Sants....(i Know, You're Thinking 'not Again')

[drawrof]

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

[shaheediyan]

Excellent subject and good thoughts.

From my meagre reading of Gurbani - 'I' interpret Sant to mean 'spiritual teacher' & 'teacher of spirituality' both.

I agree its a state of mind tha defines a true Sant - i.e. them being a bhagat, but at the same time I believe they need to have the ability and desire to teach.

One can be a bhagat without being a Sant in my opinion, but not the other way around. The use of the term in Nirmalai/Udasi akarai I believe is correct. There is a differentiation between Sant and Mahant which is very important. Most modern day Babai have assumed both roles - which is where the problems start....

The infallability and idolatory of a Sant are very good questions. I believe this topic is responsible for many factions and fights in the Panth.

I don't believe any 2 Sants are the same - their realisation is based on the same source, but their communication of it and way living may differ. If people realised this then there would be peace.

Infallable - to me - only my Satgurus are infallable. Regarding anyone else, only parmatma knows.

But as drawoF says, it depends on ones perspective - if the Sants 'being' is in line with ones idea of perfection, then for them the Sant is Puran.

The problem arises when we try and force our belief or opinion on everyone else - i.e. so and so Sant said/did this, so it MUST/HAS TO BE be right.

All I would say here is, the words 'in my opinion' need to be added, rather than stamping this 'fact' on everyones forehead.

[drawrof]

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?

[shaheediyan]

Veer ji,

Thanks for the kind comments.

I said 'One can be a bhagat without being a Sant in my opinion, but not the other way around', so yes, bhagat can (and has) been a Sant (teacher), but I don't believe they 'have to be. Where as a Sant 'has' to be a bhagat as well. I refer to bhagat in the most literal context i.e. one who is immersed in bhagati - which means he does not necessarily crave nor have social interaction/responsibilty.

Regarding the term 'Sant', I agree with your historical analysis, I am simply refering to the term Sant as best utilised in moderntimes.

It would be better to discuss the Gurbani context by providing some of examples of best fit 'state of mind' examples.

[navjot2]

yes that 'sant' 'brahmgiani' even 'mahapurash' are beign used mroe like bestowed titles then recognition of someones state of being is regrettable.

[Balbir Singh]

Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakaal!

Dear all!

All questions about Saints disappear after meeting a true Sant and receiving Naam Simran.

Balbir Singh

[drawrof]

Sure Balbir Singh, but true saints aren't a dime a dozen, and getting naam simran is not as easy as going to a grocery store and picking up milk (in western countries).

Even then, many will not attribute anything to a sant and still bear hatred.....this is why I wanted to broach people's thinking with the hopes of opening up a dialogue to get people to exchange ideas.

It appears that you have had this experience, can you kindly share what questions you had and what the experience is?

[Balbir Singh]

Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakaal!

Dear all and drawof Jee!

Quote "It appears that you have had this experience, can you kindly share what questions you had and what the experience is?"

Often God sings their praise using His tool Balbir Singh where there is no listener present.

Balbir Singh

[SURYADEV]

From my meagre reading of Gurbani - 'I' interpret Sant to mean 'spiritual teacher' & 'teacher of spirituality' both.

Some 'anti-sant' sikh I have met esp. AkJ, Khalistani follow a similar belief pattern. They believe that because they attend these holiday camps/ university societies and preach to all to do amrit shak, jap naam etc that they are also a "sant".

[tSingh]

Satinam

I would say that the predominant definition of a Sant among the sangat (particularly overseas where unlike India, there isn't a host of resident sants in your village/towns radius) that I've come across is more a 'sidh purush', one who has the miraculous accomplishments that many books on Baba Sri Chand, Baba Nand Singh, and many others describe. From my experience among Sant orders that definition applies to some, but certainly not all. A Sant is a fairly broad term that ranges from a serious mumukshu through to a brahamgyani. Further it means one who has adopted the sant or nivirtti marg. It is also given to a person who is serious enough about brahamgyan to undertake initiation into the sant mandali.

That being the definition, it makes it possible to talk of bad 'sants' and fully realised 'sants'. From what i can see it is not the case that there is an increase in the number of sants (there were undoubtedly a lot more in the 18th and 19th centuries), I would argue that less nowadays are single-mindedly devoted to obtaining moksh through sadhana and tapasya as they were in the past. Furthermore, as has been said before, the term 'gurmukh' is also used a lot in Gurbani to refer to someone of a similar status, and is a term that is in fact bandied around far more often than the term sant.

Regarding the use of the exact title, sevapanthi literature from 1750s refers to their mahapurush as 'sants', i've seen it elsewhere too. Why Udasis don't use it nowadays is because immersing back into the sanatan hindu world the term 'muni', 'swami', 'mandaleshvar' is more common. Pandit Tara Singh Narotam also notes a change in their titles after Bava Pritam Das Nirban. Sant is more a punjabi/haryana thing. Whether baba, gyani, bhai, sant, mahapurush, swami, etc does not really matter. The terms were used to indicate elevated status and/or brahamgyan. That part of the definition remains constant. Again, in 18th century literature the word 'gyani' is often used to explicitly refer to a brahamgyani who obtained it through gyan marg.

Interesting topic

[Silence]

It is also given to a person who is serious enough about brahamgyan to undertake initiation into the sant mandali.

Hi, would you mind elaborating on this please? Sounds interesting.

From my meagre reading of Gurbani - 'I' interpret Sant to mean 'spiritual teacher' & 'teacher of spirituality' both.

Some 'anti-sant' sikh I have met esp. AkJ, Khalistani follow a similar belief pattern. They believe that because they attend these holiday camps/ university societies and preach to all to do amrit shak, jap naam etc that they are also a "sant".

Well as for akj, Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Ji himself wrote about sants in his books and used the word sant for gursikh in Rangel Sajjan, so I have no idea what you are talking about. As for Khalistanis, being a supporter of Khalistan denotes a political view, people with this view come from various ideological backgrounds, including Akj,Taksal, etc. so its ridiculous to make such a blanket statement as Khalistanis are against Sants. I think you are forgetting one particular Sant of 84

[Xylitol]

In this case I don't think he's making a blanket statement. It is actually quite common for many of those (non-DDT) who consider themselves khalistani to have rigid, narrow minded views about sant.

[SAadmin]

great thoughtful reply tsingh veer ji.