Is The Khalsa And A Sikh, Two Different Entities?

[noor_e_khalsa]

"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]

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 (lol).

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. (lol)

hope this helps!

 

[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

 

[noor_e_khalsa]

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

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 (lol).

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. (lol)

hope this helps!

 

[noor_e_khalsa]

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

Guru kirpa kare

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]

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.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

 

[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.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

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

 

[noor_e_khalsa]

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......

 

[noor_e_khalsa]

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.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

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.....
It is incorrect to say that a
"Sikh" takes amrit because Amrit is called "Khande ki Pahul" and a person who takes the "pahul" is initiated into "Sikh Religion" ie. after taking the pahul he/she becomes a Sikh.... looking back in history, before Guru Gobind Singh Ji,whenever a person wanted to become a sikh, he was initiated into the Sikh religion by a ceremony called "Charan Pahul" and Guru Gobind Singh Ji just replaced that "pahul" by "Khande ki Pahul". The process is similar to what christians do, they have a ceremony called "Baptism" for initiating anyone into Christianity......
I also want to emphasize that we should use the word "initiation" rathetr than the word "Baptism" while writing for "Amrit Sanskaar" in english.. this will make the point more clear to people who want to know what "Amrit Ssanskaar" or "Amrit Chakkna" is.

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......

 

[Sinister]

"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....."
I don't want to be impolite but you need to brush up on your english skills.

There is no such thing as 10 sikh, it would be 10 sikhs or 10 sikhaan noo/ne....
This debate ended a while back and I fail to see why this is so hard for you to accept, when it is quite crystal clear to others and myself.

Sikhs of the the Punjab
Sikhs of Canada
Sikhs of the USA

And dont tell me you've never heard the sentence: Sikhaan noo Sikhee daan, kes daan, visaah daan..... (its in the ardas...for goodness sakes)

Sikhaan daa man neevaan, mat uchee, mat daa raakhaa aap Waheguru!!!!!.....

Here it is is in THE GURU's WORDS liked you asked for:

sikhaan: is a plural form of sikh in punjabi.
sikhs: is a plural form of sikh in english.

There are no such plural forms for the word Khalsa. Thus, they are NOT the same.

A sikh can be someone of any faith! A sikh can be a christian, a muslim, a buddhist, jewish, etc. It just mean pupil.
But when our 10th guru uses the word Sikhs he's specifically referring to the sikh khalsa panth (the hybrid).

Don't tell me that youve never heard the word Sikhs before. Ardas is something heard everyday and for someone with so much knowledge of scripture I would suspect more, but hey we all make mistakes, no hard feelings.

Like I said before you will need to dig deeper into linguisitics if you want this 'common sensical' debate to continue.

cheers.

 

[noor_e_khalsa]

"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....."
I don't want to be impolite but you need to brush up on your english skills.

There is no such thing as 10 sikh, it would be 10 sikhs or 10 sikhaan noo/ne....
This debate ended a while back and I fail to see why this is so hard for you to accept, when it is quite crystal clear to others and myself.

Sikhs of the the Punjab
Sikhs of Canada
Sikhs of the USA

And dont tell me you've never heard the sentence: Sikhaan noo Sikhee daan, kes daan, visaah daan..... (its in the ardas...for goodness sakes)

Sikhaan daa man neevaan, mat uchee, mat daa raakhaa aap Waheguru!!!!!.....

Here it is is in THE GURU's WORDS liked you asked for:

sikhaan: is a plural form of sikh in punjabi.
sikhs: is a plural form of sikh in english.

There are no such plural forms for the word Khalsa. Thus, they are NOT the same.

A sikh can be someone of any faith! A sikh can be a christian, a muslim, a buddhist, jewish, etc. It just mean pupil.
But when our 10th guru uses the word Sikhs he's specifically referring to the sikh khalsa panth (the hybrid).

Don't tell me that youve never heard the word Sikhs before. Ardas is something heard everyday and for someone with so much knowledge of scripture I would suspect more, but hey we all make mistakes, no hard feelings.

Like I said before you will need to dig deeper into linguisitics if you want this 'common sensical' debate to continue.

cheers.

SORRY SIR JI , I GIVE UP.....

GOD BLESS YOU

 

[Archived_Member_19]

veerji

some corrections

Ardas is not a part of guru Granth sahib,

it was written sometimes in 18th century by some sikhs as a prayer and invocation

baki my belief is Sikh is an individual...
as sikhism if u may like to call this religion..is an individualistic religion with one to one spiritual connection with one almighty.

yes tere are social aspects to it...but they donot form the core spiritual aspect of the religion.

bhul chuk maaf

 

[hps62]

I think there is a difference between a SIKH and a Khalsa.

The brave hearted amongst us are the beloved Khalsas.

Khalsa represents a Masculine form of life .

Sikhs is a feminine form of life .

An equal form in the chinese thought is

is a well-known Chinese Yin Yang symbol. Sometimes called Tai-Chi symbol.

concept of yin and yang originates in ancient Chinese philosophy and metaphysics, which describes two primal opposing but complementary forces found in all things in the universe. Yin, the darker element, is passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night; yang, the brighter element, is active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the day; yin is often symbolized by water, while yang is symbolized by fire.

I think Sikh is a yin
and Khalsa a Yang


love to all

hps62

 

[Archived_Member_19]

veerji,

that is quite a far fetched analogy

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh
Var Sri Bhagwati Ji Ki Patshai Dasvin is from Guru only.Das will someday write about the flawa Gyani Bhag Singh Ji Amabala did for Khanda Prithmai Saj Kai.. verse.

but only in Bhangu verse and one more source we are told that Ardas did start from Var Sri Bhagwati Ji Ki Patshahi Dasvi or in old Samprdas(Sevapanthis) there is an Ardas in which only Akal is rembered,Sri Akal Simer Kai.It is call short Ardas or Chhoti Ardas.This could be there before Var Sri Bhagwati Ji Patshai Dasvin Was wrote.And can still be used.

 

[max314]

Sikh should never be spelt with a capital letter (its absolutely wrong).

Yes, indeed. I've said this many times now.

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

Yeah, I think you've got the right idea (and by "right" I mean in concordance with my own views ).

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<Var Sri Bhagwati Ji Ki Patshai Dasvin is from Guru only.Das will someday write about the flawa Gyani Bhag Singh Ji Amabala did for Khanda Prithmai Saj Kai.. verse.
>>

youe source for the claim ?

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

it is part of Dasham Granth

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=297
and das is posting the flaws in the work of both Respected Amabala Sahib and Kala Afghana Sahib,who wanted to prove it from Shakt Mati and Brahmin respectively.

Yuo will find soon more post of das on this matter as we still have Bhai Mani Singh version of the scripture and Letter of Mata Sunder Kaur And Bhai Sahib on the compilation and last but lost the least we can have interpetaion of whaole of this stuff as per Gurmat.

We have Dasham Granth Nirnai By S. Bhag Singh Ji Ambala and to oppsoe that Bhai Harbans Singh ji worte Dasham Granth Darpan but this book also had not solved all teh quesries by Amabala Sahib.But Vipran JKi Reet to Ton Sach Da Marag Volu 9 and 10 from Gurbax Singh Ji Kala Afghana Ji are further step ahead as Ambala Sahib wrote mthat 5 Banis are from Guru but Kala Afghana Sahib say that whole Granth is not from Guru.

By mercy of Akal Das can reply to dobuts raised by him,which are genrayl his misusing qoutes from Guru Granth Sahib Ji to show that it contradicts Shri Dasham Granth Sahib.

Further we can discused this on dedicated thread.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/controversial-debates/1726-dasam-granth-a-critical-study-6.html