Nirmala Differences

[dalsingh101]

Entirely depends on what you take 'adharamang' to mean. Its in all classical descriptions of nirguna braham.

My limited understanding of this term is influenced by Professor Sahib Singh. From what I understand it seems to imply Paratma is not tied to any particular faith and nor is access to the same dependent on any specific religious rites/practices. If this is a correct understanding, it does bring forth the question of the relevance of any religious ਰਸਮ? How is this term understood in classic understandings?

Why is this of limited relevance? Because your Satiguru is telling you that a life that has any value is one in which the jiva has gained aatam-gyaan, so investing time and effort into pursuing how we are different and distinct is interesting but not the be all and end all.

I understand this more and more as an adult and this message seems to be amplified somewhat in the Dasam Granth but it does become difficult to reconcile the way the Khalsa (at least in it's currently practiced form) is built upon a very strong sense of distinct identity, one that unequivocally rejects the worship of other deities (as per DG) with the supremely universalist currents you mention above. At this time (at least) the Khalsa seems to place an inordinate emphasis on distinction along multiple planes such as the ideological, the political and even cultural. It's feels like an insanely intricate matter. It also feels as if the distinctiveness (niarapun) is the direct result of the human experience of negotiating the material world i.e. as true as the 'oneness' of all creation is, it still doesn't alter the fact that subcomponents of the oneness can, and frequently do behave in a beastly, violent, oppressive, subversive way to other subcomponents. Even if you didn't want to, you'd be forced to face this and distinguish yourself from sources of aggression, if you were on the receiving end.

[tSingh]

I got lost half way down with talk of multiple planes but I think I understand what you're getting at. Its not so intricate - nirgunvaad plus rajya kshatriya dharam = Khalsa panth. Two streams within it - the raj-rishi so culture, ethics and politics of rajya dharam (thats why translations of chanakya rajniti, mahabharat, along with Sri Dasam Granth, etc) or the braham-rishi, so study of brahamvidya, sattvik maryada, sadhana and pursuit of atamgyan.

As we all know karam and dharam are intricately connected, all actions are judged in accordance with dharam. Aatam-Braham, being indivisible chetan, is free of action and dharam and no desire or compulsion to act arises within it. Its standard definition as given in classical granths.

Edited June 21, 2011 by tSingh

[dalsingh101]

I got lost half way down with talk of multiple planes but I think I understand what you're getting at. Its not so intricate - nirgunvaad plus rajya kshatriya dharam = Khalsa panth. Two streams within it - the raj-rishi so culture, ethics and politics of rajya dharam (thats why translations of chanakya rajniti, mahabharat, along with Sri Dasam Granth, etc) or the braham-rishi, so study of brahamvidya, sattvik maryada, sadhana and pursuit of atamgyan.

As we all know karam and dharam are intricately connected, all actions are judged in accordance with dharam. Aatam-Braham, being indivisible chetan, is free of action and dharam and no desire or compulsion to act arises within it. Its standard definition as given in classical granths.

I guess what I struggle with is how on one hand we do have a clear emphasis on addressing all matters worldly, then on the other our bhakti is an attempt to transcend these very things.

It's like we are compelled to develop conceptions to deal with the material (i.e. create mental forms/structures to deal with things efficiently or at least try to!) then with our bhagti we are trying to destroy all mental forms to achieve 'oneness'.

I guess that is the challenge, to achieve transcendence whilst negotiating the material. Is our human existence supposed to compose of learning to slip in and out of transcendental states? How can one be in a constant transcendental state and deal with the everyday mundane when the latter seems to drag us down from the former?

And when we are talking transcendence, how much more is it to a significant cognitive/perceptual shift?

Edited June 21, 2011 by dalsingh101

[ishvar2]

One of the best discussion threads in a long time...thanks all.

[tSingh]

This is where older orders diverge from the newer ideology. Although there is nothing stopping us from being both Sant and maha-bir, and there are incredible personalities in the past who were both such as Baba Budha Ji, Baba Sahib Singh Bedi, Sant Bir Singh Naurangabad, etc, in practical terms people generally have a gunic disposition towards one rather than the other. 18th century literature acknowledges internal diversity in the Singh Panth.

[amardeep]

Good to have you back. I hope its not a short visit

[amardeep]

Good to have you back. I hope its not a short visit

[osingh1]

Sant-Sipahi concept is very important in Sikhi. Pooran Bhramgiani Satguru Gobind Singh ji gave us kirpan. As per gurmat maryada, this kakar is so

important it is kept on the body 24/7. I can say with full confidence and I think everyone will agree that no other dharam has produced sant-sapahis on the same level or in numbers than khalsa panth. I would go as far to say that one can't be a good warrior in the battfield without bhagti, the two go hand in hand.

One who has done immense abhiyas of gurmat naam and gurbani will have great contol over his/her mind. One who has their dhiyan focused on the charan of Akal Purakh. One who has controlled the five thieves. That person will be fearless on the battlefield. A person who is filled with kaam can't be a good fighter same goes with krodh, moh etc. A sinful person will have fear in the battlefield. A mind that is focused and that doesn't

wander will be a great aid when engaged in a physical fight.

One who hasn't engaged in naam abhiyas will never believe how Baba Deep Singh was able to fight without his head. Im sure my brothers agree that

when we do keertan, bani and naam abhiyas, we have no doubts that Baba ji was able to do this.

At the same time just focusing on bhagti will not make one a good fighter. One will have to train his body and train with shasters. Thats why khalsa is unique compared to other faiths. Guru Gobind Singh himself gave hukam for bhagti and shastervidiya:

4) Amrit Vaelae utthna -

Wake up Amrit Vela (before dawn).

8) Shabad da abhihas karna -

Practice Shabad Gurbani in life.

9) Sat-Saroop Satgur da dhian dharna -

Concentrate on the True Guru (God).

30) Shaster vidyaa atae ghorhae di savaari da abhiaas karna -

Practice the knowledge of weaponry and horse riding.

These 52 hukams of Guru Sahib are just great. Why are we worried about being labelled or being distinct and seperate? Just read hukams of Guru Sahib. Being distinct is not a bad thing. Just look around the world. There are many sheep following various people. However their 'Guru' their

'leaders' have no gunn's.

If being distinct means controlling five vices, engaging in meditation of naam and bani, maintaining a strong and healthy body, being efficient in the use of weapons, striving to defend the honour of the oppressed. Then so be it.

Waheguru Ji Ka khalsa! Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

[tSingh]

Like I said, there is a difference between the older orders and the newer ideology.

[shaheediyan]

"I would go as far to say that one can't be a good warrior in the battfield without bhagti, the two go hand in hand."

Don't confuse being a good person with being a good warrior. History is replete with unsavoury characters who were fearless and victorious on the battlefield. It's not the outcome that matters, but the reason. Shaheedi is what inspires future generations, it is this that is the real victory.

Being heavily involved in martial arts, I can confidently say that the most fearsome, brave and skilled Masters I have met.... are from Bhagats...!

[amardeep]

Tsingh:

Do the nirmalas have their own rehit documents like the standard 'khalsa' rehitnamas such as the ones attributed to Bhai Daya singh, bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Desa Singh etc ?

Fenech talks about an unpublished manuscript he found in a library acrhive in panjab from the 18th century which narrates a discussion between Guru Gobind Singh and Bhai Nand Lal on the nature of the Nirmala Panth. Do you have any of these yourselves which has not been rendered by pyara singh padam and kahn singh nabha etc

[dalsingh101]

Like I said, there is a difference between the older orders and the newer ideology.

Give us an outline of these differences as you perceive them. Are you talking pre and post Singh Sabha or something else?

[tSingh]

Pre. The differences will constitute a rather lengthy new book I'm half way through writing...so its a bit tricky to summarise! Its a holistic thing too. Some of the differences are subtle and others are quite striking in the sense that they are an affront to some of the well established Singh Sabha revisions of Sikh doctrine.

Rehit, interesting. I've no idea what Fenech's talking about there. Could you find the reference for me? I've read a bit of his stuff and it seemed well researched, if more of that academic thing of ever-egging a topic in the name of groundbreaking academia. What have I got that hasn't been published? Sudharam Marg granth which has a section on Nirmale, its part rehit part description of their psyche and practices. It acknowledges both deredar and virakt Nirmale, but mainly describes the practices of the latter. I guess the point is that for social, military and political activity to be fruitful it needs common, agreed upon codes of conduct...which is not to say that its a social and ethical free for all for non-shastardhari Singhs. However, Nirmale are critical of any tendency to consider upkeep of rehit alone being a means to achieve kaivalya moksh, which you get hints of occasionally in some post-Singh Sabha ideologies. That would be a distortion of Gurmat.

[amardeep]

Tsingh: I will scan the pages for you where he talks about these unpublished manuscripts. He also mentions another 18th century manuscript in a library archive in patiala with a discussion on the Bhagavad Gita between Guru Gobind Singh and Bhai Nand Lal Goya. Both are mentioned in his Darbaar of the Sikh Gurus. He is currently writing a book on the zafarnama

[dalsingh101]

Pre. The differences will constitute a rather lengthy new book I'm half way through writing...so its a bit tricky to summarise! Its a holistic thing too. Some of the differences are subtle and others are quite striking in the sense that they are an affront to some of the well established Singh Sabha revisions of Sikh doctrine.

I think some caution in the choice of language used on the matter is warranted. For example, more neutral terms such as Singh Sabha 'interpretations' as opposed to 'revisions', otherwise your work is in danger of squarely falling into a particular camp in the acrimonious/antagonistic Santan versus Singh Sabha 'debate'. Unless of course, you consciously desire or don't mind this.

Edited June 23, 2011 by dalsingh101

[tSingh]

A 'revision' is the act of looking back over things and altering them. We wouldn't be talking about the Singh Sabha if there were not real and lasting changes made to what existed before! The language is fine. And yes, I'm not at all bothered about what this gets labeled as. Its a consistent tradition written large in black ink on discoloured manuscript paper and in the practices of mahapurush from the last few centuries and well before the late 19th Century.

[dalsingh101]

A 'revision' is the act of looking back over things and altering them. We wouldn't be talking about the Singh Sabha if there were not real and lasting changes made to what existed before! The language is fine. And yes, I'm not at all bothered about what this gets labeled as. Its a consistent tradition written large in black ink on discoloured manuscript paper and in the practices of mahapurush from the last few centuries and well before the late 19th Century.

Okay, I understand what you are saying and I'm not a blind uncritical fan of SS, but that being said do you ever think that maybe natural entrophy may have caused some/any deviation from even earlier Sikh practices by the time of the period which preceded the emergence of the SS lehar (this isn't to suggest that SS resolved these, if they did take place btw)?

Also how do you think Sikhs should have dealt with the post annexation challenge thrown in their midst by Europeans, in the form of post enlightenment thought? To my mind much of what the SS did in theological terms sprang from this. Their other moves seem to have been driven by the new political scene that arose in the wake of the Anglo invasion.

Edited June 23, 2011 by dalsingh101

[osingh1]

'However, Nirmale are critical of any tendency to consider upkeep of rehit alone being a means to achieve kaivalya moksh, which you get hints of occasionally in some post-Singh Sabha ideologies. That would be a distortion of Gurmat.'

T Singh jeeo, I agree by just keeping rehit one can't achieve their spiritual targets. However I don't know of any jathebandia or samprdai that subscribes to this thought. If you read through SGPC maryada it gives guidance on spiritual life ie waking up at amritvela, abhiyaas of naam and bani etc and guidance on rehit for individual and gurdwara.

I could also argue that nirmale believe they can achieve mukhti, udhaar etc without keeping rehit such as kakars. Wouldn't this be a distortion of Gurmat?

Literature of Akj,Sgpc, Missionary etc all stress on the importance of bhagti and rehit. If anything, Nihang's focus more on outer rehit. Yet they were in oppposition to singh sabha.

For me, SGPC maryada is great document which has been an asset for the panth. It would be interesting to know which parts nirmale agree with to form sort of basis. I think this maryada, the whole panth can follow as a bare minimum. Only major issue seems to be regarding meat. Also no other rehat maryada document can claim to have diversity of input that SGPC maryada has. This maryada had input from:

Nihang - Akal Kaur Singh

Nirmale - Pandit Kartar Singh of Dakha, Sant Man Singh of Nirmala sect

Scholars - Bhai Vir Singh, Prof. Ganga Singh,

Akj and taksal - bhai sahib Randhir Singh, I think Sant Gurbachan Singh attended a meeting but left not too sure on this.

Full list is on sgpc.net.

Lets see which points we can agree on as panth.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa! Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Edited June 23, 2011 by osingh1

[tSingh]

dalsingh101

Of course, and there is a notional sympathy for both the early Namdharis and the Singh Sabha in Nirmala literature. The fallout of the Akali lehar is generally criticised. Obstinacy, distortions and fanaticism of the 'neo Sikh' are criticised. Yet there is also criticism of some Udasis, particularly for changing their appearance.

We're going off topic

Edited June 23, 2011 by tSingh

[dalsingh101]

tsingh

I'm just a little bit vary of this tendency to jump into particular 'camps' by apnay. Then we get the inevitable conflicts between them which descends into a quagmire of sorts. It's weariness of this that motivated my earlier statement about language use.

That being said, I can see obvious merit in someone unapologetically positing a perceived longstanding Nirmale perspective on Sikhi, especially to help us understand pre and post colonial thinking better (or at least aspects of this). But today, in the final analysis, it's hard not to feel that an urgent and immediate concern for all Sikhs needs to be to minimising the seemingly intrinsic tendency to turn on each other at the drop of a hat.

I can't help but wonder if the nature of Sikh studies for the foreseeable future will mostly consist of rejections of SS?

Also, if you can forgive me for being so blunt, how do you imagine your current project will materially differ from (or surpass) Oberoi's notions in his famous 'construction of religious boundaries' thesis?

Sorry for the digression. Feel free to ignore my post should you deem it too excessive of a tangent.

Edited June 23, 2011 by dalsingh101

[tSingh]

Interesting points dalsingh. I think you are right about the foreseeable future of Sikh studies. Oberoi sets the blue-print as far as I can see, although I haven't read it in ages, it does have inaccuracies in there.

Personally I have no interest in academia per se. That objective critical distance from the subject matter and the study of hermeneutics or use of structuralist/post-structuralist methodologies creates a gulf I'm not willing to create. What an academic sees as an interesting possibility or a relevant insight seems to be determined by what is relevant to that methodology, which itself is a product of that culture.

The reason for learning and sharing this knowledge is for right belief, so that makes it a different thing - didactic writing.

[dalsingh101]

It's interesting how some of us Sikhs in the west read academic work to get insights into the faith and history. I wonder if there is any link between this and intrinsically seeking didactic information? I think sometimes Sikhs do fall into reading outsider accounts of Sikhs/Sikhi for reasons loosely based around faith and subsequently, very subtly (even unwittingly) find themselves in another domain altogether. This has spawned a whole area of 'Sikh studies'.

I guess a lot of apnay are seeking indepth treaties on Sikhi and end up with western academic works due to a mixture of language barriers (i.e. they couldn't access any existing indigenous literature or scripture due to a linguistic inabilities), or some form of dissatisfaction with most of what already exists in English by our people? Who am I kidding! The vast majority of apnay aren't really into reading at all.

It all goes back to deep khoj of Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam bani in the end. Seeing as most members of any faith don't go through the rigors of learning the language of older religious texts and exploring them independently to any depth (how many Pakistani Muslims really understand the original Arabic koran?), they will rely on translations/interpretations which themselves are never really independent of the contextual situations in which they arise be they Nirmale or SS or any other strand (sorry if I seem provocative by this comment).

I think SS has shown us that trying to create an overarching interpretation that umbrellaed all the variation in the panth may ultimately be a futile exercise (in terms of the centralising of faith at least) because all this seems to create in the end - is yet another substream amongst many. That's what it looks like right now.

Anyway, enough of me thinking out loud. Sorry folks!

Edited June 23, 2011 by dalsingh101

[amardeep]

The reason I read western academic books on Sikhism is mainly due to the methodology used in these books. They are much more adequate and analytical than the few books i've read by Ganda Singh and Piara Singh Padam.

[Mithar]

The reason I read western academic books on Sikhism is mainly due to the methodology used in these books. They are much more adequate and analytical than the few books i've read by Ganda Singh and Piara Singh Padam.

So you like the orientalist methods of interpreting Sikh history? Trilochan Singh pretty much destroyed much of the orientalist Mcloadian school in his book.

http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Ernest_Trumpp.pdf

Mcloedian books may be good for non Sikhs who want to find out about Sikh history from the point of view of the orientalist mindset. But for a Sikh to say they prefer the orientalist Mcloedian books is really disheartening bro.

[amardeep]

I look at their methodology and arguments, I dont just swallow their conclusions if they are not reasonable.. thats sounds logical does'nt it?