rrss

There is some relevant discussion here.

S4inghji, vadhaiyan! I'm glad that with Gurujis kirpa, you have found a match. Veerji, it's not a dream fantasy world at all, it's my intention too, and I'm sure of many others. See rehat maryada, (page 14). If it's a deal breaker to have music and dancing, then you could if you want to have a low-key wedding reception at a later date for her sake (of course it's not part of rehat but equally it doesn't mean you can't have a celebration which doesn't feature banned stuff) (As long as you're aware inside that it is maya and a distraction from God realisation). Sorry can't answer your questions on other pre-wedding rituals, my knowledge is limited to rehat. This has been discussed before, however can't find the thread right now, but the conclusion was that an Amritdhari man can only marry an Amritdhari or she must be willing to take Amrit within a time period and the same applies in the case of where the intention is to soon take Amrit. Indeed as per rehat, "A baptised ought to get his wife also baptised". Hope this helps!

Not2cool2argueji, thanks for the reference, much appreciated. My understanding of this does not concur with yours. You have to read the whole Shabad and take the 2 lines in context of what is being said: There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? O Creator Lord, You are the Master of all. If some powerful man strikes out against another man, then no one feels any grief in their mind. But if a powerful tiger attacks a flock of sheep and kills them, then its master must answer for it. This priceless country has been laid waste and defiled by dogs, and no one pays any attention to the dead. This is about people not being held to account for their violent actions. It shows hypocrisy in human society, which is still relevant today. When (powerful) men kill and slaugher innocents, they are not held to account, people accept it "no one pays attention to the dead (people)", however when a tiger kills sheep (quite literally), people will demand to ask for action to be taken against the owner.

Point taken about schools (although I still stand by the point that a granthi is not commonly a religious scholar), but what about the contexts. I'm not aware of Guruji or Akal Takht approving of any specific piece of literature or source being the comprehensive and undistorted Gurbani Tika guide. Sikhism today already has schools of thought. There are disagreements on meanings. There are conflicting stories and contexts. This surely is a fundamentally important aspect of Sikhi- if so much of the understanding depends on varying viewpoints, which can change as and when society changes and things get distorted, then the message of Guruji will get lost.

Thanks ji for reading, I appreciate it. I am happy that you can take something from it. Thanks for the additional sources you provide, they are useful. The quote of "all else fails, it is permitted to take the sword in to ones hand" is from the Sri Dasam Granth, which also has several other references to physical violence.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post! That is what I feel, that the Khalsa is indeed a special state of existence. Of course some people will not read it and jump straight to the "You're disrespecting Maharaj" conclusion!

This topic is meant to be an intellectual debate. If you have no references to support your viewpoints and don't take the time to read my post then it's not worth posting. Please take the time to read, find reference and form a rebuttal. Not to my knowledge. Please state the reference if you know it. I kindly request you to re-read my post, I have covered this in some detail, including explaining the Nihangs and the Gurus' actions. Clearly you did not read my post- I have said unlike texts from other religions which have become one big book with stories, myths etc, SGGSji is PURE and about GOD realisation theology only. No unneccary stories and religious practice related matters which other sikh texts contain. Regarding the definition of violence, again, I have clearly articulated that this debate is about peace vs violence in the respect of using force in defence and protecting against tyranny etc. I have explained in terms of Sikh Theology how violence itself is maya and that all causes of violence are a man-made creation. Please contemplate on what I have written about the SGGSji being based purely on the core theological construct of God Realisation. Everything it talks about has to do with God realisation. I have explained that other texts contain refernces to the practice of religion rather than the core THEOLOGY. Please search Sri Dasam Granth ji yourself, yo will find many various references to weaponary, swords being used for physical violence (compared to 'sword' being the power of gurbani in SGGSji): When all other methods fail, it is proper to hold the sword in hand. Covered with blood, the sword in the hand of the demon is vibrating, what comparison the poet can give except; O Lord ! Protect us by smashing the armour with the blows of Thy hands with the help of As, Kripaan (sword), Khanda, Kharag, Saif, Tegh, and Talwaar (sword).10. I also made reference to Ancillary texts, including 5 kakkar orders, which are THEOLOGICALLY ritualstic objects and therefore don't fit in with God Realisation. Wearing a kara for example does not deliver God realisation. It in itself is maya. It has no basis in SGGSji. However we wear it by Gurujis hukam because it serves a practical purpose in religious practice. My guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, the living embodiment of all Gurus, what Guruji commands me to do I will do. I have fully explained my rationale behind why I believe Guru Gobind Singh ji did not compile Dasam Granth and his hukkamas into SGGSji, when he has told us to treat SGGSji as the only guru and to refer to SGGSji in case of doubt. I noted that the Gurus were very careful at chosing what went into SGGSji, including from their own writings. I have also explained that a Khalsa Sikh is a one of many paths to God realisation, as Guru Nanak ji himself says, there are many paths. Guruji established the Khalsa and I have explained that only the purest can be Khalsa and anyone can be a Sikh of the Guru without being Khalsa. I'm afraid that to me it appears that you have not taken the time to formulate a comprehensive rebuttal with references and are merely engaging in argument. Do you know whether or not I am personally a Khalsa Sikh? I did not state this. I have put forward a balanced argument which concludes that violence is theologically not condoned but the Khalsa has to deal with maya in a paradoxical state. This is the intellectual section of the forum, please I request you kindly to re-read my post thoroughly and contemplate on it and if unclear about anything please ask and if you disagree, please state the opposing view backed up with references.

Confused Singh Ji, Please have a look at my post which talks about the personal relationship with God in terms of asking 'for' things and conversing with him. It really depends on what you mean by 'personal relationship'. If you mean having a conversation, then Bani does not support this. There are various examples of Bani where (Bhagats especially) are quoted as speaking directly to God, but noticeably, there is never a response, God does not speak back and have a conversation. There is always a self-reached conclusion. If we leave out the conversation aspect: 'God' in Sikhi is not the same as the concept of an Abrahamic style 'God'. Unlike in Christianity, where one has a personal relationship with an Abrahamic style 'God' and converses with them on a daily basis, just as you and I are having this conversation now, I'm not aware of a theological concept of being able to hold a personal conversation with 'God'. Mul mantar is meant to be how 'God' is defined- from this and from the concept of union with Him, I derive the conclusion that Waheguruji is a force that we can reach on a higher level of consciousness (through enligtenment). You may argue that Union with God is the ultimate personal relationship. Various references (there are loads, search for 'God'): God permeates the inner beings of the Gurmukhs. God knows the suffering of her mind. The Dear Lord God is my Best Friend. In the end, He shall be my Companion and Support. From whom are you trying to hide your actions? God sees all; O Nanak, God's Flavour is sweet to the minds and bodies of those who have such blessed destiny written on their foreheads

I appreciate that, however unlike in Christianity, where one has a personal relationship with an Abrahamic style 'God' and converses with them on a daily basis, just as you and I are having this conversation now, or having prayers not based on any fixed hymn, but rather a list of demands, I'm not aware of the theological concept of asking 'for' anything as having any basis in Sikhi (but I'm no expert). Sure, you could be thinking at the back of your mind, I really want something to happen, whilst doing Ardas, but scrictly speaking, should one not have the mind clear and thinking only of Waheguruji? Also when it comes to making something happen, maya from my understanding is entirely our reponsibility to steer clear of, all we have is that Waheguruji 'preserves the body and protects the soul'. Bhagat Dhanna (SGGSji Ang 695) does beg the Lord for material things, but from my understanding this is to demonstrate the falsehood of praying for worldy things and believing that Waheguru will deliver what is required, rather than supporting that such things can be asked for. O Lord of the world, this is Your lamp-lit worship service. You are the Arranger of the affairs of those humble beings who perform Your devotional worship service. Lentils, flour and ghee - these things, I beg of You. My mind shall ever be pleased. Shoes, fine clothes, and grain of seven kinds - I beg of You. A milk cow, and a water buffalo, I beg of You, and a fine Turkestani horse. A good wife to care for my home. Your humble servant Dhanna begs for these things, Lord. Dhanna further qualifies this with the following in Asa: Prosperity, adversity, property and wealth are just Maya Your humble servant is not engrossed in them.

Only Five ji, my comment on 'epic battle' was clearly tongue-in-cheek, as was my comment about 'mass hysteria'. There is no battle and it's certainly not epic. There won't be mass hysteria if I leave the event unannounced.

I have recently had my understanding of a section of Gurbani changed as a result of listening to the context in Katha. Context makes a big difference. My question is- what is the definite literary source of Tika's and Katha's and contexts behind Gurbani. Unlike other religions, Sikhism doesn't really have churches or monestaries where the sole purpose of people is to become experts and pass on this priestly knowledge from one to another; Granthis and jathedars are not pandits, archbishops or monks (who have to undertake years of religious study and training). Is it purely based on third-party (Not by Gurus) writings and scholarly research that people have done mostly after the Gurus time? If so how can one be certain of the stories they tell about contexts or rely on the conclusions they have reached? If it is based on word of mouth, what would happen after thousands of years, as has happend with Christianity where there are different stories in different Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc, some differing greatly).

Gurfateh! Could you please share your tips on turban/keski (washing) care? I hand-wash with detergent and disinfectant followed by fabric conditioner. I worry about a washing machine damaging the cloth and in the machine, inevitably black material gets covered in white strings and vice versa. Also my keski patka material gets damaged with regular/harsh washing- I sweat a lot and have to wash my material regularly. I swim wearing keski so need to disinfect and scrub vigerously to make sure it's clean (else I get scalp rash). How do you store your material after drying- do you do prepare it straight away or just bundle it up for future preparation? Does this affect the material? Tips?

Having read your post and seen that you have considered the God argument and that everyone else has already guided you towards Gurbani and relevant scholarly resources on the subject, I won't hit you with any further religious dogma. Let me share with the non-dogmatic reasons of keeping my hair (I didn't always do so): 1. Hair is natural. Living in a natural state means living in a simple state.. This has significance when you're attempting manage your vices (e.g. ego) and promote your virtues (contentment). With cutting your hair you would have to keep getting it cut, worry about your appearance (ego). It means you are not content with your natural state (doing nothing your hair will grow). If you are male and have a beard, shaving becomes a daily ritual. Shaving can cut and wound and cause skin burn. You constantly worry about your personal physical appearance. I want others to see beyond what I look like and for them to see my inner personality. Not worrying about cutting or styling my hair or the perfect length of stubble etc also has an impact on helping to manage lust. Why is a bald woman considered unattractive? Because hair has sexual mate-attracting functions. Cutting and styling it means you are (perhaps inadverdently) trying to vye for sexual attention. If you claim no worries, I'm keeping it covered- then might as well stop cutting it. Indeed hair-cutting was a phenomenon brought about by Alexander the Greek Invader (who was also bisexual and very much liked short hair on men). Until recently many cultures even in Europe have maintained long hair and beards. In the 80's, long hair and a beard was all the rage in the West due to popular culture, now the popular culture is short hair and a stylish goatee. Who will you follow, ever changing popular culture or do you want to be timeless? 2. Hair, being natural, has a scientific purpose. We have evolved to the point where there are very few redundant body parts and organs. The Appendix no longer processes grass etc but it does still serve a purpose. Compared to cows, it is very small. There are remnants of a tail bone where, if you accept the theory of evolution, there would have once been a tail. Hair however is still as long and wonderful as it was hundreds and thousands of years ago as it is now. Evolutionary speaking, the hair has a beneficial purpose otherwise it would have long disappeared. Medically speaking, hair does indeed serve a purpose- there are several resources you can look at- Google it. Underarm hair draws out sweat as a wick. Eyelashes protect the eyes. Facial hair is a secondary sexual characteristic, it also serves a purpose in keeping the skin safe, the neck and face cool in summer (sweat wick) and warm in winter (layer). Scalp hair protects the scalp, it keeps the head warm (important even when in a warm climate), it draws out the sweat, it acts as a sexual characteristic during foreplay (with your married partner). Hair loss and problems with hair are an early warning sign of health problems such as hormonal imbalance, lack of essential vitamins etc. No hair, no signs. 3. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that uncut hair (and beards in men) has a role to play in meditation in directing 'spiritual energy'. All great yogis and Rishis have had uncut hair. Buddhists monks shave their heads as they believe such 'energy' is distracting as their form of meditation involves 'directed energy' rather than 'dissipated energy'. 4. See this video; 5. Although you may dismiss this as pseudo-science, but I am in touch with my hair, I can feel it and when I used to have my hair cut before, I felt the pain of it's loss (not for religious reasons). With my hair I now feel complete. With long natural hair, I feel some odd sensation of internal peace. 6. All the religious stuff others have mentioned (please try and take it seriously- read the relevant Gurbani for yourself- but remember that Nanak has said that doing something as a religious ritual serves no purpose- you should be convined of the reasons). Good luck. Dr R Singh

Kinji, whilst I'm fully supportive of anyone practicing their faith with greater ferver, I would be derelict in my duties if I didn't ask you to consider seeking help with this if you don't feel better (a trained professional). Paranoia is very common but a taboo subject. The most common cause is supressed thoughts and emotions and also chemical/hormonal imbalance including stress. So the easiest thing to do is try and do some deep breathing exercises as Simranji has suggested above and reduce your stress levels. Talking openly with someone (trusted friend) or if your able to, even talking to yourself playing devil's advocate of sorts can help you find the root of your issue. If all fails, please see a trained professional- paranoia is very common and nobody need live with it- it's not too hard to sort out. Good luck!

As long as the modification serves a purpose (i.e. preventing it from getting in the way whilst eating), I don't see any problem with it. Actively modifying it for aesthetic purposes or to conform to others' social conventions is what's wrong.

Wicked Warrior ji, thanks for sharing your experiences, It's reassuring to hear from others who feel the same way. I like the lotus flower in quagmire expression, quite apt! I agree that by not taking an interest in partaking in the jovials, it's bound to be boring. Luckily I am a warm person and can steer the most banal of conversations towards philosophy or something I enjoy talking about. As you point out, having my friend there would mean I have someone to talk to (if a conversation can be had over the loud din of music that is). My friend has agreed to go with me, complete with long(er) dress. To to offset my collection of devotional songs on the 3 hour drive up and my incessantly talking about philosophical stuff, she will bring along a mix CD and favourite book. Oops! (Admittedly had to Google 'Buck's Fizz'). Agreed; a good idea. The sudden dissapearance of the improbable turban floating ever so slightly above other heads would most certainly lead to mass hysteria (or perhaps a collectively breathed sigh of relief when the said turban no longer threatens to make it's way towards them to begin an hour long conversation about the meaning of life). I'm not as worried about scantily clad ladies luring me with their wiles (I'm mostly turned off by vulgar-ness); as I am the image being burned into my subconcious; short term memories involuntarily form the basis of dreams, and dreams can be the death of many a good man. Rest assured good Sir, I shall be fearless in this epic battle.

There are some good replies here with useful ideas and with Guruji's kirpa I feel I know how to deal with the situation, so I consider my questions to be answered, thank you all. For anyone who reads this in future and is wondering why this is such an issue of discomfort for me (after all, it's just an event) I thought it's important to share with others why practising Sikhs may feel uncomfortable when placed in this situation. To appreciate the gravity of the situation, I have inserted some references to Gurbani and other sources. It's important to understand that there is no circumstance under which we have to attend these events and be subject to the allure of Maya's nest; it is we who put ourselves in this position. A Gursikh will value the virtue of Santokh, including freedom from ambition. In my personal circumstances, temptation and the greed of ambition (promoted by capitalist mentality of money-driven success) in the workplace that has eventually lead me to such a situation where I must attend a very fancy black tie/ballroom dancing event with guests who lack the high standards of morals that Gurksikhs set for themselves and who are also are critical and expectant of your obedient participation. Were I content with my a job that provides enough (with Guruji's kirpa) and not worrying about career progression, then I would never have to worry about having to face such a situation, nor would I have to worry about the consequences of not giving up my principles. I am attempting to escape the clutches of this mentality and move to a less competitive work place and job, but it will take some time and in the short term I have put myself in this situation where I must attend the event. "They hope to earn wealth; their attachment to Maya increases." (SGGSji Ang 166) "He continually chases after Maya and wealth, but even his own wealth flies away." (SGGSji Ang 307) That established, let me explain why, in my personal opinion, I as a Gursikh would seek to avoid participation in such events: 1. Attending such events and taking pleasure from them is not only a distraction from our true purpose in life, it is possibly hazerdous to God realisation. Whilst Sikhi doesn't espouse extreme asceticism (renouncing all worldly posessions) of the form of monks sitting in caves (as, escetisicm as a ritualistic endevour in itself will not help you find God), it recognises that all such physical distractions are Maya, and Maya distracts from His command. "Loving attention to the Lord and attachment to Maya are the two separate ways; all act according to the Hukam of the Lord's Command." (SGGSji Ang 87) "They are the Khalsa who remain attached to the True Naam. They are the Khalsa who break away their worldly bonds." (Thankhaanama Bhai Nand Laal Ji) Subduing egotism, they break all their bonds; as Gurmukh, they are adorned with the Word of the Shabad." (SGGSji Ang 124) Also see point 5. 2. Dining with the unrighteous: Many Gursikhs like myself prefer to dine only in the company of other Gursikhs. "Thieves, adulterers, prostitutes and pimps, make friendships with the unrighteous, and eat with the unrighteous." (SGGSji Ang 790) 3. Avoiding the company of the faithless in order to avoid influence of immoral activities: "He never abandons humility. He forever avoids crossing paths with faithless cynics." (Rehatnama Bhai Desa Singh) "Kabeer, do not associate with the faithless cynics; run far away from them. If you touch a vessel stained with soot, some of the soot will stick to you." (SGGSji Ang 1371) 4. Eating before evening prayers (a problem if you can't get any peace for prayer at the dinner event before eating): "Those who do not sing the Guru's Hymn at dawn and those who eat before doing Rehraas are punishable." (Thankhaanama Bhai Nand Laal Ji) "That evening prayer alone is acceptable, which brings the Lord God to my consciousness. Love for the Lord wells up within me, and my attachment to Maya is burnt away." (SGGSji Ang 553) 5. One should not waste time by engaging in Maya and forgetting Him "Those who waste the evening without reading 'Rehraas' and sleep without hearing the praises of the Lord (Sohilaa). infringe the Rehat." (Rehatnama Bhai Nand Laal Ji) "In the evening listen the 'Rehraas' and listen to the Keertan and discourses (Katha) of the Lord's praises" (Rehatnama Bhai Nand Laal Ji) "Remember Him, meditate on Him, and sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord of the Universe, day and night, evening and morning." (SGGSji Ang 530) 6. It's best to avoid the opportunity of temptations and therefore events where temptations are great. "But he has forgotten the Naam, the Name of the Lord, and he has become attached to other temptations. His life is totally worthless!" (SGGSji Ang 1219) 7. It's best to avoid dating and/or objectifying women such that you contribute to patriarchy. Dating outside of marriage is hazerdous, even if this is a 'play' date with a friend; after all, why risk falling to the possible temptation of lust when you see her in a flattering dress, dance with her, be alone with her for hours in the middle of the night etc. Being uncomfortable with revealing clothes or even those which play up the female curvature, I would have to ask her to wear something else. This infringes upon her rights as an equal to decide without influence or pressure what to wear. In such, I would be contributing to a patriarchy. My being uncomfortable is my problem, I have no right to hold authority over what women should wear and therefore I should not put myself in such a position in the first place. Hopefully the reader would now appreciate why I would find attendance at such an event, with a date, uncomfortable!

Buddasinghji, thank you for your comprehensive and very well thought over response, I found it very helpful. As fightingsinghji notes above, your attitude shows a good balance between having to deal with maya whilst maintaining your principles. Certainly as far as my understanding of Sikhi goes, fighting in the face of adversity to uphold ideals is what is expected of us; and maya is certainly a battlefield as we must fight with ourselves not to be tempted by its allures, and should make a statement of our ideals rather than paticipate whilst maintaining a low profile (akin to selling out on one's principles I suppose); whilst still being kind and being devoid of ego. Regarding having to bring a date- it is indeed not a strict requirement. Ideally, I would not like to have have a date (even if my friend is like my sister) and I wholeheartedly agree with having to deal with the consequences. If the intentions, actions and the heart is pure then the Maya-ic consequences be damned. I really liked your comment about carrying a kajoor, quite tongue in cheek! Well said. "His actions are good, he is glorious and wealthy" "Mortals are known by their actions; this is the way it has to be. They should show goodness, and not be deformed by their actions; this is how they are called beautiful. Whatever they desire, they shall receive; O Nanak, they become the very image of God."

As someone not brought up Sikh, the caste system boggles the mind. It's simply not part of Sikhism and is representative of eons of oppression and discrimination. I don't understand how difficult it is to accept Gurujis command and let go of caste, but I suppose that not knowing or caring what caste my ancestors were puts me in such a position to be able to preach, as I haven't faced any pressure from family or society to conform. That said, I know of plenty of young British Sikhs who are under absolutely no pressure to conform- they wholeheartedly embrace caste and celebrate it. That saddens me as they have a choice. In my experience caste is not becoming less of an issue in the west- what is being lost is Sikhism. I am aware of no study which estimates the proportion of caste believers and the proportion of Amritdharis or aspiring Amritdharis 40 years ago and now in the West. My personal observations would allude to the proportion of caste believers down by a small percent, whereas the loss of Sikhi being down drastically. I say this based on a) People I know and b) Looking at Sikh matrimonial advertisements in both Gurdwaras and online- 80% have no kes and are not religious and 60% want partners from specific castes (only). The 20% who are not religious and don't believe in caste either, are willing to marry any religion- they have lost their identity completely. I find it hard to believe that 80% of first generation immigrants didn't follow Sikhi- so Sikhism has failed but caste has not been lost. I fully agree, caste gives people the ability to feel good for themselves, feel special, i.e. ego and (especially in India), it's about power and politics.

Apologies for the long post, please take time to go through it and the references. Please accept my apologies for hurt sentiments and I would be grateful for your observations into my failings or misunderstandings of the teachings. And lastly, this is not about debating the Khalsa (it had to be included in this post for obvious reasons), but rather this is about Peace vs. Violence in Sikhi in a pure theological sense so let us keep comments to that. I'm surprised that this topic has not been debated in greater detail by the Online Sangat. I appreciate that it may be a taboo subject as the Guru Gobind Singh ji has stipulated specific rules on the carrying of a kirpan and there is the long tradition of the Nihangs and violent acts by Guru's orders (therefore the inference that violence is not prohibited), but correct fundamental understanding is very important: "Whoever does not realize the essence of the soul / all his religious actions are hollow and false" The issue at the heart of the matter is not whether or not we should be carrying kirpans and whether this infers that violence is therefore acceptable, but rather, whether Waheguruji Himself condones violence- at all in the context of the perfect nature of his (formless) existence. Now if we look at the only possible source of inspiration in the issue, which is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji- the everlasting embodiment of the Gurus, there is no reference to condoning violence, indeed we have the contrary, speaking against violence. "The heart is filled with anger and violence, which cause all sense to be forgotten." Where people see weapons and violent actions being mentioned metaphorically, the context is always to highlight why it is wrong or that it is a metaphor for achieving right through spiritual wisdom. The SGGSji is the truth, we cannot choose to ignore any of the specific lines because it conflicts with what we want to interpret. Specifically: "The pursuit of virtue is my bow and arrow, my quiver, sword and scabbard." "You hold in your hands the sword of the Guru's spiritual wisdom; with this destroyer of death, kill the Messenger of Death." "The True Guru has placed the sword of spiritual wisdom in my hands; I have overcome and slain the Messenger of Death." "In His Mercy, God has blessed me with the sword of spiritual wisdom; I have attacked and killed the demons." "From the Guru, I have obtained the supremely powerful sword of spiritual wisdom." And importantly: "Devotional worship of the Lord is the sword and armour of the True Guru; He has killed and cast out Death, the torturer." Threfore a reference such as: "When it pleases You, we wield the sword, and cut off the heads of our enemies" HAS TO BE consistent with what "sword" means as highlighted above. You cannot chose to turn a blind eye towards this. A revealing reference: "You pray for hours to God the Beautiful/ But your gaze is evil, and your nights are wasted in conflict. /You perform daily cleansing rituals, / wear two loin-cloths, perform religious rituals and put only milk in your mouth./ But in your heart, you have drawn out the sword..... You dance, but your consciousness is filled with evil....... You are lewd and depraved - this is such an unrighteous dance!" (abridged, pg 1351). Sikhi is not an Abrahamic religion- A key distinction needs to be made with the fundamental understanding of the soul and Waheguruji's hukam; and practical methods to life in the physical realm. Having established that God never condones violence (against a living being), we move onto the physical realm. We, ourselves create problems for humanity. Hatred, discrimination, slavery and all other causes of violence are entirely man-made. What is a man-made problem, caused by NOT living the way Waheguruji intended us to exist in the physical embodiment, is something Waheguruji will not actively engage in to change- as He does not engage (we strive to engage with him) and he is pure, true and beyond such frivolous material things. It is for man to solve problems by using the teachings of Saints, Gurus and Prophets. Unnerving faith in Waheguruji protects from evil. He creates and destroys (He has the power to do so). It is He alone who can take a life (indirectly). Waheguruji being the ultimate creator or destroyer is a description as to how vast his power is- it is beyond our knowledge or capabilities. Kabir's story of Prahlaad (SGGSji pg 1194) comes to mind in the context of the person who did not give up his devotion: "The king became angry and drew his sword" "Show me your protector now!" "So God emerged out of the pillar, and assumed a mighty form." "He killed Harnaakhash, tearing him apart with his nails..He saves His devotees like Prahlaad over and over again. " There are two significant points regarding this: a) ultimate devotion protects against tyranny b) Kabir's couplet is a story- not to be taken literally (God isn't about to emerge from a pillar in physical form, although He could if He chose to)- it's the moral story that is to be learnt i.e. point (a). © The story could have quite as easily had Prahlaad pull out his kirpan, but this would inconsistent with the message of Waheguruji. There is general consensus in most circumstances where violence should not be used, but there are some who would justify violence under certain circumstances such as protecting the oppressed and innocent/ defending from tyranny and evil etc. Once again the SGGSji is consistent in this matter: "Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal." The bottomline is that violence simply cannot be justified. With those unsatisfied with true devotion (including living as intended) as being sufficient and the only thing that ultimately matters and if you disagree with the line above, we need to address the man-made problem of conflict and violence and how to deal with it practically. This raises the following questions: 1) Are we, as mere mortals commanded by God to directly and physically be involved in the liberation of the oppressed etc? 2) If so, are we commanded to use force and violence to achieve these means I am not aware of any reference in Waheguruji's Hukam (SGGSji) which supports either. "He preserves our soul, our breath of life, body and wealth. By His Grace, He protects our soul." Note the difference in words between preserve our body and protect our soul, which is key. We are but an insignificant speck in the history of the universe and entirely insignificant in the everlasting greater cosmos. Universes and existences have come and gone, that is said, we could be one of an infinite number of spacetime existence to have ever existed and which will exist. The body is preserved, but not protected by Him, and He is all powerful. He therefore is concerned with our souls, which may theoretically always exist as being part of Him. We are concerned with protecting our bodies because of the overwhelming desire to protect Maya. "You fool! Why are you so proud of Maya?" "The animals and the birds frolic and play-they do not see death/ Mankind is also with them, trapped in the net of Maya." "The enticing desire for Maya leads people to become emotionally attached to their children, relatives, households and spouses." "Because of attachment to Maya, the world is bound by the Messenger of Death." And critically: "please save me from Maya, the cause of death." So, given that Maya is the cause of death, theolgically how does one escape from the clutches of Maya? (Rhetorical question) Through more Maya or through remembering Him? (Rhetorical question) Therefore theologically, belief that physical life is supreme is wrong. This I'm afraid would appear to be the uncomfortable truth- Waheguruji does not take notice of what happens in the Maya state and the body does not matter to him to the extent that he will protect it- he will only seek to preserve it to give us an opportunity to release ourselves from the cycle of birth and death. Propagating violence will not break the cycle of birth and death. Unlike in Abrahamic texts such as the Koran which promise rewards for fighting in the name of God for what it views as just actions, we have the benefit of knowing that the cycle of birth and death cannot be broken by these means. The uncomfortable truth is that if a mortal had faith and acted in compliance with His hukam, but in doing so the world as we know it ended, then that is the intended outcome. Worlds and life will continue to be created (or not) as He desires. The uncomfortable truth is that we want to preserve life (defence), and being virtuous, we find it difficult to tolerate oppression, discrimination etc to the point where we are willing to use violence to achieve these goals (even though as far as I'm aware Waheguruji does not command us to do so). "One whose mind is pleased and appeased, has no egotistical pride. Violence and greed are forgotten." Now this throws up some further questions: 1) Let's assume that this is true; that mere devotion and living life as intended is sufficient for our physical forms being preserved ; does this mean that I stand by whilst the innocent are slaughtered? 2) But hold on Veerji, you are forgetting about Guru Gobind Singh ji, he asked us to protect the innocent and weak and gave us the Kirpan and several Gurus engaged in battle and by all accounts, killed other people. Are you saying that that was not consistent with how we should be living our lives? Both of these statements are the same argument essentially. Firstly, we ourselves are not Sat Gurus, we are their disciples (and ultimately of Waheguruji). Guru Nanak dev ji's guru was Waheguruji. He and the other Sat gurus were not necessarily subject to the the rules of Maya which entrap us. With regard to protecting the innocent, opposing tyranny, once again, being Sat gurus, I would say they were obliged to act as they were caught in Maya and therefore concerned with the it's preservation (not protection) whilst they were actively able to. If they used violence it does not mean we are authorised to do so. Their teachings are embodied in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which are non-violent and will never be able to be violent. They had a specific plan for humanity and they attempted to deliver it on the ground. Instead of the whole human race readily accepting this, the inherent nature of how we exist in Maya meant that that was never to be. They had to go deliver us SGGSji by His command and if that meant by His grace and by His grace only lives had to perish then it was by His grace. Now what of the Khalsa? That's a very interesting question and for me it is easily answered. The ultimate source of inspiration is SGGSji. Guru Gobind Singh ji did not compile his own banis into SGGSji and for very good reason. There is a distinction to be made with SGGSji and the Dasam Granth and ancillary texts, and actually it's in my view a very advanced system for this, compared to other religious texts, where the word of God is intermixed with stories, myths, untruths and Maya-ic elements. SGGSji is purely related to the core theological belief of God realisation. It does not condone violence in any form and for any reason. Sri Dasam granth and ancillary texts have an inherent Maya-ic element and therefore these could not be incorporated into the SGGSji. Indeed Guru Nanak Dev ji and other Gurus were very particular as to which external Saints' and gurus' and historical verses should be accepted as the truth of relating to the core theology. Guru Gobind Singh ji, a Sat Guru in his own right, had every right to have his contribution added to SGGSji, but a lot of it is not purely theological and has Maya-ic elements. Guruji was concerned with the preservation of Sikhi. Maya in Sikhi poses a great paradox; If the religion and the world are not preserved then they both may die out both in the short term and long-term; if Sikhi is not preserved it would die out and if the world is not preserved then fairness and justice will be overwhelmed over time by tyranny and oppression, thereby not allowing the opportunity of souls to escape Maya in this reincarnation of the universe. However Sikhi itself does not condone violence and is entirely free of Maya. Whilst it could be, it is not a perfect world and for the two to co-exist, there have to be rules relating to self-preservation which are inconsistent with what the theological and Ultimate ASPIRATIONS of God'd will is. Well and good you may say, but where does leave me and where does it leave the Khalsa? This is my view on this: 1) The Khalsa was created by the order of the tenth Guru and therfore serves a purpose. Through Gurujis kirpa, the Khalsa is born and it belongs to Waheguru (as does everything). "Waheguru ji ka Khalsa waheguru ji fateh" (But also bear in mind the only mention of Khalsa itself means pure): "Says Kabeer, those humble people become pure - they become Khalsa - who know the Lord's loving devotional worship." Not everyone was intended to be a (warrior style) Khalsa Sikh, even among Sikhs. This again comes out of the fact the Khalsa was not incorporated into SGGSji and that anyone who follows SGGSji will be liberated; anyone is free to do so. Only the most pure can be Khalsa (and therefore Amritdhari as per varying rehats) and they have responsibilities which an ordinary Sikh need not undertake. The Khalsa is a specific path which is a balance of God's true word and the fact that it has to be practiced in an imperfect world. SGGSji is available to one and all to follow and seek liberation. The Khalsa are special and they serve a purpose. Khalsa belongs to Waheguru and only though His kirpa can someone be a Khalsa Sikh (complete with kirpan and licence to kill). Whether the act of violence by a Khalsa Sikh in carrying out his duties as ordered by the tenth Guru will result in delayed liberation from the cycle of birth and death is a question solely for Waheguruji and Waheguruji alone (liberation is never assured- even if one does everything to the letter, it is permissible and probably almost always certain). In my personal view, a Khalsa Sikh, being the most pure and having to balance Guruji's orders of accepting Waheguru's command of peace whilst living preserving life in Maya; a paradoxical state; has a difficult internal battle and it is this internal battle which gives him righteousness. God preserves life, one of his methods may be through the Khalsa. He however protects souls and a true Khalsa should strive to have his soul protected by following Waheguruji's command whilst humbly serving Guruji's orders. The conclusion is thus: Theologically, from the core fundamental principles, Wareguruji does not condone violence; one must always speak out against violence whatever the justification. Violence is a product of Maya. Khalsa is a product of Sikhi and Maya needing to co-exist; a paradoxical state; Khalsa Sikhs may, by Guruji's kirpa be ordered to assist in the preservation of human life for it's continued survival but must always be aware of the eternal word of Waheguruji as per SGGSji. However the entire human race need not be Khalsa, a 'Sikh' (in the literal sense of the word); a truth seeker, can be non-violent person and this will be in accordance with Waheguruji's wishes. Please do not scorn those who reject violence, they are as pure as those following any other path can be. Equally do not scorn the Khalsa, they are truly noble for undertaking the difficult responsibility of supporting a paradoxical state of existence. Apologies for the long post, please take time to go through it and the references. Please accept my apologies for hurt sentiments and I would be grateful for your observations into my failings or misunderstandings of the teachings. And lastly, this is not about debating the Khalsa (it had to be included in this post for obvious reasons), but rather this is about Peace vs. Violence in Sikhi in a pure theological sense so let us keep comments to that.

Thanks Veerji, I appreciate your thoughts. This is what my instinct tells me to do and its reassuring to hear from others with greater experience in these matters. I agree wholeheartedly that it's Gurujis khushee that needs to be upheld, but one cannot appear to be an obnoxious person- I like how you word it 'keeping a low profile but doing enough to secure acknowledgement from the people who invited you.'

Ajrawatji, (multiple) split ends are common, you don't need to worry about your health unless your hair is weak, brittle, falling out etc. I would recommend mild moisturising soap followed by (mild shampoo if required and) conditioner. The mild soap keeps the skin moisturised- rub it into the skin rather than wash the actual hair with it. Gently massaging through a few drops of almond (or other oil as suits you best) oil through your dhaari with your fingers carefully will help contribute to keeping the hair conditioned and help to prevent split ends. Avoid tying or compressing hair as this can damage both the hair and follicles.

Dear Sangat Members, I'm a new user on this website and I was not brought up a Sikh (so my attitudes may be different) and I am by no means at an advanced stage of learning so I apologise in advance for saying something incorrect. I've noticed some Sikhs make references to praying for specific physical outcomes whereas others do not. I've seen the thread debating the specifics of Abrahamic religions versus the Sikh view of 'God' but haven't found an answer to my specific question. I have noticed over time that some Sikhs will state that they have themselves or will ask others to actively pray 'for' a particular physical (i.e. physical worldly realm) outcome, be it to consoling relatives of the recently departed, praying 'for' a speedy recovery or praying 'for' strength or more obviously praying 'for' a specific outcome or action. From my understanding, owing to the difference between the concept of 'God' in Sikhi and other religions, 'God' in Sikhism is not an omnipotent being who actively 'listens' to prayers which ask 'for' something to happen. Indeed, I see the infinite Waheguruji as not necessarily intervening at all to change the course of what happens in this physical realm as a result of prayer or on whim. As I understand it, all future physical events and actions including intangible emotions are wholly influenced by physical actions, emotions and behaviour, which is why Sikhism to me is all about practising and doing to mange in the physical form, whilst the prayer and meditative aspect relates more to the spiritual aspect of remembering God and seeking, for ultimate (personal) union with God (facilitated by the 'correct' physical actions and with Gurujis kirpa)- and not in itself causing any direct effect on the physical realm other than by becoming a better person in the Gurji's image and therefore having a positive influence through physical actions. Would someone be able to state specific points in scripture for reference? Thank you. Bhul chuk maaf karna.

Another question if this is appropriate to place on this thread- being a new user on this website, I'm unfamiliar with username conventions. I see that several people have abbreviated my username to an uncomfortable 'RSS' instead of my initials. Should I change this or is this just banter from other users?

Thank you for your thoughts. A cravat is a splendid idea. This is indeed a serious matter. I did apologise in advance if this were to be perceived as being frivolous; I stated the reasons for this. I typically distance myself from activities like this and have managed to avoid attendance at such an event thus far, and therefore lack the experience in dealing with it. In a highly competitive work atmosphere, where the majority are from wealthy elite and liberal backgrounds, small variances from social conventions are frowned upon and can unnecessarily cause one to stick out like a sore thumb. If I brought a smile to someone's face through unintentional humour, then I'm glad to be of service.