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

[yraparla]

I really feel like we're getting lost (literally and more abstractly) in spirituality vs. religion vs. religious customs.

I readily admit that most of my understanding of Sikhism comes primarily from this forum, but I see the 5 Ks the same way I see most religious practices. It's not the action that's the goal, it's the intention behind it. Didn't Guru Nanak teach that rituals and outward forms of religion were not important? Didn't he teach that the primary goal should be to reach only the purest of devotion?

Harman said, the 5Ks are necessary but not sufficient. But how can that be? If they are insufficient, then that means there is something else equally (if not more) important. And that's devotion, it's the intention behind the acts.

At the end of the day, the 5Ks are still human, outward forms of religion, something that Guru Nanak downplayed. The fact that they haven't existed for all of Sikhism means something. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't automatically remove you from Sikhism (in my opinion as an outsider).



I love these discussions, and I'm glad that they never devolve into name-calling or ALL CAPS shoutfests (although i may have just jinxed it)

 

[HarmanSingh]

Not to sound like a jerk, but it seems many people posting in this thread have little to no understanding about Sikhi beyond wikipedia or this forum.

Yes Swi, obviously there is more than one element to being a Sikh. Its not as if you wear the Panj Kakkar and BAM you are a Sikh. Obviously their is the devotional aspect to it (althought you guys are still failing to see the connection between the devotion and the 5 Ks).

I am saying when you DENY the importance or relevance of the Panj Kakkars you are denying what Guru Gobind Singh Ji said and are acting as if you know better. You can't just say the 5 K's don’t matter or are "optional" to a Sikh when the Gurus didn’t say that. It really is not up for debate. There is no scholarship or school of thought which would ever stand behind that. When you take the 5 Ks away from a Sikh you are no longer a Sikh. You may be a great person and everything, but still..not a Sikh. And the fact that Guru Nanak did not call for the 5 K's is not relevant..all the Gurus had the same Jot (light) within them. That is the reason all the Gurus refer to themselves as "Nanak" in Gurbani..they are one in the same.

The intention behind the acts matters, absolutely. And Meistro’s intentions based on what he has posted are that it is too hard to maintain the 5Ks in today's world so therefore it is not necessary. He has made his own religion here has he not? There is a HUGE difference from “I am at the feet of the Gurus and I need help to right my wrongs” and “I don’t believe I am wrong and in fact the Guru’s had it wrong because the 5 K’s don’t matter”. The intentions THERE matter.

Again, I ask, if a man says he does not believe Jesus is the son of God can he also then say he is a Christian? Or would there be a disconnect there?

 

[yraparla]

I would hope I'm a little better than wikipedia, but just to make sure I have some questions:

Where do the 5 Ks come from? I thought they were loosely part of Sikhism and then formally initiated with Khalsa?
Doesn't this mean Sikhism itself has evolved over time?
Obviously I didn't mean the Gurus were contradictory, on the contrary, doesn't this show that the Gurus were aware that contemporary issues affect how Sikhs should live and act (thus the purpose of a line of Gurus)?
If that's the case, who do we turn to now (rhetorical)?
The Guru Granth Sahib, which was given to us with the Panj Piare, isn't that so we could communally interpret the teachings?
How do you balance the Kirpan in a country that doesn't understand it?

I just want to be clear that I'm not purposefully relating this to Meistro. The question is bigger than that. I guess as a non-Sikh, I don't see the 5 Ks as fundamental tenets of Sikhism in general, just Khalsa. But what I frame it as doesn't matter, only those that believe and have faith in Waheguru

 

[Saleem]

Harman said, the 5Ks are necessary but not sufficient. But how can that be? If they are insufficient, then that means there is something else equally (if not more) important. And that's devotion, it's the intention behind the acts.

At the end of the day, the 5Ks are still human, outward forms of religion, something that Guru Nanak downplayed. The fact that they haven't existed for all of Sikhism means something. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't automatically remove you from Sikhism (in my opinion as an outsider).

Prescript: this may not be 100% accurate as I'm not an expert on Sikhism and it seems all of them are at CCK right now lol

Swi,

To uphold the 5 K's is part of the pledge taken when you take the amrit. it can be seen i suppose one of the legs of a 3-legged stool. It is therefore "necessary but insufficient". Its presence is required to fulfill your pledge; its absence is certainly failure (a fallen stool).

As for saying that the 5 K's did not exist throughout Sikhism, I don't think this is a valid argument. The forming of the Khalsa was a watershed event that truly defined and finalized Sikhism. No religion is fully defined in a day. For example, the Qur'an was released over a period of time, and the Hadith were reviewed and certified for decades after Prophet Muhammad's death. But Muslims don't downplay the Hadith as "not having been the first thing out of (Angel) Gabriel's mouth". Guru Gobind Singh found it so significant to be one of the baselines of the formation of the Khalsa, so I think you can safely include it as fundamental to Sikhism.

I think the key thing, as I said before, is the difference of whether you choose not to follow it (not everyone's faith is so strong as to do it, it's not an insult), versus whether you say it's not relevant. Rejecting the 5 K's as having any relevance is not rejecting some peripheral part of Sikhism.

 

[Omer81]

Interesting discussion you guys got going here.

From what I've read, I dont think anybodys being judgemental here or talking down to anybody with respect to their beliefs and how they choose to live their life.

And from Harman's posts, I definitely dont see him as an extremist trying to call out people saying somebodys Sikh or somebodys not. Nowhere did I read that he said, oh, you cut your hair, so your not Sikh. If I'm correct, his point is more a reply to a statement Meistro made:

"Sure, if you keep long hair, you have a beard, you wear a dasthar, you wear a kara, and kashera those are "trademarks", if you will, of a sikh. Are they necessary in this day and age? I don't think so. I would say it is more or less an option."

So the discussion is not about actions, but beliefs. And I think you guys are all going too deep into the actions of it. Step back and read that statement. Does it contradict the teachings of Sikhism? Since I have very little knowledge about Sikhism, I couldnt answer that question, but I'm sure many of you can. I'll go with Saleem's analogy from the Muslim side since I know more about that. There are 5 pillars of Islam, one of which is praying 5 times a day. Take 2 imaginary examples:

Person 1 - Doesnt pray at all, but knows that he/she should pray 5 times a day
Person 2 - Doesnt pray at all, because he/she thinks praying is not mandatory

The end result for both these people is the same. They both don't pray. But so much of Islam (and most religions) is in your intentions and beliefs. Person 1 knows the beliefs of Islam, but for whatever reason (could be anything) isnt following it, maybe 1 day theyll make a change and start praying. Person 2 has a modified belief of the religion, one thats changed 1 of the 5 basic pillars of Islam, and because of the thought that praying is not mandatory, might never pray.

Is my example of the 2 people open to interpretation? For this example, no its not. Its very clearly written that you have to pray 5 times a day. Nowhere is it written that it is optional. Again, this about the belief, not the action.

And since religion is a touchy subject with everybody, I think we should focus on the beliefs of a religion, because that can be verified to a certain extent, instead of using specific people on the forum as examples.

 

[HarmanSingh]

Wow, did you even read what I posted or what other people (Saleem) posted?
I am an extremist for saying the 5 K’s are necessary? Really? So I guess the Rehit Maryada of the Sikhs is extremist and the GURU GRANTH SAHIB is extremist also. This is not some random piece of information I have proclaimed to be important, it is within the Guru Granth Sahib.
Your story about Sant Waryam Singh is sad, but irrelevant to this discussion. You act as if I am sitting here saying you are wrong for not being Amrtidhari. I am not Amritdhari myself. The difference is you claim the GURU GRANTH SAHIB is wrong because the 5 K’s are “optional” which clearly goes against all that is written.
I have not talked “down” to you at all. I just ask that if you “I can call myself a sikh” then at least know what being a Sikh is. Your statement that the 5 Ks are no longer relevant is something no Sikh would say as you are then saying the Guru Granth Sahib is not your Guru.
Your “sidenote” that is so irrelevant and ridiculous I do not know how to respond. I respect people who are not Sikh. I respect people who are atheist. I respect people who are Muslim, Hindu, Christian, agnostic. So yes, I do respect Bhagat Singh even though he wasn’t a Sikh.
But your name calling is funny. For someone who is so afraid of being judged, you are sitting her calling me a “fanatic” and “extremist” as if I made some wild accusation or statement. All I said is the 5 K’s are not optional. That’s it. If you call yourself a Sikh, you must have the 5 K’s. Any Bhai Saab, any Amritdhari and the Guru Granth Sahib agree.

 

[Ashveer]

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.

I have the words right here:

"Sure, if you keep long hair, you have a beard, you wear a dasthar, you wear a kara, and kashera those are "trademarks", if you will, of a sikh. Are they necessary in this day and age? I don't think so. I would say it is more or less an option."

Just because you live in a 'superficial society' doesnt mean you can decide that the 5 K's are optional. You might not 'reject' them outright, but come on, its the Guru's hukam, and you're saying 'eh, not necessary.' Your entitled to your interpretation and opinion, enjoy it.

 

[Pooja]

This topic is becoming more of a 'How Sikh Are You?' discussion...

The end result for both these people is the same. They both don't pray. But so much of Islam (and most religions) is in your intentions and beliefs. Person 1 knows the beliefs of Islam, but for whatever reason (could be anything) isnt following it, maybe 1 day theyll make a change and start praying. Person 2 has a modified belief of the religion, one thats changed 1 of the 5 basic pillars of Islam, and because of the thought that praying is not mandatory, might never pray.

We are trying to make a distinction here but what if that person who 'strives' to follow xyz teaching, never does? Then he is one in the same as the other.

Some Amrtidhari Sikhs believe that if you don't follow EVERYTHING then you too are just like the next person....IE: Summy would always say things to that extent. We are trying very hard to make distinctions here and create levels of religion so we are all picking and choosing in the end.

 

[Meistro]

lets just put an end to this discussion. People expressed their views on whether getting a khanda/ik onkar tattoo is disrespectful or not, however I think the conversation has veered to quite personal and deep territory that i feel doesn't belong on a forum. Thanks.

 

[Somi]

Interesting discussion you guys got going here.

From what I've read, I dont think anybodys being judgemental here or talking down to anybody with respect to their beliefs and how they choose to live their life.

And from Harman's posts, I definitely dont see him as an extremist trying to call out people saying somebodys Sikh or somebodys not. Nowhere did I read that he said, oh, you cut your hair, so your not Sikh. If I'm correct, his point is more a reply to a statement Meistro made:

"Sure, if you keep long hair, you have a beard, you wear a dasthar, you wear a kara, and kashera those are "trademarks", if you will, of a sikh. Are they necessary in this day and age? I don't think so. I would say it is more or less an option."

So the discussion is not about actions, but beliefs. And I think you guys are all going too deep into the actions of it. Step back and read that statement. Does it contradict the teachings of Sikhism? Since I have very little knowledge about Sikhism, I couldnt answer that question, but I'm sure many of you can. I'll go with Saleem's analogy from the Muslim side since I know more about that. There are 5 pillars of Islam, one of which is praying 5 times a day. Take 2 imaginary examples:

Person 1 - Doesnt pray at all, but knows that he/she should pray 5 times a day
Person 2 - Doesnt pray at all, because he/she thinks praying is not mandatory

The end result for both these people is the same. They both don't pray. But so much of Islam (and most religions) is in your intentions and beliefs. Person 1 knows the beliefs of Islam, but for whatever reason (could be anything) isnt following it, maybe 1 day theyll make a change and start praying. Person 2 has a modified belief of the religion, one thats changed 1 of the 5 basic pillars of Islam, and because of the thought that praying is not mandatory, might never pray.

Is my example of the 2 people open to interpretation? For this example, no its not. Its very clearly written that you have to pray 5 times a day. Nowhere is it written that it is optional. Again, this about the belief, not the action.

And since religion is a touchy subject with everybody, I think we should focus on the beliefs of a religion, because that can be verified to a certain extent, instead of using specific people on the forum as examples.

okay i am jumping in too late
but Omer i kinda see where you going with the 2 example...but Islam is all about action along with belief.

 

[Omer81]

We are trying to make a distinction here but what if that person who 'strives' to follow xyz teaching, never does? Then he is one in the same as the other.

Not to go more off topic, but from Islam's standpoint, there is a difference between the 2. Part of Islam is about the struggle one goes through internally.

And Somia I'm not saying Islam is only about belief and not action. One's actions should definitely follows one's beliefs, whatever they might be. I was just separating the two for the discussion.

 

[Gagan-Gill]

lets just put an end to this discussion. People expressed their views on whether getting a khanda/ik onkar tattoo is disrespectful or not, however I think the conversation has veered to quite personal and deep territory that i feel doesn't belong on a forum. Thanks.

+10

 

[COMTONDAJATT]

i saw this giant african america dude with a khanda a few weeks ago in DC. i asked him if he knew anything about sikhism, he looked at me like he was gonna eat me.

 

[Sandeep.M]

personally... i think it would be disrespectful when you dont put it in the right spot. i mean like on your leg or lower back i mean like...seriousslyy! be the right person to have in on repect it its now on your body why do stupid sh*t. like when people put one on their hand and pick up a drink with that hand ...they seriously should think again. have your standards with it . and keep yourself in the limits. sometimes people just keep the khanda in their heart not on stupid spots on their body like their leg. i'd wanna get one but wouldnt at the same time.. if i would i'd know how to keep myself. but im not gonna

 

[Sandeep.M]

oh dear lorddy! cant believe that hahaha. dang!! hes pretty big mann!
i dont think he should even thought of putting that on himself!

i saw this giant african america dude with a khanda a few weeks ago in DC. i asked him if he knew anything about sikhism, he looked at me like he was gonna eat me.

 

[bhangrafreak01]

wish i could be a part of this topic lol but the post are way too long don't feel like reading all that

 

[Jimmy]

i saw this giant african america dude with a khanda a few weeks ago in DC. i asked him if he knew anything about sikhism, he looked at me like he was gonna eat me.

Yea now thats a guy i wouldnt have a problem with because even if i did....cant do shit LOL

 

[PartyJatt]

wish i could be a part of this topic lol but the post are way too long don't feel like reading all that

lmao exactly!!

 

[terabaap]

i saw this giant african america dude with a khanda a few weeks ago in DC. i asked him if he knew anything about sikhism, he looked at me like he was gonna eat me.

because you were getting between him and the food. Never get between a fat man and his meal... duh.

 

[Gurkaran]

you kinda missed the whole identity vs symbol point i was trying to make shanjeet.

No, I got your point. I just don't agree. The accessories that you labelled as sikh identity ARE symbols. I can call myself a sikh, but I dont have uncut hair, I don't wear a kara, I don't wear a kashera, I don't wear a dasthar, I eat meat, I occasionally drink alcohol, but I also can say that I otherwise live by the teachings. Im a good person, my heart is pure, I remember God's name, I do good deeds. Religion is really that simple. It is just expressed differently throughout. If I have built my INNER faith and committed myself, I don't have to go to the extreme and display the symbols which you are saying are the sikh identity. It doesn't make me any less of a sikh. Sure, if you keep long hair, you have a beard, you wear a dasthar, you wear a kara, and kashera those are "trademarks", if you will, of a sikh. Are they necessary in this day and age? I don't think so. I would say it is more or less an option. No offense to those of you who do keep your hair, wear a dasthar, keep your beards, etc, more power to you. If I've offended anyone with my opinions I apologize, but I really believe that going to such extremes is unnecessary as long as the goal is achieved. Everyone is going to have their own interpretation of the teachings.

Not to be rude, but that is one of the dumbest explanations I have ever heard. Meistro, you obviously have a very skewed education about Sikhism. First of all, Sikhism is not a religion, it is a way of life. There is only one way to live the life of a Sikh, which is the one which follows the hukam of our Gurus. One cannot pick and choose and yet still call themselves Sikh. To be a Sikh, you must to follow the rehat maryada. The 5 K's are not symbols, they are essential aspects of a Sikh, with Kesh being the most significant. You say that keeping uncut hair is unnecessary in this day and age, what are you talking about? It's not like it was "necessary" in our Guru's time. In fact, it was even harder to keep uncut hair in those times, since you would be killed for being a Sikh. Sikhs who cut their hair nowadays have no excuse. You cannot call yourself Sikh and violate the rehat at the same time. Know about the subject before commenting on it in the future.