What Is The Meaning And Purpose Of Khalsa Today?

[Tejwant Singh]

I am just saying khalsa was born for political purpose fight establish Raj . and protect religion

So, your claim is that none of our previous eight Gurus tried to protect Sikhi.

Is this what you really mean and trying to convey?

 

[kds1980]

So, your claim is that none of our previous eight Gurus tried to protect Sikhi.

Is this what you really mean and trying to convey?

They did it in their own way. Guru Nanak established Sikhi.There were very few followers then later Guru's expanded it.If we take sikh accounts of 20,000 to 80,000 followers on vaisakhi day ,it means sikhism has very large following at that time.to protect .Of course other religions particularly the ruling one feels threatened with expansion of a new religion and there you require some major steps to protect the religion.

Anyway you did not answer my question. How many Khalsa sikhs of 18th , 19th century qualify as pure. did maharaja ranjit singh qualify?

 

[palaingtha]

If I am not mistaken Khalsa is from persian word Khalis means pure.I am not saying that guru were not pure hearted , don't know how many of their followers. If there many followers were pure hearted then we could had witnessed big social and political change in punjab witnesses by many historian. This did not happen at the time of earlier Guru's

And Where it is written Khalsa was born to fight against Mughals.majority of its battle were against other rulers who were not mughals as mughal empire became weak at their time.

Now let me ask you a question How many 18th century Khalsa sikhs were qualied as pure hearted. Did maharaja Ranjit singh with his 63 wives qualify as pure hearted person?

I don't want o go in much details in favour or otherwise of the above posts but I want to emphasize that all Sikhs should accept the Khande de Pahul and NOT be Phe-khi (Fake) Sikhs as we are members of a religion which requires "Amrit Pan' as a basic requirement. Just as a person who wants to become a member of a society, profession or a club etc has to accept the Rules and Regulations of that Society. They are handed Rules of Ethics of that society and every member is required to abide by these rules and regulations. It is not that every member is perfect in abiding by the ethics yet he is still a member of that society. Perfection is desired and some of his shortcomings can escape notice. Still he is a member of that society so long as he observes the main Rules etc.
Similarly An Amritdhari Sikh should be perfect but are there any 'in to to'? I hope every one is trying to be perfect and that should be the spirit. So long as a Sikh has four KAKKARS except the Kirpan it should be good enough. Regarding the Gatre wali Kirpan I do not like to enter into controversy as it may prejudice our cause but I am of the view that a 3 ft. Kirpan should be owned and possessed by a Sikh which may not be necessary to carry always, but could be kept at home.

 

[spnadmin]

palaingtha ji

You have now said several times that we should keep at least 4 kakkars. May I ask which 4 should we keep? This is a question that you may or may not have an answer for. But if you do have an answer, what is your authority for picking the 4 that you pick?

If I decide that I can do without kanga, how do I know I made the right choice. Or do we make the choice based on personal opinion?

How can you say that a person who has not taken chande de pahul is a FAKE Sikh? Then turn around and say --- but 4 kakkars is a good effort if you cannot or will not do 5 kakkars? That idea contradicts your basic belief that chande de pahul makes you a Sikh. Five kakkars is the mandate.

How does anyone come up with a number btw? If 5 is the number, I don't see how 3 k's show less of a sincere effort than 4 k's. What measuring stick of fakeness is being used here?

The same goes for having a 3 foot long kirpan. How long is long enough and who decides and what authority do they based the decision on? How would a 3 foot kirpan represent more adherence to the ideals of Sikhi than one that is 2 feet or 1 foot or less.

Finally, how does anyone person judge another to be FAKE, unless being amritdhari is all about appearances. We are beyond that in this discussion.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Kds ji,

Guru Fateh.

They did it in their own way. Guru Nanak established Sikhi.There were very few followers then later Guru's expanded it.If we take sikh accounts of 20,000 to 80,000 followers on vaisakhi day ,it means sikhism has very large following at that time.to protect .Of course other religions particularly the ruling one feels threatened with expansion of a new religion and there you require some major steps to protect the religion.

Could you possibly give me some references for your above claim which can be counter checked?

Anyway you did not answer my question. How many Khalsa sikhs of 18th , 19th century qualify as pure. did maharaja ranjit singh qualify?

I do not judge who is a Khalsa(pure hearted) or not. If you want to do that, then please go ahead.

We all know what Maharaja Ranjit Singh did for Sikhi despite his short comings. We as Sikhs fall short all the times in our lives. Hence the name Sikh.

Is Khalsa the ultimate utopic destination from where no one can roll down according to your definition?

 

[angrisha]

So ive had this thought cross my mind several times, and I know my belief has changed a fair bit as I have gotten older... I am still trying to sort out an answer for myself.... So please excuse my ignorance and also if this has already been addressed I haven't read all the posts...

If gurbani says there is no real set path to obtain Sat Guru ji, then where does being Amrit-Dhari fit into that. Because it does have specific 'requirements' as so many of you have listed above. From my understanding, there is no right or wrong way that can be judged by any of us... but the way you so choose too to obtain SatGuruji is the right way.

So at one point I think I understood the meaning of khalsa, or maybe I never understood it at all....

 

[Harry Haller]

If gurbani says there is no real set path to obtain Sat Guru ji, then where does being Amrit-Dhari fit into that. Because it does have specific 'requirements' as so many of you have listed above. From my understanding, there is no right or wrong way that can be judged by any of us... but the way you so choose too to obtain SatGuruji is the right way.

does this apply to Satanists too?

In my view there is an absolute set path, compassion, empathy, no fear, no enmity, control of the five thieves, and allow your love to shine out through the five k's.

 

[angrisha]

does this apply to Satanists too?

In my view there is an absolute set path, compassion, empathy, no fear, no enmity, control of the five thieves, and allow your love to shine out through the five k's.

Why cant Satanists have those qualities as well? Their beliefs may be as pure as you perceive yours to be...

 

[Harry Haller]

Why cant Satanists have those qualities as well? Their beliefs may be as pure as you perceive yours to be...

that is a strange statement, Satanists, are only concerned with the self, there is nothing pure about a Satanists belief, there is no love, no compassion, there is enmity, there is definately fear, the five thieves run riot, the mind becomes a cesspit, the body gets used to the constant fear, the circumstances caused by such living can only result in self destruction, note we are not talking about the odd flirt with the self, we are talking about a Satanist, one who is in the full flow of self, for whom nothing else much matters, for whom circumstances are irrelevant, for whom the very life that we treat as holy, is nothing more than a lucid dream in which every last drop of pleasure must be squeezed out.

The only thing a Satanist has in common with a Sikh is the power of the connection, and the power that connection brings.

The above are not my beliefs, they are the beliefs as set out in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, that I try very hard to embrace and live, for years I have lived in the camp of Satanism, try reading Demian by Herman Hesse, there are only two ways to enlightenment, God, or the flesh..., however, with the flesh, you die before you learn anything worth learning

 

[angrisha]

that is a strange statement, Satanists, are only concerned with the self, there is nothing pure about a Satanists belief, there is no love, no compassion, there is enmity, there is definately fear, the five thieves run riot, the mind becomes a cesspit, the body gets used to the constant fear, the circumstances caused by such living can only result in self destruction, note we are not talking about the odd flirt with the self, we are talking about a Satanist, one who is in the full flow of self, for whom nothing else much matters, for whom circumstances are irrelevant, for whom the very life that we treat as holy, is nothing more than a lucid dream in which every last drop of pleasure must be squeezed out.

The only thing a Satanist has in common with a Sikh is the power of the connection, and the power that connection brings.

The above are not my beliefs, they are the beliefs as set out in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, that I try very hard to embrace and live, for years I have lived in the camp of Satanism, try reading Demian by Herman Hesse, there are only two ways to enlightenment, God, or the flesh..., however, with the flesh, you die before you learn anything worth learning

The qualities that you listed are of your personality not your chosen way to practice your religion. Thus, ideas of compassion etc are not mutually exclusive for practicing a 'religion' like Satanism. My understanding is they chose to honor the carnal self, rather than finding detachment from desire and gratification they choose to indulge it (again I do have limited understanding from just general reading over the years)...

The point is we do not have the capacity or the right to judge another for how they choose to believe. If they truly believe their way of living is right, just as truly as I believe my way of living is right... which one is right and which one is wrong? We can never know that.

I think we should focus on the thread, this can end up on a very long tangent.....

 

[Harry Haller]

The qualities that you listed are of your personality not your chosen way to practice your religion

I am not lucky enough to posess a personality, all I have, all we all have is a choice as to what to connect to.

Thus, ideas of compassion etc are not mutually exclusive for practicing a 'religion' like Satanism.

It is an interesting soundbite, but back in the real world there is no compassion in Satanism, perhaps if you are aware of some, you could give an example.

My understanding is they chose to honor the carnal self, rather than finding detachment from desire and gratification they choose to indulge it (again I do have limited understanding from just general reading over the years)...

Sikhism, and Khalsa do not have an aversion to desire and gratification, you are think of the other Eastern religions, Khalsa have an understanding of desire and gratification.

Again, detachment is not a pillar of Sikhism, if we ignore something, it does not go away.

The point is we do not have the capacity or the right to judge another for how they choose to believe. If they truly believe their way of living is right, just as truly as I believe my way of living is right... which one is right and which one is wrong? We can never know that.

We could accept this, or we could attempt to formulate what is right and wrong, I have no intention of judging another, largely because I could not care less, however, if we are talking about which religion Sikhism, or Satanism is closer to the truth, then it does not take a genius to figure that out.

In my other life, I would wake up, eat a hearty breakfast, do some work, spend most of the afternoon in the casino, most of the evening chasing women, and most of the night drunk, drugged, and chasing pleasure. Can this be lauded? in any way? Can anyone say this is a good way to live? to exist? can it be argued in any shape that this way of life is 'right'?

I think we should focus on the thread, this can end up on a very long tangent.....

This is the very meaning of the thread, 'what is the meaning and purpose of Khalsa today', to find the truth and live by it. This of course begs the question 'what is the truth', according to you, the truth can be found everywhere and in anything, I would say it can only be found where Khalsa shines a light.

It is a basic need to know wrong from right, let me outline what the words mean to me, 'wrong' bad consequences , 'right' good consequences.

This topic is certainly within the realms of the thread, as Khalsa stands for all that is good, true and pure, and we are debating what is and what is not.

thank you

 

[angrisha]

I am not lucky enough to posess a personality, all I have, all we all have is a choice as to what to connect to.



It is an interesting soundbite, but back in the real world there is no compassion in Satanism, perhaps if you are aware of some, you could give an example.

Maybe we are interpreting things differently. From what I understand Satanism comprises of a fairly large group of beliefs, and a member just like any other belief system can fall anywhere along the lines of the contingency. So, to say that there is no compassion in Satanism is something that I don't think is accurate. Maybe as a religion as a whole it doesn't value the idea of compassion and service to others etc but you cannot apply that statement to each person or member. So, therefore there is room for compassion in Satanism

Sikhism, and Khalsa do not have an aversion to desire and gratification, you are think of the other Eastern religions, Khalsa have an understanding of desire and gratification. Again, detachment is not a pillar of Sikhism, if we ignore something, it does not go away.

That remark wasnt meant to be taken as a point of Sikhi vs something else. It was merely to show a contrast in beliefs that can exist.

We could accept this, or we could attempt to formulate what is right and wrong, I have no intention of judging another, largely because I could not care less, however, if we are talking about which religion Sikhism, or Satanism is closer to the truth, then it does not take a genius to figure that out.

In my other life, I would wake up, eat a hearty breakfast, do some work, spend most of the afternoon in the casino, most of the evening chasing women, and most of the night drunk, drugged, and chasing pleasure. Can this be lauded? in any way? Can anyone say this is a good way to live? to exist? can it be argued in any shape that this way of life is 'right'?

My whole point is that we can never truly know what is right and wrong... You may think that the way you believe at this moment is correct only to have your mind and perception be changed at another. We believe in 'right and wrong' based on what we see and to more extent what society has also shown us. What is good to you maybe seem wrong to another.

The only thing you have any control over is yourself and how you choose to be on a min to min bases. So, you live your life in accordance to what you believe and another lives theirs that way to. Your both on a path, where it leads isnt necessarily up to us but where you are is where your suppose to be. If you hadn't spent that time where you were, do you think you would be able to be where your at now? Sometimes our hardest times is what leads us to the deepest faith.

This is the very meaning of the thread, 'what is the meaning and purpose of Khalsa today', to find the truth and live by it. This of course begs the question 'what is the truth', according to you, the truth can be found everywhere and in anything, I would say it can only be found where Khalsa shines a light.

It is a basic need to know wrong from right, let me outline what the words mean to me, 'wrong' bad consequences , 'right' good consequences.

This topic is certainly within the realms of the thread, as Khalsa stands for all that is good, true and pure, and we are debating what is and what is not.

I guess for me I don't need to know whats right and wrong, because like I said its relative. We see consequences as good and bad because we so choose to, Gurabani tells us there is no 'bad consequences'. It also tells us there is a place beyond such dualities of right/wrong, fear/no fear, Karma etc. So there can be salvation anywhere, there is no 'correct way'.

 

[Harry Haller]

Maybe we are interpreting things differently. From what I understand Satanism comprises of a fairly large group of beliefs, and a member just like any other belief system can fall anywhere along the lines of the contingency. So, to say that there is no compassion in Satanism is something that I don't think is accurate. Maybe as a religion as a whole it doesn't value the idea of compassion and service to others etc but you cannot apply that statement to each person or member. So, therefore there is room for compassion in Satanism

http://spiritualsatanist.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/compassion-in-satanism.html

the above link confirms your thoughts as do the papers today regarding a horse found in cornwall, a quote from a local satanist condemmed the slaughter and maintained Satanists are compassionate people. I have to bow to your opinion, you are right.

My whole point is that we can never truly know what is right and wrong... You may think that the way you believe at this moment is correct only to have your mind and perception be changed at another. We believe in 'right and wrong' based on what we see and to more extent what society has also shown us. What is good to you maybe seem wrong to another.

The only thing you have any control over is yourself and how you choose to be on a min to min bases. So, you live your life in accordance to what you believe and another lives theirs that way to. Your both on a path, where it leads isnt necessarily up to us but where you are is where your suppose to be. If you hadn't spent that time where you were, do you think you would be able to be where your at now? Sometimes our hardest times is what leads us to the deepest faith.

I have stated similar myself, I cannot disagree with this, however, there is a saying that right and wrong can be classified as being closer or further away from the truth, there is no right and wrong, only the truth. You will have to excuse me, I had no idea I was debating with an intellectual, we can leave behind the basic stuff and go staight to the main course.

I guess for me I don't need to know whats right and wrong, because like I said its relative. We see consequences as good and bad because we so choose to, Gurabani tells us there is no 'bad consequences'. It also tells us there is a place beyond such dualities of right/wrong, fear/no fear, Karma etc. So there can be salvation anywhere, there is no 'correct way'.

true enough, there is only the way

 

[Ishna]

And what are the main reasons people don't become Amritdhari? So they can conform to societys ideals of beauty - cutting styling hair, wearing lots of makeup, pile on the jewelry, don't have 'time' for paath? (what is more important that you can't dedicate about 30 mins a day broken up into a few chunks of prayer)? Do they just not want to? Watching tv or playing video games mroe important? etc?

Some people don't take that step because they feel they can't abide by the rules, therefore they choose not to make the promises. Commonly people will take umbridge to the fact that daily nitnem includes so much material from outside of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

My own reservations have been mentioned elsewhere and are a consequence of the situation I got myself into prior to falling so far in love with Sikhi. It doesn't mean I don't try to live an amritdhari lifestyle in all other regards and I take a bit of offence that you're comparing a non-amritdhari to a makeup wearing, videogame playing, hairstyling layabout. :gingerteakaur: Not that there's anything wrong with videogames LOL.

For the benefit of newbies who might be reading this thread can you please clarify what you mean by this line:

(what is more important that you can't dedicate about 30 mins a day broken up into a few chunks of prayer)?

How do you get through your nitnem and ardaas in 30 minutes a day?? My Japji Sahib takes around 20 minutes (15 if I rush but I don't like to do that), Jaap Sahib is at least 20 minutes again (more like 40 if I'm reading it instead of listening to it), Rehras Sahib is 15, ardaas and Sohila 5 minutes each - how do you do it?

Also congratulations and best wishes to you for your khande di pahul in October/November.

 

[spnadmin]

There is no prohibition against make-up or jewellry in the Sikh Rehat Maryada. Often these prohibitions are created by individuals as add-ons to be extra-scrupulous or feel more confident in their rehat. Other individuals choose not to wear either as a personal choice. Shabads that refer to the bride who adorns herself with jewels or paints her face - and "does not please her husband Lord" - have nothing whatsoever to do with prohibition of jewellry or make-up.

I feel almost silly even mentioning this but it has come up before and now twice in this thread. The choice is individual, though sometimes a sect within Sikhism may prohibit them.

 

[esieffe]

It is a beautiful thing in the world, when two devotees can respectfully and graciously disagree, without having to duck from flying books or shrapnel!

palaingtha ji

I must respectfully disagree with you on several points. First is the idea that Khalsa is a "True Sikh" which creates the impression that the not-Khalsa are False Sikhs. This is one of the biggest hurdles that those who are not amritdhari have with taking Khande de Pahule -- the idea that I will be joining an aristocracy of the washed. Then they/we look about and see that many of the True Sikhs wear the kakkars but do not live up to the ideals they symbolize, and are content to flash their identity as if the kakkars make you a Sikh. Explaining one single tuk to convince the un-washed of the False Sikhs works only if the explainer is able to resist the temptation to give a high-and-mighty lecture. If I am to listen to someone who believes me to be a False Sikh, why should I take the True Sikh seriously? And there are times when the explanation is faulty because the kathavachak doesn't understand his subject matter, himself.

Gyani ji's comments are important because they acknowledge that among the so-called Khalsa are many hypocrites. He is so much as saying, Make no mistake about that. But do not be disheartened or discouraged. When change comes from the inside-out, then we have a Khalsa and then Khande de Pahule makes sense and is something to aim for. Then the outward roop is not a form of fancy dress, but a sign that we are among people of quality.

You know as well as I do that there are many among the Khalsa who are content to be served by the rest, and serve none but themselves.

 

[Original]

I am just saying khalsa was born for political purpose fight establish Raj . and protect religion

Dear All

I've thoroughly enjoyed the read so far and feel like contributing.The two people at heart I wish to address are Ishna and Kanwardeep Singh.

The literal and actual meaning of the word Khalsa, as you've rightly observed, is purity. But before we go to Khalsa there is quite a lot we have to know about its historical perspectives.

Given, the 10th Nanak was the 1st Nanak, then it follows that the word Sikh [disciple] had already been coined and put into usage - of the then Hindu/Muslim society. The rationale behind it is that when ever Baba Nanak was questioned about his spiritual status and his Waheguru, he'd respond by saying, "I'm only a shish, a humble learner of God of all" [meaning, a Sikh. Humility at its peak]. Nanak's mission was the reconcillation of the two faiths, namely, Islam and Hinduism. A man of considerable piety and energy who travelled widely through the subcontinent preaching his new doctrine of a true momothestic God - Ek On Kar. This did not go down too well with the ruling authorities at the time and as a result, the 5th Nanak was martyred. What followed next was the concept of miri piri, that is to say, raising of the sword is pious to defend belief and value. The bearer of this title in line of Sikh Gurus was Hargobind, grandfather of Guru Govind Singh.

The scene for what was to follow [Khalsa 1699] had already been set. The spirit of Nanak was here to stay, dress it up how you like. The creation of khalsa was a necessity at the time, bearing in mind Nanak's God Ek On Kar is formless, shapeless and is energy [karta purakh] which can manifest itself into anything. So the spiritual Nanak had now become the fighting Nanak - evolutionary need to bear the fruit of its endeavours.

Guru Govind's Khalsa in this day n age is a state of being, a "pure consciousness" state. Many try and many will continue to try and become pure in thought and deed [khalsa] but only those who by the grace of Waheguru can but surely succeed. And, this here according to Sikh theology is Karm bound manifestation. For if Khalsa was the ordinary, lay ready to hand and could be achieved by anyone without any sacrifice then how come it is neglected almost by everybody ? All noble things are difficult as they are rare. Not everyone is cut out to be a Khalsa. And, I don't mean this in a sarcastic way but rather in a spiritual sense.

The house of Nanak favour and fortune no one but sees humankind as one. Those who wear uniform are underneath human and it doesn't give them an edge over other humans in terms of fame, fortune and pleasures of life. No not at all. If anything, its a way of life which they've [Amritdharis] adopted as free individuals in representing their Guru's chosen way. The net result at the end of the day is happiness. Those who are not Sikhs, are they less likely to encounter the wonders of life ? No, they too will, according to their karm.

Form a Sociologist perspective, the Khalsa way is seen as a particular and distinct form of soical organisation. And, why not ? History speaks so profoundly and beautifully of ancient civilisations which has given us the modern world - the Samurai of Japan, Spartans of ancient Greece, to name a few for example.

The question to ask, if any, is - what is pure consiciousness [khalsa]? Are the 5ks necessary in this day n age ? And, the answer in my view cannot be derived from academic debate n discussion, but from within and that too, at the grace of Waheguru.

Teachers like Gyani Jarnail Singh [Malayasia] are the way forward. Their interpretation in light of the modern world harmony is a necessity rather than an option for the realisation of a true Sikh.