Is the Khalsa and a Sikh, two different entities?

noor_e_khalsa · #1 (**permalink**) 07-May-2006, 01:13 AM

"We are Guru Nanak Sahib Ji's Sikh and not Khalsa. One who takes amrit is the Khalsa others are just Sikhs"
This is a very peculiar answer that i often get to listen from people who do not believe in being "Amritdhaari" (one who has taken amrit from five chosen ones) and still want to retain the status of being a sikh. Can anyone tell me the difference between "Sikh" and "Khalsa", and justify it too?
*

Sinister · #2 (**permalink**) 07-May-2006, 11:44 AM

HI,

Yes they clearly are two different entities,
let me explain:

Sikh is derived from the sanskrity word "sikhsa" which literally means pupil or learner. A person on a quest for enlightenment, this could be anyone! Sikh is just a word (a common noun) whereas khalsa is a possessive noun, a name for a particular organization/group.

its like saying:
I am a teacher (Common noun)
I am Sinister (possessive noun), notice the capital!

A sikh is simply a person who develops morality from scripture (be it any scripture).
That is why people say we are sikhs of Guru Nanak: the translation of that is we are learners of the morality which Guru Nanak taught.
Khalsa is a little different, bit more complex, an organization that I still cannot fully comprehend (

).

sometimes
members of the two groups are veiwed as the same because they share the same geocultural background, somewhere along the line the meanings got all muffled and the two things became intertwined when they clearly are not.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-youth/8723-is-khalsa-sikh-two-different-entities.html

Now you might have heard:
When they say 'Sikh Khalsa Panth' they are actually just referring to Khalsa or "learner of the Khalsa"
Sikh should never be spelt with a capital letter (its absolutely wrong).
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8723

The spell check keeps Capslogging the 'S' on sikh. (

)

hope this helps!

Amarpal · #3 (**permalink**) 07-May-2006, 17:02 PM

Dear Khalsa Ji,

As I understand, Sikh is an individual where as Khalsa is a Panth.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

noor_e_khalsa · #4 (**permalink**) 07-May-2006, 19:43 PM

Guru Gobind Singh Ji defines a sikh as follows:

"Shri Mukhvaak Patshahi dasvi"
(holy words said by His Holiness tenth guru)

"Nishan-e-Sikhi eeN panch harf kaaf, hargiz na bashad eeN panch muaf"

[the symbol of sikhi (please note that guru ji is using the word "sikhi" here,HE could have used word "khalsa" or something else if HE wanted to differentiate between "sikh" and "khalsa") are five Ks (kaaf is urdu letter equivalent of K in english or "kakka" in punjabi) and it is not possible that any one of them be exempted]

next guru ji says,
"Kara kachh kardo kangha bidaaN, bila kes hech ast jumla nishaaN"

[the five Ks are:
Kara- the iron bracelet
Kachh- special type of underwear
Kardo- the kirpan or sword
Kangha- wooden comb
Kesh - unshorn hair (which includes all the hair on the body)
]

I know that my guru ji is never wrong so there is no difference between a Sikh and Khalsa.......
and please read gurbani and literature like "waar bhai gurdas" , Kaahn Singh Nabha, Professor Sahib Singh and also the Banis written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji
A sikh has to be a scholar as per order of my guru ji.....
All the Best and Happy Reading

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

HI,

Yes they clearly are two different entities,
let me explain:

Sikh is derived from the sanskrity word "sikhsa" which literally means pupil or learner. A person on a quest for enlightenment, this could be anyone! Sikh is just a word (a common noun) whereas khalsa is a possessive noun, a name for a particular organization/group.

its like saying:
I am a teacher (Common noun)
I am Sinister (possessive noun), notice the capital!

A sikh is simply a person who develops morality from scripture (be it any scripture).
That is why people say we are sikhs of Guru Nanak: the translation of that is we are learners of the morality which Guru Nanak taught.
Khalsa is a little different, bit more complex, an organization that I still cannot fully comprehend (

).

sometimes
members of the two groups are veiwed as the same because they share the same geocultural background, somewhere along the line the meanings got all muffled and the two things became intertwined when they clearly are not.

Now you might have heard:
When they say 'Sikh Khalsa Panth' they are actually just referring to Khalsa or "learner of the Khalsa"
Sikh should never be spelt with a capital letter (its absolutely wrong).

The spell check keeps Capslogging the 'S' on sikh. (

)

hope this helps!

noor_e_khalsa · #5 (**permalink**) 07-May-2006, 19:50 PM

Dear Amarpal ji
please read the posting made in reply for the quotings made by sinister

Guru kirpa kare

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amarpal

Dear Khalsa Ji,

As I understand, Sikh is an individual where as Khalsa is a Panth.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

Amarpal · #6 (**permalink**) 07-May-2006, 21:51 PM

Dear Member Ji,

I see no contadiction in the two posts. When a Sikh takes Amrit she or he joins the Khalsa Panth. Khalsa is a plural; it denotes a groupping i.e. Panth, it is not right to say Khalsas.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8723

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

Sinister · #7 (**permalink**) 07-May-2006, 21:52 PM

ok,
lets find some common ground, considering you actually had thought of an answer before you posted the question.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8723
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8723

So before we proceed: your veiw is that Sikh and Khalsa are exactly the same thing.
But that thesis lacks in any logical linguistic deduction because why would our Guru use two different words to denote the same enitity?

My veiw:
Our Guru used the word sikh interchangeably with the world khalsa.

So why does Guru Ji refer to Khalsa as the sikhs? or sikhs as the khalsa?
When he used the word sikh he was literally referring to the word "sikh khalsa" (a hybrid) which translates to "learner of the khalsa".
Our Guru ji might have used sikh as a 'short form', in order to add a descriptive aspect to the word 'Khalsa', which describes as a particular renowed organization.

What is a hybrid word?
Our Guru's continuously used hybrid terminology throughout scripture and this is a prime example we have just surfaced on.

Sikh is sanskrity and
Khalsa is from a persian word 'khalis'
which literally means pure!

combine the two and you get sikh khalsa or the title "learner of the pure ways"

So when a person calls himself a sikh he could;
A) Be referring to himself as a Sikh Khalsa
B) Just be a sikh (ei: just a learner)

A sikh in general should just be a common noun. Whereas Khalsa specifically refers to a renowed organization.

sikh is a word that existed in the sanskrity vocabulary and common vocabulary before the khalsa was formulated.
We really have to get into the orgins of these words if we are to debate any further.

I tried to explain the difference based upon linguistics as did Amarpal above.
Amarpal made a very good point: Sikh has a plural Sikh(s), Khalsa does not! if they were indeed the same thing this linguistic descrepency cannot exist between the two words!

Note: this is just my thesis, or interpretation of the matter: I could be wrong. But it seems like a logical analysis and conclusion from a linguistic point of veiw.
Ps: I do read gurbani. But I'm one of those people who are still lost in translation, a state which befits many because of the shear size and contexual complexity of our Guru's words.

vijaydeep Singh · #8 (**permalink**) 08-May-2006, 14:53 PM

Gurfateh

Sikh can be of other faith but Khalsa is one with God Akal.

noor_e_khalsa · #9 (**permalink**) 08-May-2006, 22:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

ok,
lets find some common ground, considering you actually had thought of an answer before you posted the question.

So before we proceed: your veiw is that Sikh and Khalsa are exactly the same thing.
But that thesis lacks in any logical linguistic deduction because why would our Guru use two different words to denote the same enitity?

My veiw:
Our Guru used the word sikh interchangeably with the world khalsa.

So why does Guru Ji refer to Khalsa as the sikhs? or sikhs as the khalsa?
When he used the word sikh he was literally referring to the word "sikh khalsa" (a hybrid) which translates to "learner of the khalsa".
Our Guru ji might have used sikh as a 'short form', in order to add a descriptive aspect to the word 'Khalsa', which describes as a particular renowed organization.

What is a hybrid word?
Our Guru's continuously used hybrid terminology throughout scripture and this is a prime example we have just surfaced on.

Sikh is sanskrity and
Khalsa is from a persian word 'khalis'
which literally means pure!

combine the two and you get sikh khalsa or the title "learner of the pure ways"

So when a person calls himself a sikh he could;
A) Be referring to himself as a Sikh Khalsa
B) Just be a sikh (ei: just a learner)

A sikh in general should just be a common noun. Whereas Khalsa specifically refers to a renowed organization.

sikh is a word that existed in the sanskrity vocabulary and common vocabulary before the khalsa was formulated.
We really have to get into the orgins of these words if we are to debate any further.

I tried to explain the difference based upon linguistics as did Amarpal above.
Amarpal made a very good point: Sikh has a plural Sikh(s), Khalsa does not! if they were indeed the same thing this linguistic descrepency cannot exist between the two words!

Note: this is just my thesis, or interpretation of the matter: I could be wrong. But it seems like a logical analysis and conclusion from a linguistic point of veiw.
Ps: I do read gurbani. But I'm one of those people who are still lost in translation, a state which befits many because of the shear size and contexual complexity of our Guru's words.

I read Guru Ji's words thats why i raised the question so that I can get a view what the people think about it.....
and as far as linguistics is concerned, you are still wrong because "Sikh" or "Khalsa" may have origins in other languages but they are part of Gurmukhi or punjabi language firstly, secondly when these words are used in punjabi, there is no different word for plural of sikh, if there is one sikh then also it's a "sikh" and if there are ten then also they are referred to as "ten sikh" in punjabi usage, the same is true for the word khalsa so i think the debate again comes to starting point again......