amardeep Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 i was wondering.. Gurbani critisices the caste system numerous times, but then i thought.... the Khalsa also follows same "rules" as brahmins..the khalsa does not eat jhoota from non-khalsas, and they do not marry outside the khalsa either...is this not just another caste then? Brahmins do not marry out of their caste either, and they do not eat jhoota from non-brahmins either... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSG Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I think you are missing the point From the little understanding i have khalsa is the pure Khalsa can be from any caste Who are the pure ones , they are the ones who 24x7 remember waheguru , see waheguru in everything , there minds are free its not about what they eat / what they wear etc.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amrikingh Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 MEGALOL@5th caste hahahahahaha barejokes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 it is actually a serious question....why does Gurbani critisise brahmins because they dont want to eat along with non-brahmins, while khalsa's do not eat along with non-khalsa either? how come a khalsa cant marry a girl who is not khalsa, the same way a brahmin can only marry a brahmin etc etc.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystical Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Well Guru Ji said Khalsa is my Jaat? But being a Khalsa doesnt come just by taking amrit, it comes from seva and meditation. But Guru Ji said he was a Ks.atriyas as well meaning warrior? Might be wrong though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Firstly, let us discuss Who is Brahmin and who is Khalsa: Brahmin: The actual meaning is anyone who attains brahmavidya. But during the Guru Nanak Dev Ji's period Brahmins started thinking that the Brahmin is actually the person who takes birth in Brahmin family and does have all the Vedas knowledge. Brahmin think that they are the ONLY one who does have the authority to read and listen the vedas. They assume themselves to be superior from all other castes. Core Brahmins in old days didn't allow the low caste persons to enter the temple thinking that they will spoil the spiritulity of the temple. ONE HAS TO TAKE BIRTH IN BRAHMIN FAMILY IN ORDER TO BE A TRUE BRAHMIN. Khalsa: ANYONE OR EVERYONE (from all castes, creed, color) can become Khalsa by OFFERING their head to Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Khalsa does NOT assume themselves to be superme. Khalsa offers langar (community kitchen) to all (all castes, creed, color) and consumes same langar with all while sitting on the same level. Khalsa offers help to all people (helping some financially poor brahmin,shudhar,jatt... to marry their daughters and son). Guru Gobind Singh Ji OR Khalsa allows everyone to pay their repect in Gurdwara. Now, the question of marriage within Khalsa: Marriage is a life-long partnership (at-least in India) under which one has to perform his/her worldy duties ALONG with fulfilment of our main duty for which we all are here .i.e to get out of 84 lakh and merge with GOD. Marriage is like a cart whoses both tyres/tires needs to be equal in order to run the cart. If both the tyres are NOT equal then neither the cart will run nor you will reach your destination (our destination is merging with GOD). Then how could a marriage between 2 entirely distinct persons be helpful to either of them? Lioness milk is extremely powerful and it does have great healing effects, but lioness milk can NOT be stored in any vessel other than gold. If the lioness milk is store in other vessel (except gold), then the milk will be spoiled instantly. Eating jhota: If someone eats jhota, then who knows whether the other person eat meat, or drink alcohol or other intoxicants. And Khalsa is instructed to refrain from meat and alcohol. But one should not go to extreme......we all know that we should NOT kill animals, but it does not mean that we need to cover our mouths as we are killing some micro-organisms by inhaling etc.... Gurbani states that: Kabir Ji says after seeing the Brahmins all the time saying about jhotta: [highlight=red:5a99bafb9a]"[/highlight:5a99bafb9a]The mother is impure, and the father is impure. The fruit they produce is impure. Impure they come, and impure they go. The unfortunate ones die in impurity. Tell me, O Pandit, O religious scholar, which place is uncontaminated? Where should I sit to eat my meal? The tongue is impure, and its speech is impure. The eyes and ears are totally impure. The impurity of the sexual organs does not depart; the Brahmin is burnt by the fire. The fire is impure, and the water is impure. The place where you sit and cook is impure. Impure is the ladle which serves the food. Impure is the one who sits down to eat it. Impure is the cow dung, and impure is the kitchen square. Impure are the lines that mark it off. Says Kabeer, they alone are pure, who have obtained pure understanding.[highlight=red:5a99bafb9a]"[/highlight:5a99bafb9a] Everything is jhoota, water is jhoota by birds, animals.....same way fruits, vegetables are jhoote. Bhul chuk de maffi das 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 so this form of discrimination is okay, aslong as one does not think one is superior due to birth in a brahmin family?? The Gurus did not criticice the fact that they thouhgt they were pure and others were not, but rather critisised the fact that it was only because they were born brahmins? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystical Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 so this form of discrimination is okay, aslong as one does not think one is superior due to birth in a brahmin family?? The Gurus did not criticice the fact that they thouhgt they were pure and others were not, but rather critisised the fact that it was only because they were born brahmins? Noooooooo. Being born a Brahmin doesnt make you Brahmin from birth. If Guru Ji said that ones who has God's Name in their heart are Brahmin then they are Brahmin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 simply said....which definition and whose definition of khalsa is being presented..further I believe khalsa is the 3rd panth, but like the rest of creation which is bound to the diversity of maya....so is the khalsa. ek hai, fer aneyk hai. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh47 Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 simply said....which definition and whose definition of khalsa is being presented..further I believe khalsa is the 3rd panth, but like the rest of creation which is bound to the diversity of maya....so is the khalsa. ek hai, fer aneyk hai. If the Khalsa is bound by Maya, does that mean the Khalsa does not exist outside of the boundaries of Maya which to my understanding is just an Illusion like a dream? But I do agree that Khalsa is the 3rd Panth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 i find it funny that a khalsa cant marry out of khalsa, and eat jhoota from a non-khalsa, if we regard all people as equal and see the same divine jyot in all..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurnit_Singh Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 i have always understood that marriage was done to further yourself spiritually and for procreation. Saying that i don't think that someone who is amrtidhari would have anything to gain by marrying someone who is not. I don't think this is anything to do with equality. i apologize if I'm wrong or if I have misinterpreted something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Singh47, your point is very good, and I guess it is 'safe' to assume that one is not bound to maya when they are in 'full' khalsa state (meaning in full purity/one with akaal/self realised<probably>), but the physical form of the khalsa still resides in is bound to maya. A 'fact' we can agree to on the most part is that no 2 humans live the exact same life (this is what I mean by anek hai), I feel that being the nature of maya in creation...that no 2 people would live the exact same routine/rituals in life. Maya is bound to time (as I understand), hence while we are living we are also bound to time....now here is an example to illustrate what I mean by anek hai....you have 2 chardiankallah gurmukh paaji's and painji's who have given up the life of being paapi's (one has a clicker and does mool mantar all day and does langar seva at the gurudwara) the other attends university seminars and gives speeches (as their seva) and instead of doing mool mantar; listens to kirtan all day on their ipod/walkman etc....both in their daily life are remembering god and trying to be 'leen' with waheguru. Even if they both wake up at the exact same time every morning...chances are that even then, there is a difference....this is why I was posing the question.....whose definition of a khalsa? what does that definition entail? what does it proscribe? on another note, I have one plea to everyone....live life with sahej (take what comes at you) live 'normal' gurmukh lives...when you have the urge to do more paat (do it), when you have the urge to do more seva (do it)...but try not to create constructs as even they can break, and interpretations of the guru's directives are very much influenced by our own paradigms...what I am saying is 'go with it'...but do not being obsessive compulsive on the matters of preparing for bhagtee, but rather just get on with it.... I apologize, this paapi is caught up in the same vicious cycles, but I try to keep as much pyaar as possible..its all about pyaar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Khalsa cannot be bound to or limited to only person with dhara and kesh. What you think bhagat kabir, ravidasa, namdev, sain, trilochan, ramanad, bhagat fareed, bhagat sadhna were? were they not sikhs/khalsa from ataamic sense yet maintaining outer garb (customs) of their culture (rehna-behna) to some extent? True bhagats which are included in sri guru granth sahib ji didnt follow socio-religious boundaries of their own dharam (ie- islam, hinduism) they belong mystical orders of their dharam ie- sufi, shavism, advait vedanta. All the bhagats which are included in sri guru granth sahib ji were jevan mukht, they didnt belong to any specific dharam, they were not hard core followers of hindu panth nor they were rehitdhari khalsa, they were all almast fakirs who didnt gave two hoots about socio-religious-economic boundaries of their own religions or others. In my eyes, all the bhagats were sikhs didnt need to be in systematic khalsa socio religious panth in order to get jevan mukhti, they were already jevan mukht you can tell that by their gurbani included in sri guru granth sahib ji. Sikh and Khalsa are same when it comes to avastha but these are relative terms ie- different type of intiation for eg- kabir panthis or sufi farid followers their intitation may be different than khalsa but internal bhramgyan amrit is one, they are relative terms could be both applied in socio-religious circle (panthic maryada) as well mystical traditions of any dharam. For example: In Sri Sarbloh Granth Sahib: Atam Ras Neh Jannehi Sio Haie Khalsa Dev, Prab Meh Mo Meh Tas Meh Ranchak Naeh Bhaiv || The one who has entered the sphere of atma(self), he alone is worthy of the title of the khalsa, he becomes one with me the guru and ultimately God.There is no difference. Above quote can be applied both ways to a) an khalsa who have taken intiation of khanda batta amrit and applied guru maharaj sikhi in his/her life and tasted atam ras(turiya avastha). Above quote also can be equally dedicated (if you look at it more antriv(Deeply) arths to anyone of any dharam abroad away from socio-religious circle(panthic circle) to anyone who has realize his own true self(atma). Now lets look at this quote: Here Guru Gobind singh ji directly explains Khalsa. "The Khalsa is my exceptional Image, In the Khalsa ever resides my Spirit. The Khalsa is my Beloved and Venerable Master, The Khalsa is my divine Protector. The Khalsa is my Father and Mother, The Khalsa is my body and soul. The Khalsa is embodiment of true and perfect Guru. The Khalsa is my Gallant and Knightly friend. I have stated the truth without an iota of misconstruction. God and Guru Nanak are to this my witnesses." Guru Gobind Singh, Sarb Loh Granth, (MS), 519-526. This quote looks like more dedicated towards khalsa from socio-religious circle than from mystical circle. Guys, if gurmat gursikhi marg was that simple then we wouldnt need bhramgyanis in the panth, any tom, di ck , harry scholar can decipher gurmat gursikhi marg. Last but not least, here are few words of my teacher, he puts all well together- listen to it: http://www.gurmarag.net/SikhAwareness/Audi...0is%20anadi.mp3 With that said, i fully beleive in concept of tisra panth- khalsa panth which guru maharaj talks about in ugardanti and raj karega khalsa, and once again tisra panth that guru maharaj ji talks abouts its not to limited to socio-religious boundaries but go to an extent of mystical boundaries away from religious boundaries. Khalsa chit shouldnt be spent in counting of how many khalsa with kesh and dhara there should be, but it should be much higher than that. Khalsa panth was created, true separate unique indentity was given to us but guru maharaj also gave us bibek buddhi not to shackles ourselves in socio-religious boundaries. Khalsa should be like rain (ocean of sam dristh), pours everywhere doesnt discriminate between anyone. so all coming back to the point khalsa cannot equated as 5th caste because others caste are caught up in Cham Dristi whereas only khalsa has sam/bhram dristi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 neo bhaji.........from 3rd Panth, do you mean 3rd religion or something more deeper...............I've heard this, but not sure whether it should be taken as 3rd religion or ??? das 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I believe the personal level and our own spiritual state is to remain mast, but apart from that....so long as we live, we are bound to constructs...its just life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Does this verse not contradict and critisice the Khalsa rule of not eating Jhoota? "The mother is impure, and the father is impure. The fruit they produce is impure. Impure they come, and impure they go. The unfortunate ones die in impurity. Tell me, O Pandit, O religious scholar, which place is uncontaminated? Where should I sit to eat my meal? The tongue is impure, and its speech is impure. The eyes and ears are totally impure. The impurity of the sexual organs does not depart; the Brahmin is burnt by the fire. The fire is impure, and the water is impure. The place where you sit and cook is impure. Impure is the ladle which serves the food. Impure is the one who sits down to eat it. Impure is the cow dung, and impure is the kitchen square. Impure are the lines that mark it off. Says Kabeer, they alone are pure, who have obtained pure understanding." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurnit_Singh Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I can't understand how that quote proves your point in anyway. You may also be taking the quote out of context as Gurbani is often written in a figurative sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallace singh Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 A giani explained it thusly: "True khalsa are now one with God." As in the last line of kirtan sohila, if we could only be dust at the feet of the sants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I was listening to some katha recently, and the katha wachak said that the Khalsa is the four castes combined. this is how he explained it: Brahman - when SIkh read bani praises Akal Khatri - when Sikhs protect the weak and innocent Vaish - when Sikh works dasan noha di kamai shudra - when a sikh Serves other humans What are your thoughts on this? chatanga 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Chatanga Ji, Thats a nice way of looking at it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I was listening to some katha recently, and the katha wachak said that the Khalsa is the four castes combined. this is how he explained it: Brahman - when SIkh read bani praises Akal Khatri - when Sikhs protect the weak and innocent Vaish - when Sikh works dasan noha di kamai shudra - when a sikh Serves other humans What are your thoughts on this? chatanga thats a nice analogy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbreakable Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 . 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.