- Oct 16, 2016
- 45
- 30
- 27
Hi everyone. I am a non baptised Sikh. I am what would be considered a sehajdari sikh. I had to cut my hair as a young boy after I moved to the west in a country with no Sikhs. The mental pressure I faced was immense...
I would like to discuss what I have read in this article on the Sikh identity https://www.sikhanswers.com/what-ar...-a-pluralistic-nature-known-as-sanatan-sikhi/
As I got older I became more spiritually inclined. I studied our history, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. It's a challenging read for it relieves to me my inner shortcomings. But looking more into our history, it appears to be the case that since the formation of Khalsa, a Sikh is also a Khalsa. The various Sikh identities only appear to have started forming towards the end of the 18th century, the identity was massively watered down during the time of the Sikh Empire and the Singh Sabha movement brought us back to our roots of the Sikh Khalsa identity.
Coming to terms with this to me appears to reveal the uncomfortable truth that one who cuts his hair and doesn't work towards becoming a Khalsa is no more a Sikh. There are no ifs or buts about it and are essentially 'apostates'. Although unlike say an apostate of Islam, the door is never closed to work towards becoming a Sikh again.
Now if I am not considered a Sikh anymore that's fine with me. I accept the Sikh way as the best way to God and only considered the lineage of Guru Nanak as my only gurus. But according to one bit in the article:
"Socialisation with the descendants of Prithi Chand, followers of Dhirmal and Ram Rai, clean shaven people and Masands was prohibited. All were given Kangha, Karad, Kesgee, Karhaa, and Kacheraa.
As a clean shaven (well I do keep a beard) guy, the Khalsa should not associate with them. I can understand everything else except the part where there seems to be a very clear line being drawn into not only having the Khalsa be a distinct identity but also in keeping the community closed off towards others. This appears to be a very uncomfortable and not appropriate way to live especially in the current inter connected world. If such instruction was given for the sake of the Mughal oppression being faced at the time it's understandable, but if it's not necessary to this extent in this day and age then there needs to be a very clear message and signalling of this within the community.
I don't really know what else exactly I wanted to say. This reading just gave me a lot of food for thought.
"Nonetheless, what is made clear in the Bhagat-ratnavalee is that the Sahajdharis were not considered to have a legitimate Sikh identity but “Sahajdhari” was a halfway house between Hindu and Sikh."
So this means that I am neither a Sikh, nor a Hindu at this stage. Is it acceptable for me to then consider myself neither and live according to what the SGGS ji says? Could one in this scenario still attain the ultimate goal?
I would like to discuss what I have read in this article on the Sikh identity https://www.sikhanswers.com/what-ar...-a-pluralistic-nature-known-as-sanatan-sikhi/
As I got older I became more spiritually inclined. I studied our history, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. It's a challenging read for it relieves to me my inner shortcomings. But looking more into our history, it appears to be the case that since the formation of Khalsa, a Sikh is also a Khalsa. The various Sikh identities only appear to have started forming towards the end of the 18th century, the identity was massively watered down during the time of the Sikh Empire and the Singh Sabha movement brought us back to our roots of the Sikh Khalsa identity.
Coming to terms with this to me appears to reveal the uncomfortable truth that one who cuts his hair and doesn't work towards becoming a Khalsa is no more a Sikh. There are no ifs or buts about it and are essentially 'apostates'. Although unlike say an apostate of Islam, the door is never closed to work towards becoming a Sikh again.
Now if I am not considered a Sikh anymore that's fine with me. I accept the Sikh way as the best way to God and only considered the lineage of Guru Nanak as my only gurus. But according to one bit in the article:
"Socialisation with the descendants of Prithi Chand, followers of Dhirmal and Ram Rai, clean shaven people and Masands was prohibited. All were given Kangha, Karad, Kesgee, Karhaa, and Kacheraa.
As a clean shaven (well I do keep a beard) guy, the Khalsa should not associate with them. I can understand everything else except the part where there seems to be a very clear line being drawn into not only having the Khalsa be a distinct identity but also in keeping the community closed off towards others. This appears to be a very uncomfortable and not appropriate way to live especially in the current inter connected world. If such instruction was given for the sake of the Mughal oppression being faced at the time it's understandable, but if it's not necessary to this extent in this day and age then there needs to be a very clear message and signalling of this within the community.
I don't really know what else exactly I wanted to say. This reading just gave me a lot of food for thought.
"Nonetheless, what is made clear in the Bhagat-ratnavalee is that the Sahajdharis were not considered to have a legitimate Sikh identity but “Sahajdhari” was a halfway house between Hindu and Sikh."
So this means that I am neither a Sikh, nor a Hindu at this stage. Is it acceptable for me to then consider myself neither and live according to what the SGGS ji says? Could one in this scenario still attain the ultimate goal?
