Sikhism

I have been asked by ‘Xtreme’ and other participants questions such as role of women in Sikhism and rules of Sikhism and what has Sikhism borrowed from other religions. Following article by Khuswant Singh will answer most of these questions and it also outlines basic rules of Sikhism.

=========================================================================================

By Khushwant Singh

The advent of Sikh religion represents a decisive development in the evolution of Indian religious consciousness. Guru Nanak, the founder of this religion and the chief exponent of the Bhakti movement in Punjab, appeared in the midst of several powerful religious currents related to the Bhakti cult.

While he was quite naturally, influenced by them and, in certain respects, his ideology has strong affinity with that of Nirguna Bhakti cult of medieval India, he made a number of departures and formulated a specific and well defined religious ethos that extended far beyond his own times into the future.

In fact, Guru Nanak’s genius lay in integrating the contemporary Bhakti-Sufi tradition of spiritual quest with the socio-political milieu in medieval India.** He sought to build a new order on principles of justice and equality as alternative norms to caste or creed.** While most of the other contemporaneous expressions of the medieval Bhakti movement in various parts of India were to be absorbed by the orthodox stream of Hinduism, it was only the Sikh movement of Guru Nanak that developed as an autonomous faith and which still retains a great deal of its original dynamism.
Guru Nanak’s social vision, like his metaphysical vision, was comprehensive in nature, taking within its range the totality of society. His verses bear eloquent testimony to his concern over social discrimination, miscarriage of justice, cowardice of people and many other evils of the contemporary society. By far, the most fundamental departure which Guru Nanak made from the established social order was rejection of caste. He was convinced that no spiritual and social progress could take place in a system of privileges which confirmed the monopoly of the higher castes and exploitation of the so-called lower castes.

There are numerous pronouncements by Guru Nanak, repudiating the ethical validity of caste, affirming the equality of human beings before God and projecting deeds rather than caste as the determining factor for one’s true status. Further, it is not the metaphysical utterances alone but the practical steps taken by Guru Nanak for the abolition of caste that helped to translate his message into a concrete reality. ** He provided a framework for a vigorous egalitarian society through the creation of institutions like Sangat and Langar which constitute the original nucleus of the Sikh Panth, and both of which have been operating in the panth ever since their inception.
Guru Nanak thus set up a social order in which low castes fraternised without discrimination with other members drawn from higher classes and he conceived the community of his followers as constituting a classless and casteless society. **

Guru Nanak’s rejection of social differences was further complimented by his affirmation of equality for women, and his concept of an ideal society was free from taboos and prejudices born out of gender discrimination. In fact, Nanak stood out, in his own time, as a staunch advocate of women’s proper place in society and their equal status with men. Another important aspect, from the socio-economic point of view, was Guru Nanak’s precept of Kirat Karo, Wand Chhako, Nam Japo. It means (a) earning livelihood by honest labour, (b) sharing the fruits of labour with others; and (c) practising the discipline of Nam.

The first of the commandments forbids
parasitism in any form since stress is laid on Kirat, i.e honest productive labour. In the second, emphasis is laid on sharing the fruits of labour while in the third part of the formula, contemplation of God’s name was prescribed both for spiritual upliftment and as a safeguard against lack of dharma during pursuit of economic power. Thus, over and above being a mystic, Guru Nanak was founder of a new social order. As a result of his teachings and the organisational steps initiated by him, a new brotherhood came into existence, which exhibited a progressive social outlook.

Significantly enough, Guru Nanak was equally vocal on the political ills of his time. He keenly observed the functioning of the governments and felt deeply concerned over the disabilities of people groaning under the heels of tyranny and injustice of both the rulers and invaders. Through his fearless denunciation of all forms of oppression and tyranny, he symbolised the right of man to freedom of expression.

One of the most important acts of Guru Nanak in grooming the society lay in promoting the capacity to think freely, fearlessly, rationally and independently. Nanak also infused moral strength among people by upholding the divine law of justice and its ultimate victory in the form of retribution to unjust rulers.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited July 24, 2000).]

guru nanak was a great guy but some say he was a muslim.Is that true or just a story?

btwthanks for enlightening us abt sikhism

This article is very vague and it's difficult to see how it explains any of the sikh rules and codes of conduct in the thread called 'Rani and the Sikh rules' which was much more specific regarding actual ceremonies like baptism, appearance, diet, etc.

The general overview you have presented here can be claimed by most religions if you aren't prepared to actually look at what is written in their books.

I suggest if you want to follow this line of thought then your scrutiny of comparative religions should be less selective. You seem happy to criticise the Quran and islamic codes of conduct, but when presented with similar codes in sikh literature you failed to answer any questions and diverted the topic by opening this new thread which basically says nothing about what differentiates a sikh from anybody else.

BTW, I have no problem with someone being a modern sikh, but I think if they are going to criticise other religions for being outdated, then they should have the decency to look at their own religions first.

This is the original article which Rani failed to address in the Sikh rules thread.

I have pasted it in case Rani wants to make any comments or corrections.

==========================================================================================

http://www.panthkhalsa.org/rahit/rahit_sikh.html

The Primary Code of Conduct is that one MUST receive baptism of the Double-Edged Sword.

  • [RahetNama Bhai Desa Singh Ji]

Only upon receiving ordination from the Guru Can a disciple call himself a Sikh.

  • [Bhai Gurdas Ji, Var 3, pauri 1]

DEFINITION OF A SIKH

Who is a Sikh? The literal meaning of the word Sikh is a ‘disciple.’ A Sikh is one who is a disciple of the Satguru. To be a disciple of the Satguru, one must completely surrender one’s will and wisdom to the Will and Wisdom of the Satguru. Only then, the Satguru admits one is in his fold as a ‘Sikh’ and blesses him with the holy Naam. This initiation ceremony was previously referred to as the deekhya or charan pahul and has been prevalent right from the time of Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, as support ed by Bhai Gurdas Ji:
Gur Deekhya Lai Sikh, Sikh Sadaayaa (Var 3, Pauri 11)
One is called a Sikh only after he has been blessed with 'deekhya.
Charan Dhoe Rehraas Kar
Charnamrit Gursikhaan Pilaaayaa (Var 1, Pauri 23)
(Guru Nanak) followed the system of washing the Guru’s Feet and blessing the GurSikhs with the Charan amrit (Charan-Pahul)
Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji prescribed specific rules and regulations which must be unconditionally accepted by the candidates before they can be admitted as disciples (Sikhs). The ceremony by which the Panj Pyaras are authorized by the Satguru to admit such persons in the fold of Sikhism is partaking Khande-ki-Pahul or Amrit. Therefore, according to the Commandment of the Satguru, one can become a Sikh of the Guru only by taking Amrit. Such a person is also called an Amritdhari because he has been blessed with the holy Amrit and has, thus, become a Sikh. It is further explicit from the following couplet from Rahitnamaa of Bhai Desa Singh Ji.
Pratham Rahit Yeh Jaan, Khande-ki-Pahul Chhakey.
Soee Sikh Pardhan, Avar Naa Pahul Jo Lai.
The primary Rahit for a Sikh is to take Khande-ki-Pahul. And, only he is a great who does not accept anything else.
Generally, people do not grasp the true meaning of the terms Amritdhari and non-Amritdhari Sikhs. The phrase non-Amritdhari Sikhs is meaningless. One cannot make a comparison between them.
There is only one class of Sikhs and that class is the SIKH (Khalsa). Thus, one is either a Sikh or not a Sikh.
Now consider this point from another angle. If someone belonging to other faiths like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., wishes conversion into Sikhism, what is he required to do?
Does he become a Sikh by merely refraining from cutting his hair and wearing a turban as Sikhs do? Obviously not. (There are a number of such people with long hair, and even wearing turbans, belonging to faiths other than Sikhism). He has necessarily to partake the holy Amrit to become a Sikh. How can, then, one become a Sikh simply because of accident of birth, without being baptized? This point has also been explicitly made clear by the Satguru himself as:
So Sikh Sakhaa Bandhap Hai Bhai,Jay Gur Ke Bhaaney Vich Aavey
Aapney Bhaaney Jo Chaley Bhai, Vichharr Chotaan Khaavey (pg 601)
Only that person is a Sikh and he is my near and dear one, who comes under the total allegiance of the Guru. As against this, one who owes allegiance only to his personal will, always remains in separation and will suffer
Clearly, therefore, being a non-Amritdhari means that one has not yet declared his total allegiance and obedience to Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji / Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji / Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as his Guru. Nor has he been blessed with the Gurmantra or Naam which is given ONLY at the time of baptism by Guru Sahib himself through the Panj Pyaras. Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself put a seal on this point by bowing before the Panj Pyaras for his own baptism. Are these so-called non-Amritdhari “Sikhs” greater without being baptized?
It is thus, abundantly clear that the non-Amritdharis, even though they may claim to be Sikhs, and are also considered Sikhs politically and socially, are not Sikhs in the true sense and in the eyes of the Satguru. In Gurbani, they are referred to as (a) Nigurey; (b) Gurmantar heenus; (c) Sakat; (d) Manmukh or Vemukh, and (e) Vedeen (Faithless), etc. howsoever prominent or outstanding they may be in the social and public life of the community. Gurbani defines such terms as under:
(a) Nigurey: one who has not become disciple of the Guru.
Nigurey Ko Gat Kaaee Naahee Avgann Muthhey, Chotaan Khahee. (pg 361)
For him who is without the Guru, there is no liberation. Deluded by evil propensities, he suffers.
Satgur Bajhon Gur Nahi Koee Nigurey Kaa Hai Naao Bura (pg. 435)
Without the True Guru (i.e. Guru Nanak), there is not another Guru. And one without the Guru is known as evil.
(b) Gurmantar-heenus: One who has not been blessed with the Gurmantra (Naam).
Gurmantar-Heenus Jo Praani Dhrigant Janam Bharashtneh. Kookreh Sookreh Gardheh Kaakeh Sarpaneh Tul Khaieh (pg. 1356-1357)
One who is without the Gurmantra, is the most accursed, and contaminated is his life. He is like a dog, a swine, an ass, a crow a snake, and a blockhead.
(c) Saakat: Infidel
Saakat Suaan Kaheeyey Baho Lobhee, Baho Dunnat Mael Bhareejeypg. 1326)
The dog like infidel is said to be very avaricious and is full to the brim of evil thoughts.
Saakat Besuva Poot Ninaam (pg 1239)
The infidel is nameless like a prostitute’s son.
(d) Manmukh: One who follows his own will; the egocentric.
Manmukh Oodha Kowi Hai, Na Tis Bhagat Na Naao (pg. 511)
The egocentric person (i.e. Manmukh) is like a reversed lotus and possesses neither devotion nor God’s name.
Manmukil Seti Sang Karey, Muh Kalaldi Daag Lagaaey (pg. 1417)
Whosoever associates with an egoist, to his countenance attaches the stigma of blackness.
Manmukh Naam Na Jannani, Vinn Naavey Pat Jaaey… Vishta Kay Keerray Pavey Wich Vishta Se Vishta Mahe Samaaye(pg. 28)
The egocentrics know not the Naam, and without Naam lose their honor… They are worms of excrement, fall in excrement, and get absorbed in excrement.
(e) Vedeen: The faithless; the irreligious.
Choraan, Jaaran, Randiaan, Kuttaneeya Di Baan. Vedinaa Ki Dosti Vedlnaa Ka Khaann Sifti Saar Naa Jannani, Sada Vasey Saitaan (pg. 790)
It is the habit of thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, and pimps that they contract friendship with the irreligious or faithless and eat their food; they know not the worth of God’s praise and Satan ever abides within them.
The above are only a few of the numerous quotations from Gurbani and are self- explanatory and need no further comment.
[Gurmat Rahit Marayda, The points of Contention, Bhai Manmohan Singh Ji]

xtreme, u have not given a single quote from gurubani which says that only amritdharis are sikhs. the quotes above say something and author immediately goes to stretch its interpretation.
In bhakti times, guru was generally important. We all know importance given to guru in all indian spiritual and other traditions. 'gururbramha guraurvishnu...' guru has been equated with god or more. 'guru gobind dohu khade, kake lagu paay, balihari guru aapne jin govind diyo dikhay', i think this was kabir or 'staguruwachuni sapadena soy' by tukaram all say similar things.
however, ur thesis of non-amritdharis being non-sikhs is hardly supported by any quote above.

For example *Choraan, Jaaran, Randiaan, Kuttaneeya Di Baan. Vedinaa Ki Dosti Vedlnaa Ka Khaann Sifti Saar Naa Jannani, Sada Vasey Saitaan (pg. 790)
It is the habit of thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, and pimps that they contract friendship with the irreligious or faithless and eat their food; they know not the worth of God's praise and Satan ever abides within them. *
Now what this has to do being amritdhari or not. but website writer quotes it in support of his claim.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited July 25, 2000).]

ZZ, are you claiming to know more about the sikh religion than the sikh author of this piece?

Of course there will be sikhs who are also homosexuals, pimps, thieves and murderers, but which should be taken as representative of the sikh faith?

Please stop splitting hairs and stop trying to tell sikhs what their religion is. If you can explain the significance of the 5 Ks in relation to this topic then fine, otherwise keep your wishy-washy thoughts to yourself.

I have not stopped sikhs from responding. i have just said that the article u quote hardly makes sense since it gives a particular thesis and quotes he puts in support hardly have to do with his thesis.

being a sikh is not enough to be an authentic sourse or authority. if it was from a scholar of sikhism like khushwant singh, it would be different case.

What is Khushwant Singh's authority as opposed to Manmohan Singh?

[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
*What is Khushwant Singh's authority as opposed to Manmohan Singh? *
[/quote]

Khushawant singh has written a scholarly book on history of sikhs, which is supposed to be really good. .

Khushawant singh has written a scholarly book on history of sikhs, which is supposed to be really good.

According to who? sikhs with or without turbans?

[quote]
Originally posted by Mr Xtreme:
>>Khushawant singh has written a scholarly book on history of sikhs, which is supposed to be really good.
According to who? sikhs with or without turbans?

[/quote]

how witty can u be xtreme. anywayzz. his book is considered reasonable reliable in general.

his book is considered reasonable reliable in general

In general isn't exactly very specific is it? If you can't give a proper answer then please wait til you have thought of something relevant, otherwise don't clutter up this thread.

Thank you.

there are no books that are considered standard by everyone. however, his is a scholarly book and one of the best sources. For example encyclopedia britanica refers to his books.

since you wanted to know difference between khushwant singh and manmohan singh in authority on sikhism, i thought i should tell u that.

According to the wide accepted definition of a Sikh, a Sikh is one who confesses his faith in ten Gurus and considers Guru Granth Sahib as hs Guru till eternity. This definition is widely used for social as well political/voting purposes(e.g.who can vote in SGPC elections). The more fundamental definition is that a Sikh who has surrendered himself to the Guru and has taken Guru’s Amrit and is living by what the last living Guru Gobind Singh called a Khalsa. Now the basic question we are beating a bush around is that then who is the real Sikh, the first definition or the second one? That is something that even supereme Sikh organisations like SGPC(http://www.sgpc.net/) are a bit vague in their documents and Sikh scholars certainly need to put their views together and give their verdict on this. I am not one so I will only say what I think about it and have observed in my community.

The broader definition of Sikh is a inclusive one…it includes anyone who accepts Guru Granth sahib his Guru and respects all the Gurus. The other one is more exclusive, the Khalsa has to abide by much stricter code of conduct than mere confession of faith in ten Gurus, Khalsa is the practical commitmment to that faith. There is lot of premium and committment to your faith involved with being a Khalsa. I am a clean shaven Sikh and I have many family members and relatives who are Amritdhari. From the way of their life, their daily routine of life and keeping up with their 5K’s, I can surely say that it needs much more belief and committment than being a Sunday Sikh like me and many others here. Being amritdhari is 24 hr reminder that you are Guru’s Sikh and abide by his will while others like us can take off our Sikhi hat while entering the bar and putting it back on when the need be.

Fundamentalist Sikhs(like the above article) insist on their argument that keeping the 5 K’s and being Amritdhari is the only way to really surrender yourself to the Guru and follow His wishes. Lot of people like our friend ZZ presume that all Amritdhari Sikhs are fundamentalists which is so not true. Most amritdhari people I know although encourage others to be baptised, they are of the view of inclusiveness rather than excluding ppl on this basis. This think of Sikhi as a path and various Sikhs at difference stages of that path. One who is learning how to read Gurbani is as much a Sikh as one who practices it in his daily life.

Another thing about religion(in general) is that you can be all good, having strong faith, practice it the best and then fall short at one moment or the other as we are humans after all; and that failure will negate everything good that you had and have done in the past. There is no one perfect. If a clean shaven Sikh falls short of his faith on a daily basis…make it hourly in my case, no one has an objection. No one cares but if say an Amritdhari Sikh, wearing all 5K’s and following rest of the code of conduct falls short of the same thing…wow we got an issue there…see I told these are only fake…They think they are good since they have taken amrit but they are just like us…kind of getting satisfaction in our way of life by seeing other people’s failures.

ZZ, while answering my question on why some Hindus(particularly political kind) are so much against Amritdhari Sikhs? You said that you don’t and you have great respect for Guru Gobind Singh and Khalsa, Which I commend you for. But I was not accusing you for that in particular. My comment was from my and many other Sikhs’ observation and experience in general. Amritdhari Sikhs have take themajority of the wrath be it during bluestar(and I am not talking about bhindrawale’s followers but the sikhs who were busy making their living and taking care of their families peacefully) or November84 riots. I will suggest that you please make a conscious effort to obeserve this behaviour in the community. I am sure you will notice it.
(Bhagat Singh had hair and beard in his early days but then when he became actively involved in the movement he shaved it off. Few weeks before his phansi, Bhai Randhir Singh(another freedom fighter and Sikh preacher) who was also in Lahore jail for his involvement in the freedom movement met Bhagat Singh. Randhir Singh was being released after completing his many years in the jail whose Supertindent was very friendly to Randhir Singh and this meeting was arranged by the jailer. Bhagat Singh when asked by Randhir Singh why he gave up his beard and turban which his father and chacha had always and as a SIkh he should have kept, Bhagat SIngh told him that he was afraid that if he remained in Sikh attire he won’t be accepted by his fellow Hindu revolutionaries. On Randhir Sigh’s advice he stared to keep his hair which can be noticed in his last picture taken few hours before the hanging. Bhagat Singh in Indian magazines, newspapers, books and other literature is always shown clean shaven…although hi pictures with beard and turban are easily available. meaning our heros cann’t be with beards and turbans…that belief has to be reinforced tiem and again).

Xtreme yar, are you saying that if dress code and other rules are in Sikhism that validates that they are ok in Islam too? If you mean that since such rules and codes exist in other religions also and our friends on gupshup should not bash Islam on this basis, I totally agree. I am of the belief that whatever a religion beleives and practices is fine as long it is not forced on general population and does not iterfere with other people’s lives.

sikhs with turban etc. were recognizable and hence the target of goons in 84 riots. but u should also remember that there was a period prior to disturbance in punjab that people felt safe seeing a sikh in bus or whatever. kids went out of the way to greet them and sikhs did get a warm welcome for their supposedly zinda-dil nature. i hope those times will be back.

as far as bhagat singh story is concerned, he could have shaven so that he is not recognized by police. again bhagat singh considered himself socialist, secular and all that what was fashionable at that time.

If you mean that since such rules and codes exist in other religions also and our friends on gupshup should not bash Islam on this basis, I totally agree.

That is exactly what I mean, and that is why this question was directed at Rani and not yourself.

Good answer in general. Fundamental versus liberal religion is a different topic but ti meeds to be realised that this exists in all modes of life. IMO it is bad enough to judge other's faith in a negative light, but 10x worse if you are not prepared to hold your own faith up to the same scrutiny.

This game of hop-scotch with Rani and ZZ doesn't make things any easier.

what is hop-scotch? what does it mean?

Is it some kind of scotch? may be we can share it after discussing religious fundamentals:) God bless us!

ZZ,
hopscotch is a childeren's game in which they play by drawing patterns of ractangles on the ground and throwing an object on the rectangles and then hopping from one rectangle to another on one leg to fetch it back. I'm sure you guys must have this in India as well.

Roman what did we call it in Punjabi? I know we used to play it by drawing the shape in dirt on the floor and then throwing a flat piece of babri(broken pieces of a earthware like kooza,ghaRha)called Theepa. yeah it was lot of fun...too sad can't jump anymore(no dirty jokes please).