sikh identity? The Bhagatratnavalee helps answer this question. The Bhagatratnavalee is a text attributed to Bhai Mani Singh but due to textual references to the Bhai in the third person is likely not by him. “The work may be dated between AD 1706....and AD 1737.†The Bhagatratnavalee includes a conversation between the Sahajdharis and Guru Gobind Singh in which the Sahajdharis seem to differentiate between themselves and “Sikhs†or the Khalsa. The Sahajdharis allow that they are indeed not fully Sikhs and the Guru also encourages them to adopt Khalsa practices while acknowledging that they are not yet ready to abandon many Hindu customs. There are clear directions that the Sahajdharis should eventually embrace the Khalsa identity. When the Sahajdharis wonder what ceremonies to perform for their young sons who used to undergo the ritual shaving or Bhadun, Guru Gobind Singh orders “give Paahul to the sons of the Sahajdharisâ€. The Sahajdharis are even told “those of you who are Sahajdhari Sikhs, if you can keep your form complete like the keshdharis, it is good†The Sahajdharis complain “At the time of weddings, we would call the Brahmins to read the Vedas and the hymns of marriage. Now the Sikhs say ‘you should marry by reading the Anand, do not call the Brahmins.†The Guru advises them to first do Ardas and the Anand, followed by whatever practices they followed previously. Subsequently the Sahajdharis say that the “Sikhs say now that the Vahiguru has revealed the Khalsa, you must not perform the ceremonies of the rest of the worldâ€. Discussions with the Guru address different issues including death rituals, the practice of Sharadh, bathing at the Ganges etc. Overall, the Sahajdharis complain that the “Sikhs†are telling them to abandon Hindu life rituals and the Guru in response attempts to slowly wean them away from the Hindus and towards the Khalsa. This account of the tension between the Khalsa and the Sahajdharis is also cited by Sainapati who writes that the “Khatris in particular were opposed to the injunction regarding keeping the hair uncut because ceremonially cutting of the hair was a part of their ceremonial practices†and that they largely opposed the Khalsa. Nonetheless, what is made clear in the Bhagatratnavalee is that the Sahajdharis were not considered to have a legitimate Sikh identity but “Sahajdhari†was a halfway house between Hindu and Sikh.

[DHANBABANANAK]

check this out

http://www.info-sikh.com/PageG8.html