Jump to content

Akali Nihang Guru Gobind Singh -really?


Niranjana
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gur Fateh!

We have seen numerous references to Guru Gobind Singh as "Akali Nihang" Guru Gobind Singh.

The associated websites do make clear the varying stages between Khalsa Singh, Nihang Singhs and Akali Nihang Singhs (also see posts by Narsingha on how to become a Nihang).

However, I must ask that, surely Guru Gobind Singh is above all such distinctions/ranks? Just a personal opinion/question, perhaps the forum or Narsingha and others who support the notion could help explain?

SAT SRI AKAAALL!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BikramjitSingh

Not only Guru Gobind Singh but Guru Nanak is also referred to as Akali Guru Nanak Dev. yet, nowhere on the website is any reason given for the referring to Both Gurus as such. If the intent is to confuse then the website achieves its aim. Apparently Narsingha was asked to explain the reason for referring to the Gurus as such and his answer was the usual wait for a another website. Appears that the sarbloh site needs another website just to explain it !!. Anyway I suppose it keeps Narsingha off the streets and out of mischief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akaali is one or at one point in time was one of the highest titles one could achieve as a gursikh nihang sipahai. Usualy Akaalis where the bravest fighters and where just plain out crazy as most prattan summay nihang singhs where and proved themselves to be greater then death (ie they'd go charging towards death and just didn't give a flying @#$@)

Akaali the arth is beyond death or timeless. Nihang singhs where awarded this title because in battle they would prove to not give a mouses droppings as to death and i guess in a way this in some sense is the singh conquering death.

Guru Sahib from Guru Nanak Dev Sahib Ji to Sri Guru Gobind singh Sahib Ji where all beyond death. And because they where living embodiments of Akaal, they themselves naturally where Akaali's.

If that didn't make any sense, then any respected title we can give a human we can give that times 10 (haha, watch the pun) to our Guru Sahib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Snigga Sahib!

Gur Fateh!

Thanks for your comments. It is not so much that I don't understand the use of the term Akali (both in the traditional Nihang sense and the misappropriate subsequent manner), however it is the use of the title for Guru Ji.

One aspires to be an Akali, you have detailed a number of ways that this used to be/can be done in the Dal -fine, but this would naturally mean that as soon as one Khalsa Singh has progressed into becoming a Nihang Singh and then into an Akali Nihang Singh...he/she is now equal to "Akali Nihang" Guru Gobing Singh??? I find this hard to stomach personally, the Gurus were significantly higher than all of the Sikhs and will remain so...

..please correct me where I may be mistaken...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

'The Guru fired his cannon from the top of the fort. Limbs [of the besieging soldiers] were mish-mashed and twisted. A great battle ensued. Guru [Gobind Singh] calls himself a Nihang, twisting hands and small limbs. Such a cannon is great that fires from Anandpur. [Guru Gobind Singh] worships this cannon. The master himself had it cast. The first cannon was cast small. It strikes where it is desired. He fires the cannon and then tells them his name. This is the great deed of Nihangs. He does not let the [enemy] warriors group.'

('Gurbilas Dasmi', Koer Singh, 1751, Pa. 188)

http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/sikh_akali8.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Sanatan Sikh scriptures, Muslim holy men such as Baba Sheikh Farid, Bhagat Kabir and Bhagat Sheikh Bikhan, Hindus such as Jaidev, Ramanand, Parmanand, Naamdev, etc, and the Sikh Gurus, (altogether ranging in scale of time from 12th Century to the 17th Century), all sit at one equal level in presence of one common Sanatan Nirankar God of all.

How can you say the Guru's are equal to the other Bhagats mentioned. Isn't some of their banis excluded from the Guru Granth Sahib Ji because it does not agree with the intrinsic beliefs of Sikhi? Some of them held derogatory ideas of women, and their inferiority in comparison to men, how does this make them equal to the greatness of our Guru's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, Gurpreet Kaur, the quote is from GURBILAS DASMI...an historical TEXT...and the quote happens to be on www.sarbloh.info.

If you consider the Bhagats not on par, then dont bow down to their words and create a separate Granth with only the Guru's words (as did a certain Teja Singh Bhasauria in the mid 1900s). In fact, Teja Singh Bhasauria used YOUR EXACT reason to exclude the Bhagat baani from Adi Guru Durbar.

Alternatively, take it up with Guru Maharaj and ask why their words are considered GURBANI...afterall we cant have bhagats who are hypocrits can we?

Post Edited. Refrain from using personal comments and keep your posts relevant to the original topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

If Akaali was the title awarded to Nihang Singh's for their achievements and a nihang singh can be called Akali Nihang, and you are also calling the Guru, Akali Nihang. Then there wouldnt be any difference between the Guru and the Nihang. Also, why would the Guru prefer himself to be called Akali when he himself gave those titles out to Nihangs?

For those of you dont know, Gurbilas Dasm is a historical text, and isnt included in the Dasam Granth or SGGS.

PS : please dont diss back on me, just tryin to clear my doubts here :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Narsingha,

Can I ask a question and may I hope that you will answer this question with a simple yes or no. One of the Bhajis on another thread has said that every Sikh text such as Gurbilas, Rehatnamas and others should be compared against the teachings of Gurbani. It seems that you did not agree to this. In fact you criticsied him because you said that he was using only things which backed up his views and rejecting others. Can i ask whether you believe that Gurbilas Patishah 10 is correct in every detail. Should we be comparing it with Gurbani ?. The reason I ask is that there are a few things in Gurbilas which are against Gurbani.

Naari su rayat jimi pachaano aou lachmi ki reeteh jaano Chaar mittar eh kis ke nahi je hoavai apkararman tahi Page 260

Recognise women, the people and land and also the ways of wealth. These four are friends of none, If one considers them as such does he is worthy of disgrace.

Do you agree with this comment ? Whether the Bhagats were spiritually at the same level as the Gurus is open to discussion. Personally I believe that they reached a certain level and the Gurus went beyond that level. That's why some of the Bhagats writings which were rejected by Guru Arjan Devji contains ideas and views which are not consistant with Gurbani.

Also, let's take a simple analogy. Say you go to pay your respects to a King and he is on his throne when you enter his court. His son is on his lap. Will you request him to tell his son to get off his lap because you wish to bow to him? Or will you accept the fact that his son is also worthy of respect and honour because the King deems it fit. Will it not offend the King if you tell him to get rid of his son?

In the same way, the Bhagats are like Vaheguru's children, and the Guru's have taken them into their fold, and have honoured some of their views. This doesn't mean all of those views are consistent with Sikhi and it also doesn't mean we should not respect and honour the Bhagats our Guru's saw fit to be honoured. This is how I see it.

Gurfateh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

I didn't know there were any degrees of Oneness with the Divine. When you are One with Vahiguru can there be more degrees of Oneness?

Difference between Bhagats and our Gurus: our Gurus were the explicit manifestation of Akal Purakh.

Differences of opinion are natural as they depend on perspectives! As jivas we automatically have different perspectives on everything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be aware of this that most of us are on learning path not on teaching path. You should make things clear for us by providing links to your articles if you don't feel like cutting & pasting the whole article here on discussion forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

'The Guru fired his cannon from the top of the fort. Limbs [of the besieging soldiers] were mish-mashed and twisted. A great battle ensued. Guru [Gobind Singh] calls himself a Nihang, twisting hands and small limbs. Such a cannon is great that fires from Anandpur. [Guru Gobind Singh] worships this cannon. The master himself had it cast. The first cannon was cast small. It strikes where it is desired. He fires the cannon and then tells them his name. This is the great deed of Nihangs. He does not let the [enemy] warriors group.'

('Gurbilas Dasmi', Koer Singh, 1751, Pa. 188)

http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/sikh_akali8.html

Bhai Narsingha Sahib,

Thanks for the reference, I will need to look into the original language text myself before making a conclusion, in the meanwhile working the above given translation, yes it does indicate "Guru [Gobind Singh] calls himself a Nihang" and that "[Guru Gobind Singh] worships this cannon", however notwithstanding the translation biases that naturally occur in all translations, are we really to take this as sufficient evidence for the titles cited for Guru Ji as an Akali Nihang and moreover are these phrases to be taken literally as you have indicated or are they more indicative of the event being described and used by Koer Singh as poetic descriptons?

Again this is just a thought and as indicated, I will personally need to read the entire piece in context in the original language before making any conclusion, however please do give some feedback on the foregoing thought.

Much appreciated,

Niranjana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within Nihang Singhs, as within the Udhasi, Nirmala and Seva Panthi sampardahs, there is a RICH oral tradition that passes down from generation to generation. Even other Taksals (schools), some possess such ongoing traditions.

Indeed, before Bhai Rattan Singh Bhangu Shaheed, most of the Nihang history within Pracheen Panth Prakash was transmitted in oral fashion (as I am sure u are aware). Writers in the past were rare, so much of the knowledge had to be committed to memory and passed down that way. For those doubting the quality of this form of teaching and wish to claim that "chinese whispers" can warp the knowledge, it has to be noted that gurmat sangeet, dhadhi vaaran, jakarey, cooking, ayurveda, horseriding, shastar vidiya are still all taught in this manner.

Jungi Bolas (battle chants) are one example of a tradition that is still passed down orally and is rarely written down. This is why, outside of Nihang Dals, Jungi Bolas and original jakaras of the Khalsa are rarely heard. However, today, many have stolen and twisted this jakaras to suit their needs....

Committing to memory and ensuring a student remembers the knowldge (be they for katha, ayurveda, etc) accurately was one of the reasons why amongst these traditional sampardah a great deal of commitment was required....

As such, much of the traditions, such as employing "Akali" and "Akali Nihang" to refer to the Gurus stem from oral tradition, but can be varified by puratan texts, such as the example given above.

The problem today is that people belive that something isnt true unless its on paper (even if the author themselves could be a complete jerk). Oral tradition has faded where it once existed, and people arent as true to the maryada as they once were.

This is one reason these fading traditions, heritage, knowledge and wisdom need to be captured by our generation before they become the stuff of myth and legend (...resulting in future generations doubting the very existance of such facts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem today is that people belive that something isnt true unless its on paper (even if the author themselves could be a complete jerk). Oral tradition has faded where it once existed, and people arent as true to the maryada as they once were.

This is one reason these fading traditions, heritage, knowledge and wisdom need to be captured by our generation before they become the stuff of myth and legend (...resulting in future generations doubting the very existance of such facts).

Narsingha so you mean that even if something is written down, then it doesnt neccesarily mean that it didnt exist?

Beacuse it may have done but someone just didnt write it down, and we shouldnt just dismiss things because they are not documented?

I see

Narsingha I think that this would be a good point, to point out some failures in you personally using this argument.

From a number of other threads i have read in which you have contributed, you completely dismiss any ideas that 'something' may have existed at the times of the guru's due to 'lack or written evidence'.

So using your own argument one could argue that in fact, the item of debate, was actually passed down in an oral fashion and not in written form, which is what you have argued above.

I personally also believe in oral forms of parchar, and it often frustrates me when people get their kashere in a twist over written evidence, once on a discussion i read somewhere recently asked for written evidence from within the last 5 years! lol, i was thinking i could write a bok and provide evidence for that person myself!

Anyway back to my point, I find it difficult to comprehend how narsingha can justify oral traditions in one discussion and dismiss them completely in another. Yes distortion of the truth can occur in oral traidtion, but that is another topic, just dismmising a notion straight out because it relies on oral evidence is just stupidity.

Could you please state your stance on oral traditions, and whether or not they can be considered as portals of truth.

Also intresting that you say the authors could be jerks, hence that which they discuss could be fanciful and simply fabricated or adjusted to fit with their own beliefs.

So the next question to arise is that, if this is so, then again why do you (not solely you but others also) rely so strongly on written documentation from authors who could be 'jerks'? Please note i use the terminology 'could be'. Since the authors could be jerks, would it not make it more sense to give what they say a slightly less amount of credability than which we do at the moment?

(Note to mods; i understand that you may think that this is taking the discussion off-topic, if that is the case, please could you copy this entire message with narsingha's prev msg and start a new topic entitled something like 'Oral traditions'... thank you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manochal, try not to get personal...it seems this is a technique people start employing when they realise they cannot persue a dicussion with facts.

For the sake of future benefit, could you provide the times, dates and location where Baba Nihal Singh said what you claim. Also, could you list the topics he covered and state his views (which you "apparently" heard). Also, please provide an email address so I can get in touch with you...mine is on my profile.

I can attempt to have this confirmed when I, or others who I know do meet him in person and can get Baba Nihal Singh's opinions regarding this event on tape.

This is probably the best way to put an end to these rumours....going to the source directly.

Thanks..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...