Sikh Sanatan Women Event this Thursday 17th Feb

[Guest]

Where has anyone claimed that the Bhai Banno wali Bir is the original copy?

[sidak]

If the Bhanno Bir is not the original, then there is no basis from which to say that Mirabhai's works are part of Gurbani.

Both Bhanno Bir and by implication, Mirabhai, theories have been debunked, yet this talk will use Mirabhai as an example of women whose works have been included in the Guru Granth Sahib ?! Amazing.

I'd be interested to know when and where Niddar, or 'Team Niddar' learnt scriptural analysis techniques to come to the conclusion that Mirabhai's works are part of Gurbani.

[Guest]

guys..especially british sangat.. i think you guys should wait and see what lecture/contents will be presented in this seminar before even debating....

ehmiiiiiiiii bas tusi....take a chill pillllllll... yes after the seminar, it makes sense to debate but before it's like shooting with arrow blindfoldly.... hope you guys know where i m coming from...

[Niranjana]

Nihang Niddar Singh’s academic qualifications or lack of, is not the concern here and does not detract from the ‘intended’ academic nature of these talks, however as one can see from the various posts on this site and the ‘selective’ approach of Sikhs, whether they describe themselves as Sanatan or not, when it comes to answering certain questions is what is the real concern.

Over the past few years, the relative successes of the Sanatan Sikhs in the UK and abroad is not too different from the success of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha 100 years ago, the former have finally awoken up to the reality of technological advances and marketing power, something that the latter exploited well under the British Raj.

What both have really used for their benefit beyond the latest marketing tools boils down to two items, ‘asymmetry of information/knowledge’ and ‘the cult of personality’. Whilst the questions raised by the Sanatan Sikhs on their websites are worthy of answering, the simple lack of education of their own roots amongst the modern day Sikh masses is what has led to so many easily believing all that comes from the Sanatan Groups as gospel without adequate analysis or thought, of course few will admit to this.

This is in no way different to the success of Gyani Ditt Singh and other ‘personalities’ of the Singh Sabha elite 100 years ago, who also used the latest marketing methods (print press etc) and toured across the country, cities and villages to present what they considered to be ‘academic’ arguments to support their ‘grand revival’.

Naturally, those attending these discussions were young and impressionable, much like those at the Sanatan Sikh lectures and easily won over by the supposedly academic, rationale and logic of the arguments proposed by the Tat Khalsa –which again boils down to the same two things, ‘asymmetry of information’ (and resulting ‘moral hazards’ as economists would term the consequences) and the cult of personality.

It is of course to be expected that all will have their bias in any matter, almost all propositions are built around evidence collected to support the primary notion and whilst ‘academics’ may argue for the presentation of a balanced view point, in terms of Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha and Sanatan Sikh literature to date, this item is paid only lip service or entirely ignored. Any challenges to the fundamentals of either Group are met with accusations of being ‘manmukh’, ‘faithless’, too westernised, or being ignorant of supposedly ‘oral traditions’ which may well fly in the face of documented tradition and evidence or lately simply silence and some anal comments concerning the behaviour of their so called ‘sampradha’ when it comes to answering challenges.

Academic honesty is frankly missing in all presentations, be they Sanatan, Damdami Taksal, AKJ, SGPC...or Nanaksar, Ramgarhias, Jats or whatever. In simplistic terms, the Tat Khalsa have built their rhetoric around ‘constructed’ notions using the Guru Period up to 1708 and then 1880s onwards as their basis, leaving a large gap of some 172 years as the ‘dark era’ of Sikhism –a notion not too dissimilar to that used by the Church of England when constructing their notions and ideals and basis for existence.

However the fact is, that the so called Sampradhas of the Sanatan Sikh world have only based their rhetoric around the late 1700s and mainly the early 1800s, whilst claiming to fill in the entire 172-odd period of ‘darkness’ which anyone who reads a little more into history and between the lines can see does not entirely support the case proposed by the Sanatan Sikhs. There are numerous threads dedicated to this issues explicitly from last year which have typically only been met with feeble responses of ‘do your own research’ and other evasive or sarcastic comments which demonstrate the lack of academic honesty on part of all groups when it comes to having any serious questioning of fundamentals.

Gur Fateh!

Niranjana

[tableji]

Smashed it yet again :!:

[gupy]

Excellent post Nirjana,

I'm interested to know what your opinions would be for steps forward. Although there are similarities, there are many differences also. The biggest one being us and our environment.

Hopefully these issues can be discussed appropriately and rationally, now that we have a much higher level of general understanding and oppurtunities.

Like i said i do very much agree with your comments. I will always do my best to keep anything i'm involved in as impartial and unbias as possible.

I hope Thursdays Sanatan Sikh Womens seminar will be a true reflection of this.

[Jungee]

Good Post

Nirajana

Hopefully your way of thinking will spread and teach people to question everything. no matter how good it looks logicl and a practical approach is necesary, with a touch of faith and honesty to ones innerself to understand the truth.

keep up the good posting

[challenge_everything]

You know what this 'sanatan' word seems more and more cultish - if anything new and controversial is found it is labelled as belonging to the 'sanatan world.'

The thing is that Niddar Singh's word are wrapped in the coating of these ' sanatan' ideas. Many of Niddars Singh's ideas are distorted by over zealous chelas who just wish to be 'new and controversial' and break away from the 'norm'. Yet I don't think that this is Niddar Singh's intention and that his words quoted wrongly by people who just want to carry out their own personal vendettas against certain jathas.

Niddar Singh is a wicked Ustaad, yet we have to beware of over zealous and impressionable young 'chelas' who have got hold of this word 'sanatan' - which has seemingly sprung from one quote from baani and Oberoi's book - and they are using this word just to p*ss people off.

If you want to controversial how about this controversial vichar over zealous bhajis -

how about we do some simran instead of trying to cuss down certain jathas (that goes for both akj youth and so called sanatan youth)?

You know what there are people who aren't even into these 'sanatan' ideas and they are targetted - WHY? because they attend the akharas or have links with Sikh Sampardas (you may have noticed the lack of the word 'sanatan there!).

Here something for all the taksal and akj youth - dont pick on people who go to the akharas - many of them dont believe in these so called 'sanatan' ideals. Many of them just want to 'GURU KE' Sikh not 'SANATAN' Sikh. So next time you think he's a 'sanatan' sikh just think are you bieng fair? Just coz he trains at Nihang Niddar Singh's akhara does that mean that he subscribes to all the thoughts on the website?

Use you brains boyz - dont just follow the crowd - follow you Guru (thats Shabad Guru by that way)

I hope maharaaj ji keeps Niddar Singh in chardi kala and I hope that 'jhatka gatka' flourishes...

To quote a famous person in sikh history - (no not Shiv Ji or Bhai Randhir Singh ) - Guru Gobind Singh

"What is false I will call false.

Even though the people may try to silence me.

I do not care for what anybody says.

I will speak but the truth from my mouth.

(Guru Gobind Singh, Treh Charittar No.266, Siri Guru Dasam Granth)"

[Guest]

nice post chw sehan

[Narsingha]

Challenge...

The only people who consider 'Sanatan' as being a cult, jatha, group or faction are those people who's perception, ideals and concepts are moulded according to revisionist (be it puritanical) Sikhi (ie, those who consider Sikhi to be a semetic/revealed 'religion').

...for everyone else (those who practice, live, and inherently believe the traditional concepts of 'eternal faith'), 'Sanatan' is simply a TERM to distinguish themselves from the revisionists (ie. mainstream) Sikhi.

There are many people brought up with the concepts of 'Sanatan Sikhi' but who never heard of the 'Sanatan' word before. Typical examples that come to mind are Khatri Sikh families who believe in both 'Hindu' and 'Sikh' concepts, Hindu families that have both Sikh and Hindu members, Tarkhans who believe in Baba Visharma but are also Sikhs, NanakShahis (Sikhs who accept/believe in both Sikhi and Islam), Nanakpanthis (Sikhs who accept/believe in both Sikhi and 'Hinduism')..etc etc.

To such people, whether or not they are referred to as 'Sanatan' or not doesnt matter - it wont affect their daily routine, or their belief.

The only reason Nihang Niddar Singh refers to himself (and other Sikhs) as 'Sanatan' as he did in the talk on Sikh Women, is to distinguish themselves from mainstream Sikhism when addressing an audience unaware of the distinctions.

Within Nihangs, Udhasis, etc, for example, the term 'sanatan' is hardly used, because everyone is ALREADY aware of the distinction.

As for those 'impressionable young chelas' you refer to who are utilising the term "Sanatan" to appease their vengeful nature, or to 'p*ss people off' - that is a path they have chosen for themselves. The fact that they are doing this proves they havent really got the message of Sikhi (regardless of the 'blend' of Sikhi they affiliate themselves with).

[challenge_everything]

Use the word wisely thats all i can say - and whereas distinction is chardi kala - friction is just plain old stupidity.

Why the word Sanatan - ? Could you please start thread explaining this narsinghna.

No tbeing arguementative - just want to clear up why this word was used instead of lets say 'puraatan' a term which you have to admit is still used by Nihang Singhs and Udasis and other sampardas?

[Narsingha]

The term 'Puratan' cannot be used as it implies that a concept is "historical" (ie. bound by time) not "eternal" (beyond time). Also, 'Puratan' has some derogatory meanings, eg, when you refer to something/someone as 'Puratan', it can mean that it is 'rubbish', 'old - beyond repair', 'mentally retarded', 'dim', 'daft', 'stupid' (...you get the general idea).

The term 'Sanatan' refers to concepts that are 'eternal' - not born, or dead, but 'manifest' beyond time itself - hence the term 'Akal' and phrases such as 'Aad Sach, Jugaad Sach'.

The term itself cannot be fully explained by people such as myself who're still looking for the lightswitch. I have a 'katha' done by Nirmala Baba Harbhajan Hari that delves into the Sanatan concept - this is difficult to understand by those who have been brought up believing in an 'ism'.

When a person practices such concepts (ie, as those explained by the Gurus with the scriptures), then they will realise what is 'Sanatan' for themselves - ie, concepts that are eternal, beyond the 'seen world'. However, as a person develops, the term 'Sanatan' as a label begins to fade, and it takes on the meaning of a 'concept'/'state of being'- eg, in the case of Kabir.

Its like trying to express the full range of emotions when eating well made chocolate - impossible!

[tSingh]

I absolutely agree with this point raised by ChallEthing. References made to a 'Snatan Sikhi' to me defeat the object...what is being described is Sikhi beyond all labels! Sikhi is snatan by it's very nature. It is an adjective to describe Sikhi, not a category. People historically have only utilised the term Snatan Sikhi in contrast to an 'other' form of Sikhi. Anyone who has experientially felt the truth of mool mantar will understand that what is being posed here is the nirmal panth, the pure truth. The people I've met describe Sikhi as snatan, not formulated a type of Sikhi named snatan. Nihang Niddar Singh has stated that his gurdev termed it 'snatan sikhi', and that's fine. To demark a snatan sikhi from a reformed sikhi to me defeats the point as can only imply a specific form which arises out of a dualism or an alternative, when in fact there just simply is Sikhi and a reformed modified form.

I have employed puratan in the past to distinguish out Sikhi in it's historically accurate form, as oppossed to a set of changes made within history.

thats my take on it

[tSingh]

This is a more detailed reply to Niranjana's excellent points. I have made the point in the past of trying to write on behalf of others, so I have kept it specific to what I know of, the Nirmalay and Sewapanthis...

Reply to Niranjana:

I found some of that reply highly accurate and some of it disagreeable.

Each has their own motivation for researching and practicing traditional Sikhi. My only motivation for all this is the acquisition of adhyaatmic vidya and for salient descriptions, guidance upon and examples of the state of spiritual perfection achievable through implementing this time honoured knowledge. I did not find this anywhere else prior. Independently and quite a while before even having heard of Nihang Niddar Singh, I started meeting with, researching and eventually later becoming part of traditional samprda and finding the deeper understanding, deeper learning and deeper practice I was looking for. That is my grounding. Later I was pleased to hear of Nihang Niddar Singh and his efforts.

Of course, any articulation of past history based on primary sources written or spoken by those who will no doubt favour their own understanding of history will in itself be biased, I admit that this could be argued with regard to samprda texts and tradition, however the very fact that all traditional samprdas accept each others historical origins either makes for a highly elaborate early rewriting of history, or instead the traditions are to be true.

Now, to my understanding, much of what has been presented from this ‘snatan’ perspective a) links directly to that deeper understanding I was talking about answers some of the awkward questions a Tat Khalsa approach fails to c) is generally in tune with my own understanding of Sikhi.

You’ve raised an interesting point in drawing parallels with Singh Sabha movement. Any systematic attempt to present a particular worldview will bear similarities. Any attempt to speak on behalf of diverse community will oversimplify. Yet the issue here is that an alternative understanding, well researched, predominantly accurate and faithful to those sources is being presented for the first time in English. The benefits of such information infinitely outweigh the disadvantages (heightening tension, less than well versed individuals making matters worse through stupidity, increasing cynicism and antagonism). It may be worth also adding that the way I see it, for change to occur there has to be initial struggle. What has been presented by Nihang Niddar Singh challenges the very idolised assumptions and world view of a large proportion of sangat. Out of that challenge comes fear and hatred, and we all have seen examples of those whose faith is structured on those challenged principles reacting worst in a most unsikh like manner with blind hatred and slander.

On the issue of the 172 odd years of darkness, I personally feel your conclusion that what arises from this period ‘does not entirely support the case proposed by the ‘Snatan Sikhs’ is fine as it is of such a nature that one can hold a variety of opinions (alike the nature of Guru Nanak’s life, like the nature of the foundation of the Khalsa, etc). Below I present my present way of approaching this issue based on the textual and oral traditions that exist to date;

- Nirmala Samprdayik texts begin to appear in the 1750s written by those tutored by individuals present at the time of the Guru

- Living memory of the Gurus’ wishes were easily available at that time. The Guru’s own traditions would have been hard to modify given the amount of time available since the Guru himself, and also modification would have been impossible without noticeable opposition akin to the reaction to the Bandai Khalsa.

- Padam’s ‘Darbari Rattan’ is testimony to the very character of Guru Gobind Singh ji and the emphasis he placed upon scholarship and the value of sanskritic vidya. It is almost ridiculous to my mind to ignore all this and suggest there were not specialist scholars instituted by the Guru himself. As he ensured the practice of shastarvidya remained with his Sikhs, likewise he ensured shaastravidya remained. This is the traditional understanding, that Guru ji gave the panth shaastra and shastar. Considering this, the existence of Nirmalay does not seem out of keeping with the Guru’s behaviour and ideals as recorded by texts and tradition.

- The fact that it started small (and hence has no particularly special mention in early historical accounts) is also not surprising. Most parampras trace themselves back to common figures who existed historically as supported by early accounts (Bhai Dargaha Singh, Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Dya Singh, Bhai Dharam Singh, Bhai Maan Singh, etc). As time passed by the order expanded like a tree with increasingly complex branches. By 1805 it was big enough to deserve such confident mention in John Malcolm’s ‘Sketch of the Sikhs’.

- The existence of a number of sub-traditions based on historically recorded figures seems to also support the historical wishes of the Gurus. It would be difficult to argue that all these numerous individuals, and their successors and followers were ‘mistaken’ or had ‘misinterpreted’ the Guru’s wishes.

- Early non-samprda accounts such as the late 1700s account of the Nirmalay at the Kumbh, Malcolm’s 1805 text confidently recording the Nirmalay as one of the four major orders within Sikh society.

- McLeod’s statement of their existence being of the 19th century cannot be given much credibility as he only relies upon direct textual reference and references within land grants. Surely it’s not too hard to understand that by the very nature of events during the first half of the 18th century, and considering that as a sadhu order they would not really formalise until much latter on. What is recorded by Nirmala history (and physical history) is that the early Nirmalay were sent far and wide with no obvious centre and no elected head.

- There are certainly no texts I can think of from this period that a Tat Khalsa ideologue would not have issue with, this applies to Persian accounts of the Sikhs also. All point to practices, or viewpoints that are antagonistic with Tat Khalsa ideology to varying degrees.

- So to conclude, it is arguable (as I do) that considering the textual sources, the Guru’s character, the early formation of the order, the events taking place, the nature of the lineages, the physical institutions linked to historical events, and what is the case with other Guru-initiated samprdas, that all this taken into account provides supportive evidence for a clearer understanding of the ‘dark period’.

I agree that it is important not to make an idol out of traditional Sikhi. I know of dubious individuals who describe themselves as Nirmalay, Niddar freely admits a percentage of Nihangs falling into a similar category. So a realistic attitude needs to be taken. It may be worth noting that currently, Nirmalay I am close to are working towards modernising the samprda in various ways, and as expected they have encountered opposition from some quarters.

[guv]

great post mr t.

i think what also has to be appreciated is that any form of going against accepted practices which is not in an in-your-face approach is often doomed to failure. look at the response oberoi got following his book.

[tSingh]

Note - these are only my views, I'm sure Shaka (good to see you back) can add more.

[OSINGH]

Sikhs are a bit mashed up, u got 'mainstream', 'sanatan', 'khalistanis'

and i dunno how many others there r!

and they all arguin over sum issue or another.

allow it im gonna convert to .........!!!

[Narsingha]

To clarify again..perhaps the point has been missed.

'Sanatan' is a term that has been ADOPTED to describe the concept that Sikhi, and indeed Dharma has been around since before time began - eternal. It is there to distinguish it from revisionist Sikhs who believe Sikhi is a revelation.

The trouble is that people are now seeing the term 'Sanatan' as describing some kind of group. 'Sanatan' describes an ATTRIBUTE of Sikhi - it is not a jatha, cult, group or faction. Just because Nihangs, etc etc descrbe themselves as being 'Sanatan' does not mean they are the ONLY ones who follow it, or indeed that you have to be a Nihang, etc etc to believe in the 'Sanatan' concept.

There are many people who have never heard of the term "Sanatan" but practice Sikhi in a manner that can be DESCRIBED as being 'Sanatan'.

Then again, we also have those people who wish to 'belong' to some kind of group (I believe someone used the term 'misguided youth), so they see 'Sanatan' as being another 'jatha'.

As Guruji stated:

‘According to one's intellect one expresses it [the truth] in a myriad of ways.’

(‘Dasam Guru Durbar’, Treh Charittar 104)

[bobbyboy]

There is no evidence from contemporary accounts ( Shri Gur Sobha ) that prove that apart from the Khalsa that Guru Gobind Singh created any other orders. If you want to believe texts written many years after the event to prove your snatan sikhi then that is your choice.