do you think its disrespectful to have a khanda/ik onkar tattood on you?

[Jimmy]

Quite simply, the 5k's are one of the Gurus teachings. You don't think they apply in this day and age, and don't agree with their utility. So you disagree, and are picking and choosing what you subscribe to. Not a problem, so many people do it, but like it was said before, its contradictory. The appearance isn't some superficial requirement floating in space, its integral to Sikh identity and theology and is located towards the center of Sikhi rather than its periphery. Choosing not to wear the 5ks is one thing, saying that you don't agree is another.

I understand the point you are trying to convey here, but if I recall you do not wear a dastaar, and that too is in implication that you are choosing what you would like to follow in the teachings of Sikhi...

Can you be a Sikh if you do not keep your kesh?

Although I am not a Sikh, along the lines of my philosophies that religion is personal, I think you can still be a Sikh, or as you mentioned, on the path to becoming amritdhari.

The fact is that people do pick/choose what they wish to take from the teachings...where do we draw the line as to what makes us completely a follower of that religion and what doesn't? For example, vegetarianism...some Amritdhari Sikhs do not believe that you should eat meat, however, many people have mentioned that the gianis at their gurudwaras do eat meat...who decides for us which path is right? The same concept applying to Hinduism as well...are all meat eating Hindus not going to attain Moksha?

I dont think it's about picking and choosing. Many people believe theyre not ready to be Amritdharis. They follow the beliefs in regards to the religion even if they feel they're not ready to be fully committed.

 

[Pooja]

I dont think it's about picking and choosing. Many people believe theyre not ready to be Amritdharis. They follow the beliefs in regards to the religion even if they feel they're not ready to be fully committed.

It may not be blatant picking and choosing but essentially, you are choosing not to follow xyz teaching because you are not ready. I'm not making any judgment or anything here just to clarify...just stating an opinion. I think it's perfectly admirable and acceptable to follow the essential messages of any religion.

 

[terabaap]

I have no issues with the use of religious symbols/meanings as a tattoo if they help you attain a more spiritual connection(which i believe in turn allows one to read more, divulge into the meanings of writings more, teach others and youngsters about spirituality..etc)
The use of relgious symbols for pure show garners much disdain from me and, i am sure, members of this board.
If you have it on your forearm, and people ask you why you have it, etc, and you properly explain to them why and what it means to you, then so be it. But if you use it just for show while getting drunk and trying to mack it to "bishes" and "biddies" and show them how "tough" you really are, then stfu.

 

[Ashveer]

Quite simply, the 5k's are one of the Gurus teachings. You don't think they apply in this day and age, and don't agree with their utility. So you disagree, and are picking and choosing what you subscribe to. Not a problem, so many people do it, but like it was said before, its contradictory. The appearance isn't some superficial requirement floating in space, its integral to Sikh identity and theology and is located towards the center of Sikhi rather than its periphery. Choosing not to wear the 5ks is one thing, saying that you don't agree is another.

I understand the point you are trying to convey here, but if I recall you do not wear a dastaar, and that too is an implication that you are choosing what you would like to follow in the teachings of Sikhi...

Can you be a Sikh if you do not keep your kesh?

Although I am not a Sikh, along the lines of my philosophies that religion is personal, I think you can still be a Sikh, or as you mentioned, on the path to becoming amritdhari.

The fact is that people do pick/choose what they wish to take from the teachings...where do we draw the line as to what makes us completely a follower of that religion and what doesn't? For example, vegetarianism...some Amritdhari Sikhs believe that you should not eat meat, however, many people have mentioned that the gianis at their gurudwaras do eat meat...who decides for us which path is right? The same concept applying to Hinduism as well...are all meat eating Hindus not going to attain Moksha?

You are misunderstanding Meistro's, and there fore my point. For him, the K's are not relevant and neccesary in this day and age, though most Sikhs would say that if they don't practice it, its an ideal try to live up to. By rejecting something that most consider to be fundamental to Sikh thought and practice, he's not choosing not to engage in a practice, but he is rejecting it. Another example would be like to say "I'm Hindu, but I think the practice of abstaining from beef is outtdated and irrelevant so I eat beef" versus "I know its wrong to eat beef and I'm working towards cultivating an understanding and dedication to Hinduism to where I abstain."

I agree with others that keeping the 5 K's isn't what do and don't make you a Sikh, its part of what makes you an amritdhari Sikh. There's a continuum of sorts as far as I see it.

Also, there are plenty of amritdharis that would do anything for the Guru and do eat meat because there are two different interpretations of what the Guru has to say about it, and the Rehit Maryada follows accordingly. What there isn't for example is a school of Sikh thought that rejects the 5 K's.

 

[bobbysekhon]

The term Sikh means "disciple, learner"

According to the Rehat Maryada a Sikh is defined as any person male or female who faithfully:

Believes in the existence of One eternal God
Accepts as their only Spiritual guide as the Guru Granth Sahib and the ten human Gurus and follows their teachings
Believes in the baptism Amrit Sanchar as promoted by the tenth Guru, and
Does not owe allegiance to any other religion.

Everyone keeps on using the term Sikh, but do we really know what it means? Hopefully this description/definition helps.

 

[Meistro]

You are misunderstanding Meistro's, and there fore my point. For him, the K's are not relevant and neccesary in this day and age, though most Sikhs would say that if they don't practice it, its an ideal try to live up to. By rejecting something that most consider to be fundamental to Sikh thought and practice, he's not choosing not to engage in a practice, but he is rejecting it.

lolll, how am i rejecting (pretty harsh word) the 5'ks when I said they are the TRADEMARK (do you know what that means?) of sikhism. Just because I said they are optional does NOT mean that I said Im rejecting it. Plus, why would I REJECT (damn thats a harsh word), a part of the religion when I stated that i follow its teachings spiritually? Most of us grew up in North America. We live in a superficial society. It is much easier for someone to acquire the 5 k's growing up in India, as opposed to someone who was born and raised here, in a judgemental society. One which although is quite diverse yet, displays stereotypes, generalizations, racism. Get my flow? Next time you want to use such harsh words when questioning my faith, you better damn well find the words to back yourself up. To those who do keep their hair, wear dasthars, etc, I applaud you, because it is easier said than done.

 

[DjDhol-E]

http://img164.imageshack.us/i/babadeep7fw.jpg/

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/img/b2/0d/premalshah/1248l.jpg

 

[H.S.]

Just to help a lil more with the understanding, the 5 kakkars are more than just exterior references to sikhism

Kesh - uncut hair, not only on the head but all over the body: It is important because kesh represents strenghth and it is stressed that a sikh should give up his life before he ever cuts his hair. Also keeping your Kesh is a sign of "saintliness"

Kangha - Kangha is a small wooden comb: Kangha is used to keep your hair neat and tidy and is tucked away in your distaar. It is important because respect for ones body is a theme throughout sikhism.

Karha - is made of iron or steel only. A karha made of gold or any metal is considered an ornament: It is important because its meant for restraint and gentility is also a reminder that the Sikh is forever bonded to the Guru and it reminds the wearer to always do the right thing

Kirpan - Sikh sacred sword. "combination of two words: Kirpa (mercy) and Aan (honour). Thus, the Sikh Kirpaan means: "the defender of the honour of a being".": It's important because it's an emblem of courage and adventure, also of self-respect, prestige and independence. It is supposed to be used only for self-defense or for the defence of the weak and innocent.

Kachhehra - drawers stiched a certain way: It's important because it reminds the Sikh of moral ethic, restraint and control, chastity.


What makes the 5 Kakkars important is what they represent. Im assuming that most people feel that they don't need the 5 kakkars to remind them of how to live life morally, which is completely fine. Nothing wrong with that. The thing is SIKH, the actual word, is defined as a student of the Guru. If you do not want to practice what the Guru teaches, which includes the 5 kakkars, than you really need to ask yourself why do you call yourself SIKH? It is written "Rehat Pyaari Mujko, Sikh Pyaara Nahin" which means a Sikh by name is not good to me a Sikh by definition is of use to me.


And finally, Sikhism isn't about being birthed and following Sikhi exactly from the time you can walk. Sikhism is all about the journey, the path. Theres nothing that one can do and think "well, its too late. I guess i can't be a Sikh anymore". Everyday is a new day to start the journey and choose a new path. So if someones hair is cut, or they drink, etc, that doesn't mean that they can't start following the teachings and practices of the Guru.

 

[HarmanSingh]

Meistro, you continue to contradict yourself. You said, ‘Are they necessary in this day and age? I don't think so. I would say it is more or less an option.” That IS a rejection of the Gurus words and beliefs. It is not up for debate whether a Sikh is supposed to uphold the 5 K’s, it is clear cut. You on the other hand are rejecting this and still claiming to be a Sikh. It would be akin to a Christian saying Jesus is not the son of God and still saying they are Christian…it flies in the face of common sense and the very definition of what it is to be a Christian.

The 5 K’s are NECESSARY but NOT sufficient to being a Sikh. It is wonderful you follow the “spiritual” teachings of Sikhi, but you are failing to see the connection between the physical and spiritual. The 5 K’s are not merely "trademarks" as you described, it is a connection of soul and physical being.

Consider this. I eat meat. I know its against the beliefs and philosophy of Sikhi. I realize this and know it is a shortcoming of mine I need to work on. I do not make statements like “oh, it is optional”. No, I realize it is required if I want to call myself a Sikh and a follower of the Guru I need to work on it. It is a pitfall for me to achieve the spirituality I desire. You on the other hand are saying you know better than the Gurus, as their age old ways are no longer relevant or useful. A Sikh does not go back and essentially correct pericieved mistakes in the Sikh philosophy.

This society is not as judgmental as the ones the Gurus lived in. This society does not threaten my life based on my wearing a Pugh. It is not as hard as you may think. No one is questioning your faith. We are just questioning your thought process to make such a bold statement as keeping the Panj Kakkar are “optional” to then saying you are a Sikh. It is illogical.

 

[Meistro]

lol ok ok, so those of you who are preaching to me....what do you call yourselves? Sikh? Because quite honestly, you're not either. Based on what you are preaching. That is actually the definition of a hypocrit. Nobody has the right to tell me that Im rejecting something that the Guru teaches or that Im contradicting myself. I have expressed MY INTERPRETATION of the way I view sikhism.

 

[HarmanSingh]

lol ok ok, so those of you who are preaching to me....what do you call yourselves? Sikh? Because quite honestly, you're not either. Based on what you are preaching. That is actually the definition of a hypocrit.

Meistro, a Sikh understands his/her shortcomings, accepts them and works on them. He/She does not say the Gurus had it wrong.

 

[HarmanSingh]

lol ok ok, so those of you who are preaching to me....what do you call yourselves? Sikh? Because quite honestly, you're not either. Based on what you are preaching. That is actually the definition of a hypocrit. Nobody has the right to tell me that Im rejecting something that the Guru teaches or that Im contradicting myself. I have expressed MY INTERPRETATION of the way I view sikhism.

By the way when you say "Nobody has the right to tell me that Im rejecting something that the Guru teaches or that Im contradicting myself." you make little sense. Would you tell someone who walked into Gurudwara with their shoes on that they are wrong? Or would you let them walk on in like nothing is up? Sorry, but I see you making crazy statements like the Panj Kakkar being optional and I can't help but correct your obvious mistake.

 

[chef shinderpaul dhillon]

oh wow, thanks everyone for the essay responses.

 

[Pooja]

I don't think Meistro's initial point was truly 'rejecting' any ideals, he simply thinks that he does not think it is necessary to follow all the 5 Ks to accept Sikhi as your way of life.

One who chooses not to follow all of the teachings and one who does not follow the teachings but preaches that he/she 'strives' to follow all of the teachings are one in the same. Essentially, both individuals do not follow all of the teachings.

Harman, you are not vegetarian, so therefore, you also do not follow all of the teachings (debatable). Whether or not you strive to is irrelevant, you essentially don't follow all of the teachings. You too have rejected the notion of vegetarianism because you are not ready. There's nothing wrong with that, it is admirable and noble that you strive to follow all the teachings of Sikhi and you realize your shortcomings, but there is also a contradiction there.

 

[HarmanSingh]

Pooja,

The fact that he doesn't think it is necessary to follow the 5 K's IS the problem. He is simply changing what Sikhi is. If you don't believe in the validity and importance of the 5 K's...fine. But do not call yourself a Sikh if that is the case.

The difference in the meat eating example and what meistro said is I acknowledge my shortcomings and realize I am not following the Guru's path completely. And I am willing to work to change that. Meistro on the other hand has created his own path where a Sikh does not need the 5 Ks to be a Sikh. It is equivelant to starting a Dera. You want to belive that? Great, go for it man. But just don't claim it to be Sikhi when you do.

You have to understand, a Sikh just like any other human being struggles with their weaknesses. Unless you are a Sant, you are always striving to follow the Guru's teachings but are never quite there. But a Sikh is on the PATH to the Guru, whereas Meistro has created his own path where the Panj Kakkars are not necessary.

 

[Pooja]

Understood.

Re-insert here my pov that religion is personal and you can choose your path to the Lord.

But the reality is, many people who consider themselves Sikh do not follow the 5 K's...and the implication there is blatant, they want to call themselves Sikh but they do not follow those specific teachings....so in essence they don't think they are 'necessary.' As Harsharan pointed out, "Im assuming that most people feel that they don't need the 5 kakkars to remind them of how to live life morally, which is completely fine. Nothing wrong with that. "

I think you are taking Meistro's words too literally...no one is changing Sikhi, he as an individual does not think they are necessary for Himself, for His path to the Lord, for His interpretation.

Those who do not follow the 5 K's, may not flat out say I don't think they are necessary, but is that not what they are basically saying by not following those teachings? It is what is being implicated. Whether or not you plan on accepting them later in life is irrelevant. We are talking here and now.

 

[Saleem]

In general, applicable to this Meistro vs. Harman debate and in religion in general:
There is a difference between not being perfect at one's religion (i.e. I do not pray 5 times a day as i am mandated)
and rejecting the clear type of the Book and say "this no longer applies" (i.e. "there is no need to pray 5 times a day; that was a different Time").

When you begin to say that parts of your religions are anachronisms, or are not applicable in 2009 (or in 1999 or 1899), you are on a slippery slope. It doesnt matter whether your religion is 310 yrs old, 1500 yrs old, 2000 yrs old, or more-- the world has changed drastically in this much time and to start arbitrarily rejecting parts of your book points to lack of faith in the book (which is fine, but different. As Pooja just said, religion is personal and it's okay to pick what you choose to follow. but it would be incorrect to say "this part of the religion is no longer relevant" to the people of that religion at large).

 

[Pooja]

Agree with you Saleem, but I think Meistro did not mean to say 5 K's are irrelevant, but rather in the changing times people have not quite followed them. (I'm not judging whether not following them is right or wrong.) And just because they have chosen not to follow them, does not mean they are waaaay off the path there or anything.

 

[HarmanSingh]

True, many who consider themselves Sikh dont follow the 5 K's..but very few deny its importance and relevance. Once you go on to reject fundamental beliefs and in fact claim they are not necessary, you are no longer following Sikhi.

I have no problem with Meistro's philosophy on life (dont lie, cheat, steal, etc) but just dont claim to be a Sikh if you dont believe in basic principles. Thats all.

 

[Pooja]

So then I bring up my point again, where do you draw that line?

You are a Sikh because you practice the 5 K's, however...you are a lying, cheating, thief...

Or you follow 3 of the 5 Ks, and you are a good person, but you drink...

Or you follow none of the 5 Ks, but you live your life with every other teaching of Sikhi...

Each one of these people has rejected something of Sikhi (this concept can apply to any religion, just for our discussion purposes I'm using Sikhism).

Religion has still evolved, people take everything out of context (esp. homosexuality in relation to the Bible), but is it okay to say one person is more a Christian than another, one person is more Hindu than the other? Or is it all or nothing?

What I gather from you, is that the 5Ks to you are an essential, non negligible part of the Sikh identity, and those who don't follow can not really call themselves Sikh?

What is the difference between someone conveying that they don't think it's necessary and calling themselves a Sikh, and another person not blatantly saying it is unnecessary, but at the same time implying that they don't think it's necessary by not following the 5Ks and calling themselves Sikh?