Verbal Artistry Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 What is the difference between Nirmala Sikhs and "Mainstream Sikhs" Is there any difference when it comes to rehat? Also why are they looked down upon by some of the "mainstream sikhs" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Nirmal Samprdaye was started by 10th Guru. I dont think there is a different rehat for nirmalas. My own personal beleif, is that Nirmalas Samprdaye have wavered from the path shown to them by 10 Gurus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SURYADEV Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 I never thought that mainstream sikhs look down upon Nirmalas. Au contraire, they are held in high regard, are they not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 I think their rehit in attaing knowlegde is greater than for ordinary sikhs.. Likewise, the responsibility for Nihangs is greater in achieving fighting skills 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 the responsibility for Nihangs is greater in achieving fighting skills In what context? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zulu Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 What is the difference between Nirmala Sikhs and "Mainstream Sikhs" Is there any difference when it comes to rehat? Also why are they looked down upon by some of the "mainstream sikhs" First I think its key to define the mainstream sikhs ie who/what groups etc come under this banner.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Artistry Posted January 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well what i meant by mainstream was alot of Sikhs i have come across feel why would Guru Gobind Singh send 5 singhs to learn Sanskriti. Like chatanga said i think alot of sikhs believe they have errrm i guess gone astray somewhat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SURYADEV Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well what i meant by mainstream was alot of Sikhs i have come across feel why would Guru Gobind Singh send 5 singhs to learn Sanskriti. Like chatanga said i think alot of sikhs believe they have errrm i guess gone astray somewhat. These sikhs you talk about seem to think that Guru Gobind SIngh was an illteratte pendu just like they are. Why would NOT 5 sikhs go to learn Sankskrit and vedic shaastras.?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 lol @ These sikhs you talk about seem to think that Guru Gobind SIngh was an illteratte pendu just like they are. Especially the way you misspelled illiterate. I'm just messing with you Suryadev! Don't take it personal. But yes, we do have a lot of ignorant pendu types in the panth. Some people think they make up the bulk of the community. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) The problem with the 4 samprdayas theory is that it can't be backed up by historical evidence. Neither the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, Bansavalinama, Mahima Prakash or any other early historical granths mention anything about a concept of 4 orders. Edited January 25, 2011 by amardeep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) The problem with the 4 samprdayas theory is that it can't be backed up by historical evidence. Neither the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, Bansavalinama, Mahima Prakash or any other early historical granths mention anything about a concept of 4 orders. I don't think there was ever any conscious plan for different sampadaya originally. The whole Khalsa thing seems to include a strong effort to 'centralise' disparate strands of Sikhs and isolate and exclude heretic strands. But human nature being what it is, like everything else people interpreted things differently and different human interests kick in, hence so many differing sampardayas, rehats etc. etc. We had another (recent) attempt to 'centralise' the panth stimulated by European ideas/ideals with the Singh Sabha thing. We all know this has become a very emotive issue for many people today. I can't help but think that the natural dystrophy inherent in all social structures, (no matter how strong they start out or become at some point) means that we need to periodically 'recentralise' simply in order to knock ourselves back into shape. And yes, there is another way of looking at it, in terms of natural diversity and the development of separate strands from a central source. Sometimes, things get preserved in this manner through some strands that get lost in others, musical traditions and more traditional understandings can be named as examples of this. Point is, diversity is good (in my opinion) and humans don't sit well with highly rigid, constricting systems (unless they are Germans), but where is that fine line between accepting diversity and accepting the outright (as possibly irrevocable) fragmentation of the 'thing' in question? And does this even make any sense to anyone? Edited January 25, 2011 by dalsingh101 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 The problem with the 4 samprdayas theory is that it can't be backed up by historical evidence. Neither the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, Bansavalinama, Mahima Prakash or any other early historical granths mention anything about a concept of 4 orders. Of course there is.. according to the Sarbloh site so and so Baba said blah blah blah. How dare you not take such evidence as true! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 The problem with the 4 samprdayas theory is that it can't be backed up by historical evidence. Neither the Chaupa Singh rehitnama, Bansavalinama, Mahima Prakash or any other early historical granths mention anything about a concept of 4 orders. they might not mention them as formal orders, but i havent read them so i cant say, but in Suraj Prakash Granth, there is the passage of Sahib Guru Nanak giving Baba Sri Chand the thapiya of continuing the Udasi method of preaching. Again the giving of Gurditta by 6th Guru is in there as well. I think that the 4 orders were not really thought of as different from one another, just another facet of Sikh panth, with no definitive clarity, i think that a nirmala could easily become a nihang or udasi or sewapanthi and vice-versa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SURYADEV Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think that the 4 orders were not really thought of as different from one another, just another facet of Sikh panth, with no definitive clarity, i think that a nirmala could easily become a nihang or udasi or sewapanthi and vice-versa. I've often heard of mixed samparda members such as a Nirmala-Nihang etc. I recall reading many years ago that Baba Deep Singh Ji was a such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.