Jump to content

Udasi's & missionary work


SURYADEV
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is said that the Udasi samparda traditionaly spread Sikhi around India and Asia - and St Petersburg, Russia!

Nowadays, you don't really here of their missionary work.

Do they still preach around the world or would they ever do so? For what reason did they stop spreading the word of God in other parts of the world?

I've only ever seen SriMaan Baba Daler Singh Ji preach in the UK and that was only to the Sikh sangat not to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that its probably that they would need the support of the sikh sangat to do mass parchar, but they are either unknown to the majority of the panth or if they do know them, many people would not accept many of thier current practices.

Just as a personal opinion, I don't think Udasis today are completely as they were originally formed, though have the utmost respect for them. I think there needs to be a reform from within first before anything else. Then it would be awesome to have them carrying on Guru Nanak Dev Ji's message.

You called one baba ji 'Baba Daler singh Ji", do some udasis take khande di pahul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers for that guys.

In terms of resources, perhaps it would take just some wealthy individuals to finance their mission?! It seems to me that 'the sangat' just aren't capable of giving such support.

You called one baba ji 'Baba Daler singh Ji", do some udasis take khande di pahul?

Interesting question. Baba Daler SIngh Ji were keshdhari , though not amritdhari. I do not know why they were called SINGH ; but that was the given name I always heard being used.

Their Katha was good, at Wolverhampton at some premi's house (never at gurdwara). They always finished off by saying that we "should recite the Name or Jami Jao, Mari Jao; Jami Jao, Mari Jao; Jami Jao, Mari Jao!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is said that the Udasi samparda traditionaly spread Sikhi around India and Asia - and St Petersburg, Russia!

Russia, really, do you have further information of this?

As in, they spread dharm there now or back in times of the Gurus?

Because I know many russians became sikhs, but that was because of 3HO yoga lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on how you look at Sikhi. Either Sikhi is a separate religion and the aim of parchar to get as many non-Sikhs to become Amritdhari through the Sehajdhari-Keshdhari-Amritdhari route. Or you can look on Sikhism as just another Dharma which is a part of the sanatan family and the so-called Sikh sampardas as a 'hinduism in miniture'. The Nihangs, Udasis, Nirmalas and Sewapanths mirroring the Hindu caste system.

In the former case the Udasis were spectacular failures, they might have brought many Hindus into becoming their followers but this did not translate into more Keshdhari or Amritdharis outside of Punjab. Their followers could visit the Udasi dera bow to the Guru Granth Sahib as well as idols and then also visit Hindu mandirs and also bow there as well. In essence what the Udasis created was an awareness of the Guru Granth Sahib as a religious scripture. If you look at Sikhi in the latter definition then they were successful in some ways but over time the people who visited Udasi deras outside Punjab reverted back to being Hindus and this had nothing to do with the SGPC taking over Udasi deras in Punjab.

It was the Singh Sabhas and then the SGPC which were successful in converting Hindus into Keshdhari and then Amritdhari Sikhs in this regard in areas such as Sindh, UP and Southern India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia, really, do you have further information of this?

As in, they spread dharm there now or back in times of the Gurus?

Because I know many russians became sikhs, but that was because of 3HO yoga lol

No I haven't its what was mentioned by Bahadur Ali in the post below. If anyone else has further details on this , pleae post.

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...pic.php?t=10970

regarding russians becoming Sikhs, I don't think 'many'. There has been a bit of influence from 3HO and also some by Baba Virsa SInghJi. But now that both have passed away I don't think much will happen to spread Sikhi there by their followers.

Again, maybe others may have more info?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

valli : "Perhaps the SGPC's greatest crime is their ostracization and exclusion of Udasis, Nirmala, SevaPanthis from the mainstream, thus effectively taking away their platform by denigrating them as being non-Sikhs. "

BS mate. The udasis, nirmalas dont call themselves sikhs because then their places of worship would be under control of sgpc. So they openly declare we are not sikhs.

the sgpc have reconised they made an error in the 1920s in pushing the udasis to the side, but they acknowledged and corrected this in 1973, after about 50 or so years. Now since 73, 35 years have passed but the udasis and nirmala still do not call themselves sikhs. why?

valli :also there are no Akaras outside of India and thus the majority of their preaching is limited to that place, though I did see an Udasi sadhu preaching at a Gurdwara in Coventry once.

there is one ashram in bilston wolverhampton, and ive been to it a few times. the sewadars there are singhs, but they say they are not allowed to talk about khnade-ki-pahul or the 5 ks etc , when they do their duties in the ashram. the comittee wont allow them to talk about this kinda stuff. only what their udasi baba told them they can talk about. like how the udasi baba cut his own dick off so he wouldnt be affected by kaam.

i dont beelive that the udasi we see or hear about nowadys are the udasis that Guru Nanak wanted. me thinks you mite not know what you talking about.

khima.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS mate. The udasis, nirmalas dont call themselves sikhs because then their places of worship would be under control of sgpc. So they openly declare we are not sikh

Above statement might be true for some udasi but definitely not true for nirmale. Can you please back up your bold statement that nirmale don't call themselves sikhs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think nanakpanthis of Sind stopped describing themselves as sikhs because of something to do with SGPC.

Now, are we talking about the just term "sikh" or even "Sikh", or actually being a sikh or follower.

If we go back to pre-British times, did all the followers of Guru Nanak panth call themselves sikhs? I think from the earlier consensuses that were done by British, the sikh term was not used by many followers, where some even called themselves hindus, and the Singhs just called themselves akalis.

Also, from what I know, many nihangs and udasis do not really care about the term sikh or any labels...

From the way I see it, perhaps it was just the British influence that made using the sikh term for DIVIDE and CONQUER, usually used in the context of "Sikh" with a capital S when written in english, taking it away from the original meaning of follower and instead to mean a more tribalistic religious term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valli

Sorry but you are the one who is blabbering on this forum. It takes more than just a Nishan Sahib outside a Dera for the SGPC to have a right to that place. Read up on your history, SGPC had many court cases dismissed as they could not prove that a Dera had a connection with either the Gurus or had a place in Sikh history. This kind of litigation was also only used in the 1920s and 1930s. Very few cases have come up since 1947. Using the 'SGPC will take away the Dera if we claim that we are Sikhs' is a pretty lame excuse and best left to conspiracy websites like sarbloh and the like.

Londondajatt

There is no doubt the British chose the definition by which they would count the number of Sikhs in their decadal censuses. Before 1911 pretty much anyone who wanted to claim to be a Sikh could be entered as such but after 1921 only Keshdhari could be entered as Sikhs although 'mona' Sikhs could be counted in the sect tables as Nanakpanthi. Chatanga's contention however still holds as a large number of Udasis as well as Nirmalas chose to be classed a Hindus even before the restricted British definition came into effect.

The Nanakpanthis of Sind, apart from the 1891 census were always classed as Hindus and this had nothing to do with the SGPC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the udasi akhara in amritsar, right opposite darbar sahib, do not have Guru Granth Sahib they have all the other rubbish like idols and wot-not. How they gna preach about sikhi?

and this ive seen wiv my eyes.

vali, along with your dictionary words you seemed be spouting the kinda turds that people say when they have no answer. ie sgpc lapdog and what-not,just cos it duznt fit in wiv your view of what sikhi shud be. The singh sabha movement has and still has flaws but it was deffo a step in the right drection after the mess the udasi/mahants created.

i hav sed many times b4, and will say now, the udasi that we see today by and large are NOT the udasis of Guru Nanak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come of Chatanga1 we might as well come clean. Both of us are lapdogs of Badal Saab and we are in the pay of the SGPC charged with monitoring forums where the 'truth' might be being posted by 'scholars' like Valli who have so much 'gyan' and whose forceful writings might convince Sikhs that the Singh Sabha and SGPC were wrong and Sikhs are Hindus after all! Didn't you get the last memo from Makkar saab, due to Valli's writing on the subject, the natives are revolting and becoming Nihangs, Udasis and Nirmalas and soon they will be marching on Akal Takht to take it back and usher in the utopia of sanatan 'sikhism'.

Our SGPC masters are quaking in their mojjay because of the threat posed by people like Valli!

Just be careful remember how scared the kumitti was when Bahadur the Nirmala was spreading the 'truth' on this forum a few years ago and how glad they were when Bahadur became a Shia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the spgc has become a bankrupt body in the 1980s. why are we discussing them , when this topic was on the udasis? like the udasis they started off with very honourable intention, but over the passage of time have deviated from the founders of their own movement.

you are so prepared to call sppc fools but gloss over the activities of the Udasis, to preserve your sanatan viewpoints.

sgpc landgrabbing was only to do with money. fink about it... how did jagiro become so rich? she didnt have apot to piss in before she was president. but her greed had no limits and sgpc was trying to get everything they could jus to make her richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...