Gabbar Posted September 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Mehtab, this exactly what I am on about. Jarnail Singh was doing seva of sikhi just as any other and every other sikh in the world is doing. If he didnt want to be called a Sant then why are you calling him a Sant. What about countless other sikhs who are doing seva? You could even say everyone is Sant... but we dont. Cuz we are trying to follow the footsteps of the Guru's Remember, concntrate on the Guru's and the Guru's teachings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Gabbar ji What is the meaning of Sant and what is their role? They are seekers of ultimate truth, they have in principle dedicated themselves to attaining and imparting brahm vidya. They have existed in every age and in every part of the world. They exist now in Sikhi also. It all comes down to our understanding of the very structure of Sikhi. Is Sikhi about absolute equality akin to the communist ideology or is it a meritocracy, where those who have the skills and knowledge will automatically accord more merit? In practice Sikhi is a meritocracy, whether your AKJ or Udasi. Both have pictures of their beloved Sadhus on their walls (I saw the sale of framed pictures of Bhai Randhir Singh at an AKJ smagam in Southall three years ago or so). Why are they on the wall? Because people look to them for guidance and inspiration. The assumption is that that individual has had the EXPERIENCE and can give guidance on how to attain that experience. This is akin to a gurdev. AKJ have them (writings such as the 'Autobiography'), Taksal have them, everyone...someone who is accorded merit who deserves more attention than others who haven't accorded merit. So, to believe that there shouldn't be Sants is really idiocy, in that you are; a) discounting that Gurbani delivers what it states (that individual's can become jivanmukt and brahmgyani) discouting that Sikhi is a meritocracy which is undoubtable c) Spiritual suicide and the rejection of guru updesh in believing that there is no benefit in listening to others more learned or experienced NOW your separate issue of whether all those who are given the title of Sant are actually what they claim to be, is a reasonable debate that has also existed for time immemorial. The name might change, but the issue is the same. How many people who'd describe themselves as 'Sikhs' including the very people on this forum (with or without amrit and kesh) are actually living the spiritual values 24-7, myself included? Should we do away with the term Sikh as a consequence? As for your statement that the Guru was the lowest of the low; of course on one level, he was the epitomy of garib. Yet you have used this as statement about the Guru's physical status. Sant is a title. If the Guru also wish to reject such titles how can you explain Guru ji referring to himself as Dasam Patshah, or having a darbar, or giving hukamnamas? You have created a contradiction here. This is something you must reconcile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbar Posted September 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 T Singh, What I am trying to say is that why is someone called a Sant and others not? I have not created a contridiction, you have made this contridiction yourself. I'm guessing your probably upset because I belive that Jarnail was not a Sant... i bet many people on here would be. But i'm simply stating what I belive is the truth. How is someone is called a Sant any more holy than the person who gives up his/her time to go and feed the homeless who to help out at the old peoples home? Sikhi is about action as well as meditation and remembering good. No point staying at home all day and doing your paatth if your not going to go out there to help people is there? To our point about pictures and so on... fair enough, if they give you inspiration. But then don't go around saying you cannot have pictures of Footy players, Maradona, etc or singers, Christina Aguilera on your wall because to some people, they may also be their inspiration. There is the danger of 'Sants' being more recognised and talked about than the Guru's therefore your main focal point should the Guru's and their teachings for humanity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Gabbar ji, No, you didn't understand my point, but you have clarified my presumption, that you do believe in brahmgyan, and you do believe there are Sants in existence. The contradiction is that on the one hand you stated that REAL spiritual people would refuse such a title as Sant. However the ACTUAL spiritual person you look to (Guru) lived and acted as a king. That is a contradiction. I wouldn't dare tell anyone what and what not to put on their walls! And my views on Jarnail Singh are more complex. Your assumption that Sants do not do seva is also historically unfounded. Sewapanthi samprda existed for that purpose, other Sant samprday were duty bound to do seva of others. Besides, what greater seva can there be than directing people to brahmgyan? This is a product of dyaa (compassion) which is not suprisingly a spiritual virtue. On the issue of giving food out to the homeless; this is the eternal dilemna as it is something I spent time doing myself. Do you give the homeless person a pound/dollar and prolonge his or her condition, or do you not give it in the hope that that might eventually culminate in waking up to the true situation they are in and seek help through organised support groups? A recent statement by a key player in Big Issue stated that she wouldn't nowadays give the money directly to the homeless person but instead give it to a charity supporting the homeless and rehabilitiation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingOne Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Gabbar veer ji, Guru Granth Sahib ji (271) talks about Saadh/Sant i.e. Sukhmani Sahib 7th Ashtapadi. After acquiring that kind of qualities, one becomes Sant. And No, u need not contact any gurudwara to let them anything know. Regards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbar Posted October 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 tsingh, I wouldnt really say the Guru is a Sant, the Guru's were higher than that. Thefore, it is really not a contridiction. And, i'm sure the Guru's in no way proclaimed to be the King because they were humble. Also I never said Sants dont do seva (refering to 'Your assumption that Sants do not do seva is also historically unfounded.') THinkingone....The Guru Jee talks about Sants all throughout the Guru Granth Sahib. We havent got the judgment to say someone is a Sant. So dont call anyone a Sant. There are Sants out there, but how do we know who what they have done or are doing... what they are thinking... what their intentions are.... only One Supreme Being knows that... and that is Raab. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkingOne Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Gabbar Singh ji, Seems like you were playing game - Look, I know this thing, now let me see, how much others know. Do I only, find this kiddish? Regards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbar Posted October 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Thinkingone, What are u on about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Gabbar, If when Guruji talks of Sant he is referring to himself, can you give a logical explanation of why he talks about Sants in plural terms? Thinkingone, you are correct! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbar Posted October 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 It wasn't a game... I was making a point... note the difference. (Was Guru Nanak Dev Jee playing a game when he started throwing water in the opposite direction of the sun?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Gabbar ji Guru Nanak had a valid point. Yours is slightly incoherent and lacking logic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabbar Posted October 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 tsingh jee, Not really... I feel that I have a valid point which needs to be addressed to open up peoples eyes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 So would you agree that your point is that people should have the ability to distinguish between a real sadhu and a fake? Well in that case I agree. Often people project onto individuals selfish desires, they are great such and suchs. It generally serves their self-esteem no end. The individual in question then has to live upto those ideals, and may then fail. Your point about humility is illogical and your point about getting rid of the term is futile. Instead you should recognise that people will always look to others more learned and that no matter what they are called (bhai, sant, gyani, guru), some will be able to explain and guide something they themselves know, some will simply parrot, some even still will be imperfected and prone to serious flaws. The danger is is that if people were to continue to ignore traditional lineages, there is no longer at least SOME guarentee that the knowledge that individual possesses is in line with the Guru's own maryada, rather than someone who BELIEVES they know better! 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.