Jump to content

kakaar


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Akaal108
was this how baba ishar singh jee all the time? or this pic is taken after he did kesy ishnaan?

Isnt in the rehatmaryada says that 5ks has to be with the body all the time???

so does that matter if its keshi ishan time or all the time??

what i wanna know ur opnion by lookin at the picture???

From an akj point of view. does he or does he not violates their discplines?? therefore just because maharaj ji doesnt have the keski on .. akj will think of him as non-khalsa?? wouldnt they??

please answer my questions.

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think u understood me differently. let me try to do a better explanation:

- by looking at the pic i thought that baba jee had keskee with him (the white cloth to cover his head). because u said "Here is the picture of him without the keski " and i was like he is wearing a keskee

- i don't know much about baba jee's life but do have lot of respect for him

- also i don't know anything about what akj's stand on this as i don't speak for them. how do u assume that i am akj or anything like that. i am just guru jee da sikh and try to follow what he says

- in my opinion keskee is a kakaar. but because its still an unresolved issue from akal takhat sahib(even though it was declared a kakkaar in past), sikhs not wearing keskee can not be declared non-khalsa or anything like that (as u mentioned) as long as they do other things required for someone to be khalsaa.

-

Isnt in the rehatmaryada says that 5ks has to be with the body all the time???

what kind of question is this? yes, according to rehatmaryada 5k's has to be with the body all the time. i dont what else u mean by asking this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

lets not turn this into a debate, there were many great sikhs that beleived that kes is a kakaar, as well as many that beleieved that keski was a kakaar. The latter includes Bhai Daya Singh Ji, one of the Panj piyaarey, whom I am inclined to follow, since he mentions the keski as a kakaar in his rehitnama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Akaal108

Karam singh veer ji,

he is just covering his head that does not mean he is wearing keski does that?

and also if you intend to follow akal takht sahib then why not follow their rehatnama when they are allowed jhatka??

you said if someone doesnt consider keski as kakkar they wouldnt be call non-khalsa??

then why do i get this feeling in my local gurdwara where people try to somehow force you into beleive in it??? like to prove that they are better because they follow sikhi fully. This is the reason i stop goin in my local gurdwara .Because i dont feel welcomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SikhForLife

neo singh why do u follow him?

thats almost like following a hindu pandits.. (who may have achieved God themselves.. but who knows)

if he achieved God (like you and others claim) thru SGGS then why dont you follow SGGS

this is the main thing Nanak dev ji taught us.. follow the pure truth.. SGGS

not some baba..

we dont worship any of the 10 Gurus.. we worship the knowledge.. sGGs

(ps. not disrespecting baba ishar ji .. who knows if he really achieved God .... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

singh jee,

he is just covering his head that does not mean he is wearing keski does that?
it doesn't. but like i said earlier, i can't tell from the pic. after some singh do keshee ishnaaan thats probably how he would look like
and also if you intend to follow akal takht sahib then why not follow their rehatnama when they are allowed jhatka??

this is another controversial points not yet resolved by akal takhat. here is some more info on that:

The controversy in the Khalsa Panth over being a vegetarian or non-vegetarian arose due to the difference in the interpretation of the word Kuthha - one of the four primary taboos or Cardinal Sins for the Sikhs. Before going into the depth of what "Kuthha" really means, it is imperative to consider the real importance of these taboos in Sikhism. It is an undisputed fact that any Sikh who commits any one of these four taboos becomes an apostate. That means he is no longer a Sikh, i.e., he is automatically dc-linked and ex-communicated from the Khalsa Brotherhood, even though he may be considered a Sikh by society. As a natural corollary, he loses the Grace of the Satguru without which no progress

can be made in achieving the Bliss of Naam-Simran. The four great taboos prescribed for the Sikhs are, thus, of fundamental importance.

Being of such fundamental importance, the four taboos cannot, obviously, be based upon any temporary contingency of the prevailing circumstances. They must have their own solid basis and foundation, and must be conducive to spiritual upliftment through Naam-Simran, which occupies the pivotal position in the whole edifice of Sikhism. Otherwise, they will lose their applicability in the changed circumstances, especially when their role in the spiritual progress is doubtful or even negative. It is explicit in Gurbani that the principles of Gurmat are unchangeable and of permanent standing:

Gurmat Mat Achal Hal Chalaey Na Sakey Koey. (pg. 548)

The Instruction of the Guru is Unshakable. None can change it.

So, according to the generally prevailing idea as advocated by many Sikh scholars, the main reason for imposing this taboo of not eating Halaal meat is not that it is sacrificial or even religious. Rather this taboo had been imposed primarily to liberate the Sikhs from mental slavery of the then rulers of the Muslim faith who had banned by law the slaying of animals by any method other than Halaal. If this interpretation is accepted, then the following points arise:

With the changed times now, when there is no longer such coercion from any quarter, there should be no need for continuing this taboo in the list of the four taboos because the reason for the imposition of this taboo no longer exists.

It also implies that the four taboos which, have been declared hy Satguru himself as basic and of fundamental importance, may not necessarily be conducive to spiritual enhancement of the soul through Naam-Simran; their objective being merely to create a spirit of moral, and, according to some, physical strength to face the unjust and tyrannic rule of the then rulers. Obviously, this cannot be the situation as the main and the only objective of th

e Satguru was and is to implant the Holy Naam firmly in the minds of the Sikhs through Holy Amrit (Khande-Ki-Pahul). One cannot imagine the All knowing Satguru imposing a taboo of such basic importance which has no relationship with, or which does not help his Sikhs in the achievement of the Spiritual Bliss.

If we accept this position of a taboo being imposed only to serve the conditions prevailing at a particular time, then we provide a pretext to the so-called Modern Sikhs who consider that the keeping of Keshas is no longer necessary in the changed times. They also contend that Kirpan is now of little significance in this atomic age. They openly assert that religion must change with the changing times. The spirit of Sikhism, according to them, lies only within the Sikhs and it has nothing to do with the outward appearance or baanaa. They further contend that the then prevailing circumstances made the necessity of keeping Sikhs unique and easily distinguishable. In the changed circumstances that necessity no longer exists. Thus, accepting the above background of the Kuthha will lead to total destruction of the edifice of Sikhism.

Moreover, how would we classify fish? Is it Halaal or Jhatka?

Meat-eating Sikh brethren advocate that the only touchstone to be used in deciding whether meat should be eaten or refrained from, is whether it creates trouble in the body and fills the mind with evil. If there is no such ill effect then there is no harm in eating it. In the support of this contention, they cite the following couplet from Gurbani:

Baba Hore Khanna Khushi Khuaar

Jit Khaadey Tan Peeriay, Man Meh Chaleh Vikaar. (pg. 196)

0 Baba! All other foods (except the Naam)

create trouble in the body and fill the mind with evil.

Evidently the foregoing couplet is a mis-quotation in this context because herein Guru Sahib is comparing all material foods with the Divine Food (i.e. Naam-Simran) and is decrying the former. The word HORE is very crucial in this couplet. It d

oes not mean ANY food but any OTHER food, i.e., any food other than NAAM. In the absence of the Divine Food (Naam), all material foods will sicken the body as well as the soul. The very idea of eating meat fills the mind with evil making it aggressive and a partner in taking the life of an innocent creature. For this very reason, almost all of the well-known spiritually enlightened Gursikhs of the past and present have been and are shunning meat and allied non-vegetarian foods. Such foods are not conducive to spiritual development and Naam-Simran and, therefore, the all-knowing Satguuu could not approve them.

In two Hukam Naamaas of Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib (Appendix C), there are clear cut instructions prohibiting the eating of meat, fish, etc. The actual words used are "Maas machhi de nerrey nahin jawnaa." When Guru Nanak in his sixth form prohibits Sikhs from eating flesh in such a strong language, how can he, in his tenth form, issue instructions absolutely contrary to and in negation of his own earlier instructions?

Mohsin Fani (1615-70), the well known historian and a contemporary of Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib, writes in his work DABISTAN-E-MAZAHIB as follows:

"Having prohibited his disciples to drink wine and eat pork, he (Nanak) himself abstained from eating flesh and ordered not to hurt any living being. After him this precept was neglected by his followers; but Arjun Mal, one of the substitutes of his Faith, renewed the prohibition to eat flesh and said: This has not been approved by Nanak."13

What clear cut evidence against eating flesh and drinking wine in Sikhism!

viii. Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh ii's "UPDESH" to Bhai Daya Singh ji which is mentioned in "SUDHARAM MARAG GRANTH", and also found written in some old handwritten volumes of Sri Guru Granth Sahib:

"One who does not:

Steal

Commit adultery

Slander anyone

Gamble

Eat meat or drink wine

will be liber

ated in this very life (i.e. Jeewan Mukt)".14

It is also asserted that bravery is connected with eating animal flesh. The assertion is baseless. In fact, bravery is not connected with brute body force. Real bravery comes out of the spirit of sacrifice for the Truth and arises from the state of mind. The very prevalent words Charhdi Kala among the Sikhs refer to the Charhdi Kala of the spirit. The Sikh history is full of such instances where Sikhs who were hungry for days together defeated the tyrant Mughal forces whose meat eating habits were legendary.

There is no difference m either taste or nutritive content of meat obtained through Jhatka or Halaal methods. Meat remains meat, whatever may be the method of slaying the animal. It is a mockery of the august and everlasting holy fundamental principles of Gurmat to attach such a fundamental importance to meat obtained from a particular method of slaying the animal, that its eating by a Sikh makes him an apostate, and that obtained from another method of slaying becomes fully acceptable. Either meat is allowed or is prohibited totally. There can be no mid-way. It is rather strange that many 'modern' and 'intellectual' Sikhs, who are often questioning the rationale of such edicts as keeping of Kirpan or Keshas and even the particular type of Kachhehra, generally do not question the rationale of Jhatka and Halaal distinction in respect of meat. Obviously, it is the generally preferred taste of the tongue that keeps them mum on this issue.

then why do i get this feeling in my local gurdwara where people try to somehow force you into beleive in it???

i think they care about u and the way they are trying to get this message across the others might seems rude or inapp

ropriate. i feel sad about ur situation and suggest that u don't stop going to gurdwara because of this. because if u don't go into sangat u r hurting urself. hopefully these issues will get resolve soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Akaal108

Read my post carefully.

I said i intend to follow baba ishar singh ji rara sahib and sggs. Because here is what i beleive and think. Obviously you wont agree with it

- SGGS(MEETING OF GUROO'S) Should be aim of every sikh

- And thats us( Moorakhs)

IN the middle there are ladder(sant/bhramgyani/mahapursh) who already acheived salvation.

In order to met with guroo if you have to find someone who already met guroo through sggs.

Veer you just slander an mahapursh by linking with the hindu pandits.

Its said in sggs .. possibly if you read sukhmani sahib .. if you do nindiya of saints ..thats the worst paap ever.

Since guroo's praised the saints and you dissed them.. indirectly you just dissed guroo's as well.

good on you. hope you get a medal for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SikhForLife
Baba Hore Khanna Khushi Khuaar

Jit Khaadey Tan Peeriay, Man Meh Chaleh Vikaar. (pg. 196)

0 Baba! All other foods (except the Naam)

create trouble in the body and fill the mind with evil.

veerji all food is equal !! ur right

i am a vegetarian myself.. but not because sikhi tells me to be.. but because its my personal choice.. i dont want to see chickens... goats.. killed (i am an animal lover)

now why is all food equal u ask?

simple: God is in everything... when we pick an apple out from the tree it gets hurt .. and we have killed it..

same thing for any other food.. or animal....

SGGS says.. eat less.. drink less.. and practice naam.. thats the key of achieving God!

not saying starve urself .. cuz u need to breathe to practice naam

just dont get caught in the pleasures of eating.. .. its a pleasure to eat that ice cream cake.. whose milk was "STOLEN" from the cow..

u get me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use