Hard Talk How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/race?

[carolineislands]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

Not really. Amritdhari is one who gives his body, mind, and soul to God. Therefire, if you have given that body to God, through baptism, you should share food off one plate with those who have done the same. They are clsoer to you, then your husband.

That is assuming that only a Sikh has given body, mind, and soul to God. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of the core principles of Sikhi?

 

[Sherab]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

When I am a baptized Sikh I will still share my plate with anybody.

Then I have to ask that you not take amrit, if you cannot keep rehit maryada. You can always get a second plate, and oput the remains onto that one and distribute it like that. How do you think Langar is served?

jasleen-ji, please correct if this is wrong also, i am unlearned.

If there is no Muslim and there is no Hindu, how can there be baptized and unbaptized?

Because, as soon as you take amrit, you take on the saroop (form) of Guru Gobing Singh, or if a Kaur, Mata Gujri. Amrit makes you a Sikh.

I think you have to understsand the peacefulness of SGGS, and bir ras (warrior essence) of dasam granth de bani. That part of amrit is part of bir ras - why share food from your own plate, with someone else who is not your brother?

Get a second plate and put the remain onto the second - but not off the same plate.

Eating off of one plate builds the khalsa into ONE body, in a sense of unity. Anybody can take amrit, assumning they can:

Wake up at Amrit Vela
Do the bani prescribed by guru Gobind Singh Maharaj, at amrit vela and sunset, and before going to sleep.

bhull chak maf karni.

Surinderjit Singh

 

[carolineislands]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

So, there is this meal served in a method to show that there are no distinctions, only its served with distinctions?

 

[carolineislands]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

generally speaking, rules for living are maryada, and spiritual guidance is SGGS.

This sounds very similar to the differences you were describing between the Islamic Hadith and the Quran.

 

[carolineislands]

Re: How Many Siks Have Married out Of Jaat/Zaat (Caste/Race)

The thing is, we have to define who a sikh is. Because, we are counting sikh as a religion or a caste etc. Sikhism is not really a religion. It is actually the divine purpose of god. How humans should be acting as. Its from god. Its not something created by human, its not particularly a religion. It is the world religion, which means, it is the natural divine order of mankind, where there is everything pure...

I dont think there is a problem with marrying anyone from another religion, as long as they understand what sikhi is. Its not just a religion, it is what god expects, as we should be pure, leave everything the way it is.

I have noticed that, people of the white race, who are educated, are so interested in sikhism. For example, there have been many western educated girls from the usa who have the knowledge of sikhism. They know that sikhism is the way of truth. So, you cant really compare sikhism to other religions, because, its not actually a religion, but its more then that, its more like the divine way of life, that all religions are not accepting. So as long as they have knowledge of sikhism, it is ok to marry people from different paths.

This is how I understand it.

 

[Sherab]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

So, there is this meal served in a method to show that there are no distinctions, only its served with distinctions?

Langar is different.

Eating at home, outside gurdwara, is when you do not share. If you want to share, do not take amrit. You can still be a Sikh, without taking amrit. Just be sahajdhari, there is no issue with you remaining sahajdhari. Whenever you want to take amrit, you can.

I still share food of my plate, even with my dogs. Nihangs share food from their plate with their horses. I personally do not believe in the "one plate" idea, however, there is a logic for it.

Above all, as soon as you rake amrit, do as the panj pyare tell you too.

Is it bir ras, warrior essence, to keep clean. If you have a hard time udnerstanding this, please also understand "miri and piri".

 

[Sherab]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

This sounds very similar to the differences you were describing between the Islamic Hadith and the Quran.

And anything remotely close to islam is automatically evil?

Allow me to clarify.

maryada is for amritdhari Sikhs. NOT all of mankind.

You don't have to take amrit if you don't want to.

SGGS is the essence of peaceful living.

Dasam granth, Sarbloh granth, are bir ras - warrior essence, the bani of Guru Gobind Singh.

Above all, i'd have to say, fi you take amrit, you get a bit of both equally.

 

[carolineislands]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

And anything remotely close to islam is automatically evil?

I said nothing of the kind.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

When I am a baptized Sikh I will still share my plate with anybody. .

since amrit is not a requirement for following sikhi, please don't feel obligated to get baptized if you're not ready to follow the rehet maryada. amrit is a serious commitment, and if you're not willing to do the whole thing, it's probably better not to do it at all.

i'm not trying to offend anyone, it's just my personal feelings on the manner.

there are a couple reasons behind not sharing food with non-amritdharis. one is that the non-amritdharis may consume alcohol or tobacco and the whole "cross contamination" thing should be avoided. i would assume that it is also meant to foster a stronger sense of kinship between amritdharis. there is also the hygiene issue, of course this assumes that amritdharis are more likely to be strict about cleanliness than non-amritdharis or non-sikhs... i understand that this assumption might be offensive to some, but you have to take it in the context of the time it was written...

in the end of course, how you choose to live your life and whether you choose to follow the rehet maryada is entirely up to you.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

That is assuming that only a Sikh has given body, mind, and soul to God. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of the core principles of Sikhi?

no one said anything of the sort. the fact that amritdhari = commitment to God in no way negates anyone else's relationship to God.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

So, there is this meal served in a method to show that there are no distinctions, only its served with distinctions?

not really. langar is served on individual plates, not from a common dish... no one is compelled to eat from another's plate, so no distinctions are necessary.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Re: How Many Siks Have Married out Of Jaat/Zaat (Caste/Race)

This is how I understand it.

i've found that it's more useful to learn about sikhism from sikhs rather than from hindus.

 

[kds1980]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

When I am a baptized Sikh I will still share my plate with anybody. In Haiti, you always share your food. You never eat all that is on your plate. You eat about half and then you give your food to one of the many people around you who don't have any. How could I ever change that? If there is no Muslim and there is no Hindu, how can there be baptized and unbaptized?

I don't understand that.

There are amritdhari sikhs who share meals from others plate.It all depends from which sect you take your amrit and how strict you want to become.

 

[Archived_Member1]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

There are amritdhari sikhs who share meals from others plate.It all depends from which sect you take your amrit and how strict you want to become.

which "sect" allows this? akal takht doesn't and it's certainly not a "sect", it's the supreme temporal authority for all sikhs.

when one takes amrit one is making a commitment to become "strict" about rehet, period. if one does not wish to follow rehet, one should not take amrit. there's no "strict" or "not strict" amritdharis.

next someone will say it's ok for amritdharis to cut their hair if they want to...

 

[Sherab]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

which "sect" allows this? akal takht doesn't and it's certainly not a "sect", it's the supreme temporal authority for all sikhs.

when one takes amrit one is making a commitment to become "strict" about rehet, period. if one does not wish to follow rehet, one should not take amrit. there's no "strict" or "not strict" amritdharis.

next someone will say it's ok for amritdharis to cut their hair if they want to...

I'm curious as well.

I have read maryads of AKJ, Damdami Taksaal, and Akal Takhat.. he may be reffering to the maryada followed by 3HO Sikhs?

Just an idea... :{-

 

[carolineislands]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

no one said anything of the sort. the fact that amritdhari = commitment to God in no way negates anyone else's relationship to God.

Well, actually they did:

Amritdhari is one who gives his body, mind, and soul to God. Therefire, if you have given that body to God, through baptism, you should share food off one plate with those who have done the same. They are clsoer to you, then your husband.

Is this not assuming that only Amritdhari have given body, mind and soul to God?

My question is this: Where does this command that only those who have been baptized should share food off the same plate? What writing? Who is the author? What is the origin of this doctrine?

I would also like to ask lifetime Sikhs or scholars about this issue and where these doctrines came from.

My impression of Sikhi so far (I will readily admit it is very limited and I am very new) is that Guru Nanak's principal message was one of equality and unity and one of his most famous sayings was "There is no Muslim, there is no Hindu..." I am also under the impression that the meal tradition was instituted for the purpose of erasing the invisible boundaries between people.

It is interesting to me that there seems to be something of a contradiction from the original Sikhi that Guru Nanak brought forth and some of the current practices, such as the one in question. It is not unusual, of course... no religion can remain absolutely pure throughout generations of human interpretation. I would just like to know if this is one of those instances. I have a Sikh friend from India who was born and raised in the religion and she once told me that some things have strayed from the original meaning. I am wondering if this is one of the examples. Here we have Sikhs claiming that only Sikhs who believe these particular details are "real" Sikhs and that only Sikhs know what Sikh means and not Hindus and that only two "real" Sikhs are allowed to eat off the same plate and that if one doesn't happen to buy into that particular (arguably minute) detail then they should not consider taking amrit or being baptized. In other words, if you don't believe this one detail then you shouldn't attempt to become a "real" Sikh???

In closing I will say that I will never set myself up as cleaner, more holy, more set apart than another human being, therefore I will never say that I would refuse to eat off the same plate as anyone. And I would not want to ever assume I might have given more of my body, mind and spirit to God than another... what a dangerous assumption? How can we know what is in the mind and heart of another person? One person might have taken amrit, following the doctrine to a T, never cutting a single hair, wear turban, kirpan, kara, etc... pray in the morning and night and you still don't know what's in their heart. The same goes for people of other paths. They may appear unholy to us and yet their whole heart and life may have been dedicated to God and you would never know it.

Why do we as humans seem to have this intrinsic need to separate ourselves from others or to distinguish ourselves as different or superior in some way? And wasn't it this element of human nature that Guru Nanak spoke to when he allied himself with a Muslim and a Hindu and walked all those many miles to share the message of equality and oneness?

Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[carolineislands]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

not really. langar is served on individual plates, not from a common dish... no one is compelled to eat from another's plate, so no distinctions are necessary.

If no distinctions are necessary why do you make this distinction between baptized and unbaptized Sikhs in saying they should never eat off the same plate? I mean, come on... everybody knows what it means to say some people can eat off the same plate with you but not those other ones. If that isn't a distinction, then what it is?

 

[Hardas Singh]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

I am only 20 and am unmarried, but I would say I strongly prefer to marry a Sikh because I believe Sikhism is the best way and I want to raise my children with traditional Sikh values, even though I love everyone no matter what religion they believe. I'm a white american convert to Sikhism and race or caste plays no role in my decision, any girl who loves God preferably who is a Sikh, it doesn't matter if she's black, white, Punjabi, Japanese, high caste low caste or whatever

 

[Archived_Member1]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

Amritdhari is one who gives his body, mind, and soul to God. Therefire, if you have given that body to God, through baptism, you should share food off one plate with those who have done the same. They are clsoer to you, then your husband. Is this not assuming that only Amritdhari have given body, mind and soul to God?

nope, not in the least. the fact that amritdharis are supposed to give body mind and soul to god does not mean other people cannot do the same. it's a commentary on amritdhari sikhs, it doesn't refer to anyone else.

the fact that apples are red doesn't mean that there are no other red fruits, right?

 

[Archived_Member1]

Re: How many sikhs have married out of Caste/Race

My question is this: Where does this command that only those who have been baptized should share food off the same plate? What writing? Who is the author? What is the origin of this doctrine?

it comes from the sikh rehet maryada. it's our "code of conduct", and we're instructed to follow it when we take amrit. the maryada has been passed down from the time of Guru Gobind Singh ji, and the current maryada was compiled by scholars in the 1920s.



the following instructions are given to us by the panj piyare (five beloved ones) at the time of amrit sanchar:
(q) The following individuals shall be liable to chastisement involving automatic boycott:
(1) Anyone maintaining relations or communion with elements antagonistic to the Panth including the minas (reprobates), the masands (agents once accredited to local Sikh communities as Guru's representatives, sine discredited for their faults and aberrations), followers of Dhirmal or Ram Rai, et. al., or users of tobacco or killers of female infants;
(2) One who eats/drinks left-overs of the unbaptised or the fallen Sikhs;
(3) One who dyes his beard;
(4) One who gives off son or daughter in matrimony for a price or reward;
(5) Users of intoxicant (hemp, opium, liquor, narcotics, cocaine, etc.);
(6) One holding, or being a party to, ceremonies or practices contrary to the Guru's way;
(7) One who defaults in the maintenance of Sikh discipline.
A Gateway to Sikhism | The Sikh Rehat Maryada : Section Six - A Gateway to Sikhism

I would also like to ask lifetime Sikhs or scholars about this issue and where these doctrines came from.

good idea.

It is interesting to me that there seems to be something of a contradiction from the original Sikhi that Guru Nanak brought forth and some of the current practices, such as the one in question. It is not unusual, of course... no religion can remain absolutely pure throughout generations of human interpretation. I would just like to know if this is one of those instances. I have a Sikh friend from India who was born and raised in the religion and she once told me that some things have strayed from the original meaning. I am wondering if this is one of the examples. Here we have Sikhs claiming that only Sikhs who believe these particular details are "real" Sikhs and that only Sikhs know what Sikh means and not Hindus and that only two "real" Sikhs are allowed to eat off the same plate and that if one doesn't happen to buy into that particular (arguably minute) detail then they should not consider taking amrit or being baptized. In other words, if you don't believe this one detail then you shouldn't attempt to become a "real" Sikh???

wait a second... where does this "real" and "not real" sikh thing come from? who said anything of this sort? taking amrit is not about being "real" or "not real". it's simply a different level of commitment.

and i find the idea that sikhi has become corrupt to be very offensive. we have the only holy scripture in the world that is exactly the same today as it was when it was written. it's simply not possible for it to be corrupt. if people are doing things which are against sikhi, they are corrupt. the religion, however, is not.

In closing I will say that I will never set myself up as cleaner, more holy, more set apart than another human being, therefore I will never say that I would refuse to eat off the same plate as anyone.

this is your right. however, if you plan to take amrit knowing you're going to break it anyway, what's the point?

And I would not want to ever assume I might have given more of my body, mind and spirit to God than another... what a dangerous assumption? How can we know what is in the mind and heart of another person?

i don't think anyone has suggested anything of this sort.

Why do we as humans seem to have this intrinsic need to separate ourselves from others or to distinguish ourselves as different or superior in some way?

you mean like when Guru sahib said "i am not a hindu, i am not a muslim"?

And wasn't it this element of human nature that Guru Nanak spoke to when he allied himself with a Muslim and a Hindu and walked all those many miles to share the message of equality and oneness?

equalilty, yes. oneness of GOD, yes. but we're not all alike. people are different. cultures are different. faiths are different. we worship in different ways. the end goal may be the same, but there's nothing wrong with taking a different path to get there.