Future Of Singh Sabha Movement?

[dalsingh101]

Many of us can see that Sikhi interpretated with a 'sanatan paradigm' is increasingly becoming popular. This site bears testimony to that with wonderful contributions from various brothers who have taken it upon themselves to translate puratan granths and make their work available to the wider sangat via modern Internet based technology. There is no denying that traditional sampardaya's like DDT are also asserting themselves onto the conscious marrow of the quom with considerable success.

Lately I have been wondering about what will happen to the dominant Singh Sabha paradigm in future. Today it is not hard to find those that are vocally and vehemently in opposition to its ingrained post-enlightenment influenced worldview. It seems that Singh Sabha warnings about interpolations in various granths are not taken seriously. The plus side of this is that people are conducting more, indepth, open minded studies of granths that were previously treated with suspicion.

Without turning this into a slanging match between the two positions. I wonder what the sangat think will be the future of the Singh Sabha movement? We've been living with it in dominance for some time now. Is it waning?

Edited May 30, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Parchand]

some people view sikhee as dharam, others as religion. only Waheguru knows what the future holds.

all movements, and indeed anything manmade has a life cycle. it begins, flourishes and dies. all are subject to Kaal so it is linear.

there was a time when SarbLoh was buried deep underground, then over many centuries knowledgeable Blessed Souls took form to teach us humans how to extract it, then how to create the weapons, then how to perfect using them and so on.

similarly dharam was formed by Akaal Purakh and will live on throughout the ages because Truth is Eternal.

[jaikaara]

bhul chul muaaf karni but i feel for Sikhi to survive singh sabhia views will have to be done away with. Singh sabha is getting more more islamised, Sikhi was never so narrow.

I request all of you sangat to ask yorself this question tomorrow our children will have this question " Papaji maryada kaunsi mannde ho tusi ? 1699 waari ke ohde baad waari ? "

[SURYADEV]

I'd like to know:

DOes the Sanatan SIngh Sabha still exist as an organisation?

[jaikaara]

no it does not .

From wikipedia

Sanatan Singh Sabha is the original Singh Sabha formed in 1873 by Sikhs in Amritsar [1] The Sanatan Sikhs regard Classical Sikhism as Sikhs to be a wider denomination of Sanatan Dharma by one who practices karma and bhakti [of God] in any way for the achievement of Moksha, or spiritual liberation.

As a purely political reaction to the formation of the Sanatan Singh Sabha, a second Singh Sabha was formed and named the Tat Khalsa ('True' Khalsa) by The Governing British Administration based at Lahore in 1879 [also called Lahore Singh Sabha]. The British Raj utilized the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhs to apply their ‘divide and rule’ policy which sought to negate Sanatan Sikhism in the name of ‘reform’ whereas Sanatan Sikhism is predominantly inclusive, the Tat Khalsa is not.

While Max Arthur McAuliffe achieved the position of Deputy Commissioner in Punjab in 1882, Macauliffe wrote the popular Tat Khalsa text. ‘It is admitted that a knowledge of the religions of the people of India is a desideratum for the British officials who administer its affairs and indirectly for the people who are governed by them so that mutual sympathy may be produced. It seems, at any rate politic to place before the Sikh soldiery their Guru’s prophecies in favor of the English and the texts of their sacred writings which foster their loyalty.’ ‘The Sikh Religion’,1909, M.A. Macauliffe, Preface xxii

From the above quote, it is clear that one of the main objectives for Macauliffe was to inculcate loyalty within Sikhs for the British Raj. At the time, the Sanatan Sikh Raj had been displaced by the British Raj, and as such, Sanatan Sikhs, especially the Akali Nihangs, were naturally very hostile towards the British. [2]

[jaikaara]

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/sanatan.html

Sanatan Singh Sabha

Doctrines This entry should be read in parallel with the Tat Khalsa entry. This is because each Singh Sabha represents a different world-view. A brief description is given here of each. The Sanatan world-view is basically oral, personal, popular, diverse, reliant on past traditions and ahistorical in nature. The Tat Khalsa world-view is textual, impersonal, elite, homogenous, historical, progressive and modern in nature. In the former there is an acceptance of the Indian tradition and its value over Western tradition and colonialism. In the latter there is a conflation and interaction between Western colonialism and Indian inherited traditions. The basic belief of Sanatan Sikhism is inclusively, i.e., religious diversity is natural and Sikhism can be composed of a variety of different forms and practices, since boundaries are inherently fluid. The point of contention (with Tat Khalsa Sikhism) is that these practices are often inseparable from the practices evident in the Hindu and Muslim traditions. Another point of departure is when Sanatan Sikhs see Sikhism as an offshoot of Hinduism. This is offensive and misguided in the Tat Khalsa's point of view. Thus Sanatan doctrines are deeply embedded in the Hindu scriptures such as the Vedas, Puranas, Shastras, popular poetic epics, myths and legends, aswell as in the practices of idol worship, worship of tombs, temples and other sacred sites. There are also some Sufi, yogic and ascetic practices too. A key point of contention is the Hindu doctrine of the avataras (divine incarnations) where God is believed to incarnate in different forms at times when righteousness is about to be overcome by the forces of darkness.

Sanatan Sikhs would include the Udasis and Nirmalas and believe that the Amritdhari, Keshdhari and Sahajdhari are all Sikhs. Sanatan Sikhs also hold the Adi Granth and the Dasam Granth in equal esteem.

History The first Singh Sabha was founded at Amritsar in 1873. It was essentially conservative and Sanatan ('eternal', almost synonymous with Hinduism). It arose because of a perceived dissolution of the Sikh faith, i.e., Sikhs were believed to be falling into the folds of Hindu thought and practice. This was exacerbated and compounded by the conversions of some Sikhs to Christianity - due to the expansion of English-speaking education and Christian missionary camps in the 1880s. This caused a public uproar. The Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs all interpreted these colonial times as a threat to their traditions and started reformist movements. The Sikhs thus inaugurated the Singh Sabha to recover a distinctive Sikhism. With the advent of the print media the task of discovering, defining (and to some extent creating) real Sikhism was worked out in print, journals and tracts, religious assemblies, preaching and public discussion. This movement rapidly expanded and Sabhas were being formed all over the Panjab. However the main other Singh Sabha was founded in Lahore, and was more progressive and radical, and which eventually formed the essential traits of the Tat Khalsa orthodoxy. The Sanatan Sikhs (Udasis, Nirmalas and the Namdharis) were for the first time challenged and eventually marginalised.

Bhai Mani Singh (1673-1738) was a devout follower of Guru Gobind Singh who is traditionally thought to have wrote down the Adi Granth as Gobind Singh dictated it to him. He also believed to have collected Guru Gobind's work to form the Dasam Granth. The Dasam Granth has been understood as reflecting the Sanatan Sikh's world-view and the Adi Granth the Tat Khalsa's since the Dasam Granth contains many of the Hindu myths and goddesses, and incarnations of Siva, Vishnu and the Goddess.

It is important to note that after the advent of the Tat Khalsa orthodoxy Sahajdhari Sikhs, Nanak-panthis and Sanatan Sikhs were equated, such that their non-Khalsa qualities were highlighted.

Symbols None in particular but see Udasis, Nirmalas and Namdhari entries.

Adherents No official numbers, their identity confusing many census organisers. (See note at the end of the Explanatory Introduction).

Headquarters/

Main Centre None in particular but see Udasis, Nirmalas and Namdhari entries.

[dalsingh101]

How does the concept of 'niarapun' fit into the sanatanist worldview? What about the concept of 'teesra panth'?

Plus what about those interludes in the DG that explicitly disacknowledge various Hindu devtay? (Kishen, Bishen etc.)

Edited May 21, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Mithar]

I think Singh Sabha thought is very important for the survival of Sikhi. It emphasises the Nyarapan of Khalsa Dharm where as the Sanatanists views pretty much that everything and anything is a part of Sikhi. It is very difficult to differentiate Sanatanism from Hindu Mat which actually confuses even many Hindus like Harjas Devi who think that Sikhi is just an extension of Hinduism based on Sanatanism. If fact she mostly quoted from Sanatanist sources to prove how Sikhi and Hindu mat are one and same and attacked Singh Sabha thought mainly because Singh Sabha emphasised the distinctness/Nyarapan of Khalsa Dharm. Singh Sabha books like Hum Hindu Nahin are still widely read and thanks to Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha and the other original Singh Sabhiyas, Sikhi retained it's Nyarapan was not swallowed by Hindu Mat.

Singh sabha is getting more more islamised, Sikhi was never so narrow.

Islam is the worlds fastest growing dharm.

[backward]

See sikhi as your creed. Sikhs have their own language, but wisen up.....infrastructures that are more community serving or at least more serving to the larger community should take precedence over infrastructure that benefits only badal.

What I find amazing is how much the politics of identity really inform our paths. Samparda's and jatha's are like organizations people get experience in before they decide on their choice of career (samparda). Again not being critical.

I like dalsingh's post. Valid points are brought forth. The thing is there are multiple worldviews that are in place, simultaneously.

What would a modern singh sabha be? a unified worldview?...is that even possible. Looking at some people who've been on this site earlier; I've noticed 1 instance of a person who had a certain worldview and tried to make sikhi fit their other world view and then the fissure with sikhi was so great that people beared the brunt of that person's reversion. one aspect of sikhs were the enemy to something greater and now the whole sikh panth is....and it is unfortunately so evident that any connection to sikhi is viewed from a viewpoint that is seen through the 'reverted' lens. Is this what we are all in for?

[kdsingh80]

Dalsingh

The people who try to interpret sikhi from sanatan point of view should think of consequences on common sikhs of India on it.They should first think like a common man rather than an intellectual.Already in India

many serials are showing strange image of Punjabi's,mainly of hinduised sikhs.They show them with typical sikh names yet they show their men clean shaven and women like typical sikh women wearing salwaar kameez

They show them worshipping to Guru granth sahib and also worshipping hindu gods.these TV serials have mass following especially among women.If sanatan point of view got more popularity then I am afraid this is going

to be the future of sikh community of India

[Silence]

the anti singh sabha brigade are about a 0.000000001% of the panth, it just seems like there are more of them because everyone of them seems to be on the net lol. Singh sabha is here to stay because it is SAT. And I mean the true original singh sabha, lets forget any of the corruptions today (in any org including the sampradas there does tend to be a bit of loss of good principles).

What is singh sabha? Belief in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, All of Dasam Bani, all Gurmat rehat and all Gurmat maryada. If you want something outside of the scope of these things, then well... it certainly aint sikhi.

Whats the name of your local gurdwara?

Edited May 21, 2010 by Silence

[Xylitol]

depends on what you mean by sanatan. if it's the muddled nonsense promoted by niddar, then it's definitely not the future. as for the narrow minded 'if it's not in line with my idea of logic it's not sikhi' mindset of missionaries, that's not sikhi either. Although I recognise the original singh sabha movement overall did great works and those guys were kind of a middle ground between missionary and samparda, there still was some bad along with it. True sikhi is taught by the sampradas, and in the future i do believe there will be a revolution bringing us back to it. Sat is eternal, it will always prevail.

The various sects are like waves rising up in the river of Sikhi, those waves eventually merge back into the mainstream. The current sgpc mindset is too big to be a sect, but it's like a bend in the river, and the course will eventually correct itself as the river will always move towards the ocean.

sorry for being corny.

[///M]

'Hinduism is the Ocean towards which all rivers flow'. MK Gandhi.

[dalsingh101]

Okay, continuing with the theme of the original post:

I found this beauty recently. It's a book on Sikhi, in English, by Teja Singh (I'm sure this is Principle Teja Singh who wrote another famous Sikh history book with Ganda Singh). It was published in 1935, this was inbetween the world wars. It clearly and squarely falls into the Singh Sabha camp.

It is less than 40 pages long so it shouldn't be problem for anyone to read. What I'm suggesting is that people have a read of it and critique it, especially santanists.

I know some of the main criticisms directed towards SS is that in their endeavours to highlight in sharp relief, how distinct Sikhi was from Hinduism, some members may have played down or hid areas of commonality. Also the issue of sycophancy towards whites sometimes arises. But for the moment, I'm suggesting we find short material that typifies the world view of the movement (like that posted) and analyse that from various angles.

I hope some of you will share your views, whatever your respective positions. Here is the book, The Sikh religion, an outline of its doctrines.

Edited May 31, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Xylitol]

just wanted to add, if you truly want to teach truth to people, you have to know your audience. if they have been raised their whole lives with the sgpc sikhi is right mindset, hitting them over the head wiht their kartootan and saying they are flat out wrong will not work. people are not logical creatures, they are emotional. once we understand that, we can then do prachaar by subtly, comfortably, and gently teaching them the deeper spiritual truths.

also, there needs to be a progression of teaching. no need to hit them with the harsher stuff right off the bat. make it flow logically from a > b to c.

[///M]

i think it is time for another movement. everything has its time. only guru is true and timeless. if the sikh groups before singh sabha had been perfect it would have never arisen. if we want to go back to roots then rozanaspokesman is trying same thing. only he is going as back as guru nanak and discarding everything that came after him as being 'corrupted'.

Edited May 31, 2010 by ///M

[laalsingh]

Truth. What truth?

How do you know it is a > b > c? Maybe you have been misled whole life. Maybe real sequence is z > y > x. One sees truth as one receives it or deduce something from it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwgsJellqdE

[laalsingh]

i think it is time for another movement. everything has its time. only guru is true and timeless. if the sikh groups before singh sabha had been perfect it would have never arisen. if we want to go back to roots then rozanaspokesman is trying same thing. only he is going as back as guru nanak and discarding everything that came after him as being 'corrupted'.

And how will rozanaspokesman know what Guru Nanak said originally? He got some kind of time machine to retrieve Pohti Sahib from Satguru's jhola.

You are also implying that Gurus from 2nd onward are not Gurus.

Joginder Singh is typical pakhandi with one point agenda of collecting money. One day he says Guru Granth has been altered, next day he says It is Jugo Jug Atal.

[dalsingh101]

....if the sikh groups before singh sabha had been perfect it would have never arisen.

That is a very interesting point.

Did they fill some need of the time that wasn't being met by existing organisations?

Edited May 31, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Malwe Da Sher]

....if the sikh groups before singh sabha had been perfect it would have never arisen.

Agreed. But that doesnt make Singh Sabha prefect. Singh Sabha cannot just be thought of as a movement (independence of Gurdwara etc) it was also a set of ideals, a philosophy, a set of theories etc.

[dalsingh101]

Teja Singh talking of the uniqueness of Sikhi in the afore-posted book.

People who come with preconceived notions to study Sikhism often blunder in offering its interpretation.

Those who are conversant with the eastern thought fix upon those passages which refer to the

thoughts of immanence and conclude that Sikhism is nothing but an echo of Hinduism, while those who

are imbued with the Mohammedan or Christian thought take hold of transcendental passages and

identify Sikhism with Islam or Christianity. Others who know both will see here no system, nothing

particular, nothing but confusion.

If, however, we were to study Sikhism as a new organic growth evolved from the existing

systems of thought to meet the needs of a newly evolving humanity, we would find no difficulty in

recognizing Sikhism as a distinct system of thought.

What to think of the above?

Agreed. But that doesnt make Singh Sabha prefect. Singh Sabha cannot just be thought of as a movement (independence of Gurdwara etc) it was also a set of ideals, a philosophy, a set of theories etc.

I do agree that is an issue. As with everything else, people who adopt positions on either side of a fissure are often reluctant to concede any imperfections from their stable. Ultimately the sabha involved the actions of men, all of whom are susceptible to imperfection by nature. Maybe some brahmgianis were involved but the bulk of people weren't of this caliber.

By the way, I would also add other dimensions to your characterisation Malwe, one of the more obvious being the strong political motivation of Singh Sabhas. Also, the Sabhians (just made that word up - hee hee) weren't only engaged with exegesis for explaining things to other Sikhs, they were also speaking to outsiders, be they Arya Samaj or wasps at the same time. I think they were active in trying to engage with the environment around them much more than sanatanists, especially in terms of the powerful 'post enlightenment' worldview that the Europeans brought with them. Sanatanists seemed to deal with this by simply ignoring it, playing it down and so failing to address the pervasive challenge the new sets of ideas brings to the table. Whether we like these ideas or not.

Edited May 31, 2010 by dalsingh101

[///M]

You are also implying that Gurus from 2nd onward are not Gurus.

Joginder Singh is typical pakhandi with one point agenda of collecting money. One day he says Guru Granth has been altered, next day he says It is Jugo Jug Atal.

i am sorry if my post came as if i am implying that. i was only stating what joginder singh was saying. i dont agree with him by the way. i think he is anti-sikh force hand.

back to topic. what was the beliefs of mahants who were in control of the gurdware before singh sabha? which branch were they affiliated to?

Edited May 31, 2010 by ///M

[JustAnotherSingh]

Just found this topic off-chance (been rigorously reading the forums last two days trying to absorb as much knowledge as I can) and it's right on the money of what I have been thinking for quite a bit now. A newcomer suddenly coming into a hotbed of what's probably going to be one of the most controversial topics on this site? That's a bold strategy-let's see if it pays off for him. 

Anyways, I this wonder myself-well, at least in Britain. In general, it seems like Canada is getting more deeply entrenched into Khalistani-ism (which one may argue is Singh Sabha to its greatest extreme), UK seems to be walking back to Sanatan waters, and the U.S. is an interesting flux which I'm not entirely sure how to characterize at this point.

Anyway, I think three issues come up that we should discuss--the negatives of Singh Sabha Laher, the positives of laher, and the impacts they actually left us with in how our modern Khalsa panth is. 

I think the positives and negatives of the immediate movement have to be sort of addressed together. My belief is probably quite estranged from those of this forum, but I do think there were many positives of the Sabha movement, and by that I definitely mean to specify the Lahori one. I think my bias for this stems from the fact that I hold an idealized view of what religion should be, in that I define a lot of my principles directly from the Sikh Gurus and the ideals they professed. I think those ideas were provided within a framework that's very relevant and extremely crucial to learn and understand, yet I feel as if the ideals by themselves form a coherent philosophy with which a religion can be based on their own. Will talk more about this later. Anyway, I think Lahori Singh Sabha chose to motivate themselves in a similar manner, albeit with a sorta fundamentalist zeal. An example would be that there was a debate surrounding Baba Khem Singh Bedi's usage of the paalki on an equal level as Guru Granth Sahib in Gurdware. The Amritsari Singh Saha (led by Baba Bedi himself), argued that this was tradition and fine, considering that folks like Baba Khem Bedi had introduced many into the folds of Sikhi, and that he was also a descendant of Guru Nanak. The Lahoris said, "nope, it's against the ideals of Guru Granth Sahib as the 11th Guru." I think this type of reasoning ultimately ends up being a bit simple, but I think it's a genuine analysis that can come outside of phirangi biases. 

That said, one thing about Singh Sabha is that, like I said, a bit too overzealous. Take Kahn Singh Nabha's "Hum Hindu Nahin." I agree with the title of the book, and I think I'm satisfied with what it set out to achieve. Yet reading the thing makes your head spin as to why such a reputed academic had such a downright derogatory and orientalist understanding of Hinduism. No wonder so many in our generation are constantly spinning their heads over "RSS conspiracies" in the panth! My point is that we have to give the folks of Singh Sabha their agency. I don't agree with the idea that they were pretty much just British Christians with the name Singh, turban, and beard. I think that many of them were passionate Sikhs, and many of their ideas were informed by their independent views of what Sikh ideals are, just that they were often framed with British-psychophant, Hindu-phobic, or intellectually dishonest methods. Why'd they do this? Part of it could be that they drunk a bit too much of their own koolaid. Part of it could be that they were intellectual elites who thought it was fine to hide the truth in the heart of helping the overall Panth. In any case, they deserve to be called out on it, and I spare no sympathy when they are. 

That came out a bit unclear than I actually wanted it to...but anyways, now to come to the point: what were the effects of this? There's a ton of conjecture, Western scholarly analysis, and Sampardiya resentment that comes out with a list of offenses [many of which I think are legitimate] not limited to: creating a "neo-Sikh" framework, enforcing Khalsa identity for all Sikhs (and thus absolving Sahejdharis who practiced mixed Hinduism+Sikhi), robbing Sikhi of its Indic roots, creating more fundamentalist Sikhs, creating more violent Sikhs, creating more passive Sikhs, loss of warrior traditions, loss of Kirtan traditions, loss of socio-political traditions, loss of history, loss of interesting frameworks, the Europeanization of Sikhi, and so on. Again, I think many of these are extremely valid. One example that comes to mind is how Sikhs are so proud to flaunt their fighting in British wars and today are begging to participate in the American military apparatus with kesh, citing their "warrior heritage." That warrior heritage was on a framework of righteous war, and at the very least of which, self-determination and self-sovereignty. Serving your colonial master as a mercenary for a paycheck is a complete corruption of that ideal, and Singh Sabha played directly into that.

But if we think about it...how much did the Sabha *really* change? People lament the loss of Hindu frameworks to explain bani, which is indeed unfortunate given how necessary it is to understand it. But is Sikhi only limited to Hindu frameworks? The Zafarnamah is a wonderful example of something the Guru written in an oddly Islamic framework for metaphorical effect, as a parallel of sorts to the Shahnama of Persian literature. 19th century Udasis struggled with Guru Gobind Singh calling himself an idolbreaker in a similar fashion to how Singh Sabha struggled with the invocation of Chandi. If you see the far-out-there Sanatani/Hindutva analyses from nuts like Koenraad Elst, this reference in the Zafarnama is grounds for calling Guru Gobind Singh a coward and sell-out. For these people, too many things are appropriated to the Sabha when I don't exactly feel like they show the whole picture. Some have even accused the names "Darbar Sahib" and other Persian words found in Sikhi to be examples of Sabhite corruption. Then there's the argument to be made that instead of completely creating new methods of thought in all cases, Singh Sabha may have simply built upon certain biases present in the Panth and toned down others to where it was politically efficacious for whatever cause they were advocating. E.g., even the Hindu-phobia which was no doubt severely amplified by the Sabha has some origins in the Panth itself when you look at the testimonies of those such as Alexander Gardner who noted the Sikhs had aversions to Brahmins just as much as Muslims (probs Jatt influence). We say that Puratan Sikhs knew how to be more diverse, and that's certainly true with Sahejdhari groups or non-Khalsa Sampradiye like Nirmale. But you can just read Bhangoo's account of how the Tat Khalsa reacted to the Bandai to see that the intolerance often ascribed to Sabhite influence was something a bit more historic. Certainly notions of Victorian sexuality and moral character crept into the Panth, but you just need to look at Chaupa Singh's Rehit if you think Puratan Sikhs were all kind to women. Even the way people argue without using logic and resort to using personal attacks-look at all the mud some Puratan Sikhs sources sling onto Banda Singh Bahadur supposedly seeking second and third marriages because of his uncontrollable sexual appetite. 

In this long-winded response, I think what I'm getting at is that we tend to think "man, if only we go back to pre-Singh Sabha soch, everything will be self-corrected." That may or may not be true, but I think we need to evaluate that on its own context. Too many people immediately associate Singh Sabha with solely colonialism, and then make it a dichotomy where everything we were doing before was correct, and completely in-line with Gurmat ideals, while everything we do afterward is just a colonial invention masquerading as Sikhi with no real connection to the broader Sikh past. I don't think it's that clear-cut as we make it out to be, and to be honest, I think that's sort of acknowledged in figures like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, who were able to connect to both members of Puratan Sampradiye and also those who ascribe to "neo-Sikh" thought. I think we do a disservice to ourselves in thinking that "oh no, we have become completely Westernized chalupas and lost all sight of what our ancestors actually stood and fought for." That may very well be true for a ton of Sikhs who are sorta apathetic to the faith, but for those of us who do try to live and learn Sikhi, even with potential "neo-Sikh" bias creeping in, I don't think we're *all* that detached from that original power of mind that we once were, nor are we free of its faults. 

 

BTW: I may or may not choose to delete this depending on if/what reaction it elicits. I am interested in learning from this forum in the longterm, and do not wish to poison the well so early in my time here. Plus, over-time, my views could radically change, and I'd rather not be limited in outside perception to this opinionated post: just a while ago, I used to be one of the folks who thought DG was a product by Brahmins to undermine Sikh thought, and going back further, I used to think Rehit was unnecessary. You can guess that quite a lot has changed since then :)

 

*edited for grammar and mistyped statements

Edited October 28, 2015 by JustAnotherSingh

[SAadmin]

Whole singh sabha thing is over-rated, whole samparda is over rated and whole sanatan thing is also over-rated. Regular sikhs who are initiated into khalsa, just need to be shown deep layers of gurmat thats all in direct experience which is profoundly liberating, resonating with all and thats all there is to it, all these sticking conceptual ism / labelling/beleif/concepts would fall away automatically. Thats' the power of Jot all in one, one in all-naam its consumes everything.

Caution needs to be paid, as one can fall into same pitfall one is trying to avoid when it comes traditional thought vs reformist thought..it all comes down to direct self discovery, self awareness and self realization.

[dalsingh101]

bump