Khalsa Linage (Jaat) And Rehat

[sikhreality]

http://sikh-reality.blogspot.com/2010/04/lineage-and-shastarvidiya-naveen-panth.html

Post comments

[EmrysSingh]

if da khalsa is suraj bannsya then is Shiva Akhharaa mentioned in dat book as well also?

http://sikh-reality....veen-panth.html

Post comments

[ms514]

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

Khalsa is not a Hindu Kshytria. Khalsa is the ideal human, and encompasses the good of all four castes - The thought is of a Brahman, which meditates on the Almighty and sees the Almighty in all, the duty of a Kshytria, which protects all from subjugation and oppression as part of their Dharma, the life of a Vaishya, which conducts himself in worldly duties to make a living and be a contributor to society and the Sudra in ego, lowest of the low. I know that someone will chime in with saying that Kshytria is a term to designate a holy warrior that fights for the rights of all, but perhaps they should realize that when the term Kshytria is used in front of anyone, its immediate association is with Hinduism, much like there are those who say that Sanatan Sikhi is traditional Sikhi, but everyone who is versed in Indian terminology knows that Snatan Dharam means Hinduism.

The fact that Dasam Patshah himself preached Kul Nash, the idea of all of your past family associations and caste being no more at the Amrit Sanchar and then himself begged for Amrit and the same Rehat (Kul Nash being a part of it) should make it abundantly clear that the Khalsa was not made part of the Sodhi clan, but rather a Niara Panth, separate from all of the Hindu castes. His own last name was changed to Singh - the author seems to be ignoring this with that statement. So Khalsa Panth is not a "Suraj Bannsya" - if this is true, then the Panth of Guru Nanak is a separate Panth from the Panth of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, as he was from a different genetic family.

So terming Khalsa as Kshytria - perhaps that idea deserves a re-review. And for historical purposes, fine, documenting the genetic lineage of Guru Sahib is fine, but with firm understanding that the Guru ultimately shed his caste to become one of the Khalsa is of prime importance.

Perhaps someone can comment on Giani Gian Singh's comments that Namdharis are more than willing to quote:

http://www.kukasikhs.com/kukasikhs/gurubalak.htm

http://www.sikh heritage co uk/research/history%20of%20Kukas%20by%20GGS/History%20ggs.htm

Perhaps we should stop relying solely on what scholars write and start to weigh this with what the Gurus themselves say in Gurbani?