The Khalsa, The Sahajdari And Getting Thirsty On Seeing Water

[Ozarks]

Sat Sri Akaal,


First the sutra...

Once there was a person who was desperately in need of water for his thirst. On seeing the blazing fog, he mistook it for water. He pursued it until he reached the Indus River. But he only looked at it without drinking. A bystander asked, "You are suffering from thirst. How that you have found water, why don't you drink it?"
He answered, "If I could drink up all that water, I would do it. Since there is more water than I can finish, I would rather not drink it at all."
Some people, acting against all senses and reasons, think since they are unable to keep all the Buddhist commandments, they refuse to accept any of them. They will never attain the path of Enlightenment and thus subject to transmigration in time to come.


I read this and thought about the issue between the Khalsa and the Sahajdari (or any other Sikh group that doesn't keep the 5Ks) and thought I'd like to share.


Sat Nam

 

[harbansj24]

But Ozarks ji, where and what exactly is the problem?

Anyone, whether a "khalsa", a "Keshdhari" a "Sehajdari" or whoever else can go to a Gurudwara and be a part of Sangat.

Of co{censored} a person has to be Khalsa if he wants to be a Granthi or one of the Panj Pyaras. He can also be Khalsa by choice and conviction. But there a stipulation that spouse of a Khalsa also should be Khalsa. But then again it is free choice.

If you want to be voter in Gurudwara elections or you want to be candidate then you must atleast be a Keshdari. So also if you want to get admitted to a Sikh educational institute under Sikh quota. Only a Sabat Surat Sikh can credibly be identified as an eligible Sikh in such cases. What else can be his verifiable credentials? Sikh religion cannot be determined by parentage. So birth certificate and School records are out. Then what else remains? Therefore the only way out for the High court of Punjab & Haryana for such legal purposes, was to recognise only Keshdari's as Sikhs.
Also you can be Keshdari by choice and conviction and if you are proud of your identity,

So too you can be a Sehajdari by choice.

Other than above legitimate provisions, I do not think there is the question of all or nothing.

There were agitations against Dera Sacha Souda because our Dasam Pita was allegedly ridiculed which cannot be tolerated. Similarly Nirankaris had shown disrespect to Guru Granth sahib in the 70's. They have however discontinued the practice now.

 

[Ozarks]

Harbansj24 ji,
No problem here. It just seems (from some posts) that some people want to debate what it is to be Sikh or even is you have to be Khalsa in order to be a "true" Sikh. I do not feel that way. As a matter of opinion I don't feel there are any external (physical) requirements to be a Sikh at all. (Of course there is if you are Khalsa however.) I understand that some would disagree and others would make statements about standing out (identity) or pride and I understand there position. I just do not share it.
I placed this post on here in response to a few posts I have read (both here and elsewhere) about the the necessity of carrying the 5 Ks (and about Kesh). After reading a related post I started reading the Hundred Parables and found that and thought to share is all.

 

[spnadmin]

Ozarks ji

I was one who appreciated your earliest comment, the parable. That being said, you have also identified an ongoing debate that is both out in the open and under the surface in Sikhi. Who is khalsa? And does a person adopt 5 K's and take amrit to become khalsa, or Khalsa.

But there is a need to take a look more than once at Harbhansj ji's remarks because they do sum up the actual constraints for a Sikh - khalsa or Khalsa. Some of what he says is true only in India as far as having a Sikh identity under the law to qualify for federal and state benefits. Some is true regardless. None of it has to be the bone for an argument. Any human being can decide whether to argue or to find common ground for a civil discussion. No one is forced to condone any practice that may be objectionable to him/her.

But there will be continuing arguments. There will be those who object to say that Sikhism is not an organized religion, or it should not be thought of as an organized religion and therefore 5 K's and all conventions are irrelevant. There will be those who say that only the amritdhari are truly Khalsa and they are the only Sikhs. Then there is the middle ground which will also be the target of objections because those on the opposite poles will continue to reject it. Some will shout and others will speak in calm tones. I have not even listed all of the points of argument that have been voiced on this forum since it began.

Thanks for your parable again because it contains some practical wisdom. Thanks to Harbhans ji for giving a realistic framework for this topic in real time.