drawrof

Thanks for the enlightening and well thought out response DalSingh

I have to agree with Shaheediyan on the changing of chandi vaar being 100% ram raiya.

What I would like to indulge the sangat in is the fact that although ardaas has now been standardized, which I'm all in support for..There are still differences and this wasn't always the case.

I sometimes do a quick personal ardas, but that obviously would not be proper darbar ettiquette and these are 2 different fish.

Could I subvert everyone's attention to the post that I started regarding sants. It could help clear the air from both sides or at least give an avenue for expression....Thanks

I used to listen to him all the time in 1997-98 at Dixie gurdwara here in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). He is definitely a missionary preacher, but the angle that he took which I liked was the whole issue of ethics/morality/character development. It may be limiting to a certain degree but it is something that I really enjoyed at the time. He also entertained any question you asked him which was great.

Dalsingh,

I see your perspective, although I do not agree with it. I feel people are equipped and have the right to be be labelled as they want to be. I see the elimination of caste being an attack on identity. The 'beloved' Gandhi called scheduled castes 'hari-jans'.....That's great! they went from one label to the next. There is a larger economic environment that should be intelligently reviewed and the notion of caste within that should be rechecked. The oppression that the 'low' castes feel is being heard because they now have a voice through policies in punjab that have given them special benefits. I don't feel that this is just a caste issue at all because each group is somewhere on the pecking order. If you talk to any urbanite....they use the term 'jatkay, jatwair, and say jattni' when they want to address something in a derogatory way. Similarly, Village folks will say 'chuhray/chamaar'...On that note, the modern day 'chuhray/chamaar' are not people of those respective castes but the 'bhaiyay'. In summation, empowering a group would work if we become inclusive in our approach towards them. I don't feel sikhs, as a religious group, can do much to eliminate casteism apart from making sure that caste isn't a barrier to anything that any other sikh has access to. The translation of that acceptance in a wider society is the issue

also, I'm interested in how jatts are ruining panjab and the panth? (I am interested in your perspective).

I really enjoyed the read, it is one of the precursors to the whole rondha byrne 'secret' theme.

I am pro-caste, I find they work better than braces.

Now that I have had my kicks, I think that removal of the caste system is just as unfruitful and counterproductive to the real issue as regimenting it is. This is a class issue. Chamaars/ravidasi's are not necessarily all leather workers per se. They represent a group that has felt ostracized and subjugated to the oppression of the so-called 'higher' castes. Eliminating castes or identities in themselves will not solve the problem. The attitude and behaviours that so called higher caste people feel they inherently have (for whatever reason it may be, be it by birthright or their socio-economic status) needs to be checked by a change in social paradigm...even then, those who are in any political position will utilize these diifferences or create new ones.

Shaheediyan,

Thanks for the prompt and informed response. It is always wonderful to read your responses because you are always forthcoming in sharing your thought process, which I like because it is well developed.

I don't mean to make this a segway but there are 2 points I wanted further eludication on.

1) You mentioned that the difference between a bhagat and a sant was that the sant should have the want and desire to teach. If we date back a bit (pre-nirmalay, pre-udasis); we see that the bhagats (as per addressed by Guru Arjun sahib ji) did teach (ie, Kabirji, Ravidasji,etc). In that case the bhagats were sants correct? (This is no way a means to undermine what you are saying because If I've understood correctly, you are saying there are people who are bhagats (in the stages of bhagti) who are not sants...I agree). That takes me to the next point

2) I have seen the term Sant used by nirmallay but not udasi's so much. I wonder if the term sant is something that has been appropriated in later times by nirmallay. It was more common to see pundit prepend a name than sant in earlier literature. Ie. Santokh Singh (suraj pratap granth) is called 'bhai' by the revisionists, 'kavi' by others, and possibly 'sant' by others...If we go back and look to see what has been said about the figuredheads of the 4 dhuans and 10 bakshishan they are rarely referred to as sant.

On that note, I do wonder that whether guru sahib used the term 'sant' to refer to the state of mind as opposed to a bestowed title.

the sangats thoughts?

Sadh Sangat Ji,

I am interested in discussing this topic because I feel when people talk about 'Sants', we all have opinions which are informed by our self-identified or quasi-identified by the larger community. I ask that people give their own opinions and not cut and paste some article written by someone else. I started this topic with the intention of people sharing their opinion/thoughts and not to bash etc. Although I am not a proponent of everyone conforming to one standard, I do believe that an understanding of baseline commonality is necessary

I'll take the posing questions and giving my own opinions (I define opinions as being 'thoughts that are developed either through my own rationale or the way I have understood, whether it may be factually or systematically correct/incorrect, the research of others').

1) What is the definition of a Sant?

When reading gurbani, I take the 'uthanka' (historical context) into consideration as it allows me to see to better approach the diction used within those hymns. I have come to understand that certain scholars such as pandit tara singh narotam and even mahant ganesha singh do not fully subscribe to the uthanka's as there was a belief that these are just stories taken from janamsakhis and other traditions that are to make 'prachar' more colorful. In taking the 'uthanka' in context, I still find that Sant is not a person but signifier for a state of being. Ie. when someone is knighted and called 'sir'...they are not 'sir' but carrying that title. Similarly, people do not define 'Sant' per se, but the state of mind that makes someone 'Sant' defines the person.

2) What is the benefit of a Sant's company?

The actions, outlook, attire, location, preferences of that person add to the colorful milieu of creation, as each person still contributes to their respective societies in some capacity, but I don't believe that this is what the be all and end all is. I believe that the state of mind of a 'Sant' and the presence of that, the effect of that Sant on the people who they have influence over is what provides benefit.

3) Where is the line drawn between the authority of a Sant's actions and what is the correct way?

I ask this question because people will often look to the actions of sants and the fact that they are sants will automatically make them infallible in the eyes of the masses. I personally disagree. I feel that people are people and based on the perspective of the person who is judging/assessing etc.. the 'sant' can be wrong or right based on their perspective. A passive individual would look at a sant as someone who will not fight (if that is the case, then that makes the 6th padhshah, 9th padhshah, and the 10th padshah un 'sant' like). As sikhs, our predecessors have had to contend with this issue when the lifestyle of Guru Hargobind Sahib raised the attention of his sikhs who were socially moulded into a more pacifistic outlook

4) Why do sikhs get offended when Sant X singh is judged?

I pose this question simply because I feel at times that people are not looked at as per their merit but more so because of their position. I feel we are socialised into respecting people who are deemed sants by others(be it other sants or large/small groups). This socialised thought actually limits us and prevents us from excercising our discriminatory faculty. On the other hand, If person A (lets say his name is DRAWROF) was touched by Sant X and has reverence based on an experience, an insight, or a life changing event....then I can understand the personal attachment, so long as it doesn't become an excuse to make the individual an idol figure (which isn't necessarily bad) while simultaneously feeling that Sant X will ferry them across the 'world ocean'....ie, don't follow a sant so you don't have to do any work yourself....

5) What would happen if Sants didn't exist?

When I use sant here, I mean the people who are addressed as sants...I feel if sants don't exist, then the masses will recess or 'progress further' towards pundits and pirs. They would get tevay's and taveets moreso.

I did not mean to offend anyone. I hope no one has taken it in that way at all.

regards,

Satnam

I kinda feel the same way about aloo tiki's at times.....

I guess a cheat day with 'only' aloo tiki's is permissable so long as I don't have hopes, desires, thoughts of coveting a samosa......

Bala Janamsakhi, wasn't it the sodhi meherban group that propogated this?....

One thing we have to be crucial of is to not take the 'old is gold' approach.

A person I know who had access to this picture analysed it and it appeared to him that this was created in the 1880's and was backdated. Baba Jagjit Singh Harkowal wallay also discussed this picture with the family members who had the pic and it appeared to be a different maharaj singh. N30 can comment better on it.

This is a different maharaj singh according to scholars & saints.

Very well put shaheediyan and Malwa de sher....

Hey N30,

I was there with you I believe, they said that we can order them ourselves, and stack them and use their space but that they weren't going to do anythng about the shipping from what I remember.

Singh Sabha literature from the amritsar darbar and their advocates have used this. I have seen it, I believe it is going to be addressed in a book coming soon, but we must remember snatan as a term was used by those who deemed their world view to be 'original, organic and not influenced by outside sources' (meaning in relative context, the ferenghi's).

http://www.shastarvidiya.org/akhara.jsp

Here is the lineage...it isn't a secret.

I have been one of those people who went to his akhara and I did ask him. He told me. He actually went into great detail about it and I found it very convincing. Others who know of his ustads/dada ustad all seem to point in the same direction.

Lineages can also be fictionalised too....and the importance of a lineage comes more into account when something seems to deviate from a tradition or something is almost a lost tradition and it is being perserved for heritage reasons.

One thing I'd like to point out that people fail to mention is that the moghuls/turks as a group became disenfranchised after aurangzeb because the successive leaders and politics did not have the same mettle and power as the predecessors. When the singhs fought at that time they had more than just an 'art' at their disposal. They used guerilla warfare, they used allies (ie. ala singh with the marhattas), their knowledge of the land, weapons, their own espionage network to beat a group that was already disenfranchised (much like the british did with sikhs post maharaja ranjit singh)......I think it was in siques, tigers and thieves that there is an account of how the singhs used to be great marksmen with bows and arrows (while riding on horses) <pre 1780's>....but subsequently, they started using muskets and that skill diminished.....

In attending Niddar's class (2-4 times at most...while I visited the uk)...I observed how he shared an earlier paradigm and how he explained things in the context of warfare...it is the comprehensive approach to the subject matter that I found very interesting.

On the same reasoning tony, SV would not be able to prevent the effects of an atomic bomb....but if 2 people were in close proximity with weapons (ie. the swords etc that aren't used in contemporary warfare)....it would have merit, if you had to kill or be killed.

I'd love to answer SV questions, but my knowledge here is peripheral.

jeevan kirnay, written by didar singh harkowal wallay and baba jagjit singh harkowal wallay..

I believe it was lt. john malcolm who esteemed the akalis as being 'fervent extremists'....we must remember that imperialism would alienate those that don't follow their established norms of conduct and apparel. Similarly, there is a belief/theory that every singh was a nihang but that the sardars fell into the grips of maya when they reached a certain social status (which would be indicative of those who are of an opportunist persuasion) and they became more like their social counterparts in other parts of the greater India social strata (ie. rajput kings)....look at prem sumarag granth for example. Simply, what I am saying is that there is a plausible chance that the earlier sikh fauji's were more likely to have been true to an 'akali/nihang' ideal with the latter (the misl sardars) being a bit more lax...hence, the british deeming their opposition (ie. akali phula singh and his cronies) as 'fervent extremists'

Definitely food for thought!

Kam,

What you are saying is absolutely fair then from that perspective. Bhai vir singh could have been used as an example (but his character has come into question). Personally,

I think for the masses who are pro-mahapurash...it makes sense to use the lifestyles of mahapurash's to justify whether one should eat or not eat meat. If one is against the idea of idolising someone, then this path should not be taken...further, apart from a few comments here and there, baba gurbachan singh would have next to nothing to do with shastarvidiya from my perspective so either the point made by the sarabloh team is weak in that the wrong role model has been used to justify meat eating....or the purpose of what they wrote and the purpose behind what they wrote was different.

The 'bards' (bhats)...also have bani included in guru granth sahib ji....

As per gyani gurbachan singh ji, I do not believe that he ate meat after taking tutolage of sant sundar singh.....has anything contrary to that been said? I mean, if he had taken amrit from the buddha dal and he partook of jhatka, I can understand but it would be an anachronism to assume he continued eating meat....has that been implied?

Hello folks,

I felt I had something constructive to add here,

Firstly 4 samparda's is a construct...it may be seen as statically 4, but it never was. Think about it, we had 52 manji's, the masands were considered saints in their own right (refer to the taksali raihras or sant kirpal singh teeka of guru granth sahib on the shabad 'kahay re ve man chitvaih udham' and see the importance and praise given to bhai madho)/. The sikhs of these masands were called 'sehlangi'....where the 'khalsa' were those under the direct initiation of the guru....then you have udasi's who did prachar. You also have the rababi's who used parmans in their kirtan to do parchar. You have nirmally who 'generally' were situated closer to the big centers of pilgrimage. Yes, there were singhs like bhai punjab singh who went upto kashmir but they were generally learning/studying. You had udasi's who were more focused on the local village level of things (as a group though they are very varied and can almost be deemed pan-indian in their focus). There were always fewer nirmallay in the past (and today) than there were udasi's. Then you have suthra shahi's who had their own blessings, who later joined with udasi's, same with a sect of the mina's I believe, then you have sevapanthi's who learned from nirmallay and they became a taksal of their own (dera sato gali). Then you have the bedi's, the sodhi's, sindhi's....all who claim the gurus blessed them!....the point is that alot of different groups claim to be 'sikhs'....

Regarding the issue of nirmala patronage by the malwa sardars:

Maharaja ala singh of patiala had a nirmala ( I forgot his name) who was patroned by him....It was the sardars from malwa who signed the treaty with the british to have protection against maharaja ranjit singh and they were also the ones who were later patroned more. I believe nirmally themselves have this understanding that the panchayati akhara was formed out of them. Not all nirmalay were in agreeance (ie. bhai mehtab singh, the first sri mahant did not adhere to the wearing of the 5 kakkars). Rattan singh bhangu talks about how the majha sardars are true sikhs etc etc....and when giani takur singh of the taksal passed on the whole majha/malwa debate came back into effect with regards to successorship....this issue is steeped in something that spans a couple of centuries....

The nihang/nirmala issue is huge. Gyani gyan singh was beaten by nihang singhs for sitting on a taabia without a kachera (as he wore a langota). Naveen panth parkash (which people were banned from reading in the dal) was not favorable to the nihangs at all after that point, bharat mat darpan (written by mahant ganesha singh...where teja singh nirmala <the dude from sarbloh.info>

is the preciding head) spoke of nihangs in a very derogatory way (read my old posts). Having a utopian ideal that everyone within any one samparda, faction of a samparda, inter-samparda is just ludicrous and naive at best. How many people here have experienced family tensions and issues?....if one isn't completely at peace with people at home or those who you are closest with ALL the time; then it is just ignorant to think that samparda's will be buddy buddy just because they have a place to belong in this world!

Udasi's and nihangs had closer bonds. Udasi's disliked for nirmallay for a long time. They banned them from eating langar with them in the 1700's at the kumbh mela, and the nirmallay organized themselves therein. We know that gurbaksh das (an udasi) was given control of cis-ganj and sobha singh (a nihang) was given control of anandpur sahib by guru gobind singh before he went off to nander.....that one point is enough for 2 groups with the same enemy to join together. Udasi's also see their blessings as being older and more puratan. The nihang view, from what I know, is that amrit sanchar's generally happened at the takhats and who controlled the takhats?

also, we forget that we are 'cyber-lords' these days. We are going through so much change (heck, I find life has changed so much technologically etc etc...in the past 10 years)....things were more static before, and when you have groups that remained more strong on preserving their identity and their stature...that old habits and paradigms would break hard. Even now, I don't know of too many nihangs (that I've met in india, who actually like nirmallay).

I am not in the uk, so I can't speak for anyone there....I'd like to give the people that I know there some credit and say that people probably have a mutual respect of older olders and traditions.