Jump to content

nihangs and snatan sikhi


Kam1825
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do all the nihangs follow this sort of snatan sikhi that niddar singh is preaching in the Uk. The reason why i ask this is that i have just got hold of an audio tape of Sarbloh Granth katha by Baba Santa Singh Ji Nihang and in the tape they do katha just like any other mahapurkh and refer to Hindu dharam being different to the khalsa.

When you go to talks by Niddar Singh he never seems to make a difference between the two faiths by Baba Santa Singh Ji does.

If this snatan belief is not that way of thinking that baba santa singh ji has then where does niddar singh get it from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you go to talks by Niddar Singh he never seems to make a difference between the two faiths by Baba Santa Singh Ji does

Has he ever said that the Hindu Dharam and Khalsa Dharam are identical? I've heard a fair number of his talks, and I have never heard him push this view. Of course, I haven't been to all his talks so it may be that something was said at one I missed and I apologise if that is the case.

I propose that the next talk he does that you attend, take the tape with you and play it to him in reference to a remark that he has made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard him say that there is no difference between the two faiths in the class.

I think what he has said is that he believes Sikhs are part of the Hindu race. And by that he has explained himself to mean that Sikhs are part of Hindustan the nation, and therefore will inevitably adopt the culture and practices associated with the nation.

Can anyone who goes to the class verify this, or cuss the crap out of me for quoting him completely inaccurately! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh i agree with challenge everything. Nihangs (of india) are simply about khalsa, Sanatan seems to hav been 'invented' by Niddar & Co.

i dunno wats happnin to uk nihangs, sum of them lost the plot. For example iv seen uk nihangs drinkin alcohol?!?!?!?!

i thot nihangs only take sukha, & alcohol not allowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title - Sanatan Sikhi Vs Sanatan Mat.

Ok reason for my post is to help people understand these two terms and how they are different.

There is been lot of negative talks about the term "Sanatan".

The prefix "Sanatan Sikhi" is used mostly from the adhyatamic perspective (spiritual). It simply means eternal sikhi.

quotes to back it up from sikh scriptures both siri guroo granth sahib and sarbloh granth:

‘From seeing angels of death [fearing death] now I see but Ram [Ramachandar/Nirankar God].

My suffering has fled and comfort taken abode [in my heart].

Those denying God [the five senses], have become noble [having acknowledged Nirankar God].

Now I have attained complete bliss.

I have been cooled [mind settled] when I appreciated Gobind [God].

In the body are found innumerable troubles.

Now, spontaneously in comfort, I am absorbed in God.

I have recognized my true self.

Now no ailment of the three fevers affects me.

Now my mind has changed and become Sanatan.

Now I appreciate [Truth] having died whilst alive [meaning being unaffected by temptations of the world].

Says Kabir, in comfort spontaneously be absorbed in God.

I fear no one, nor am I intimidated by anyone.’

Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Raag Gauri, Pa.326-327

Traditions that are Sanatan are the ancient Dharma whose virtues the Vedas sing.

That [sanatan] Brahm [all pervasive God] highest God,

Sarbloh, is known as king of all demigods.’

‘Sarbloh Granth’, Vol. 2. Chapter Five, Pa.549

Siri Sarbloh consider as Sanatan.’

‘Sarbloh Guru Durbar’, Vol. 2. Chapter Five, Pa.196

Now defination of Sanatan Mat:

I was reading Akaal Ustat english translations by Surinder Singh Kohli. page- 39 in his book.

Came across to this verse.

Kaie Dev Ad Kumar, Kaie Kirsan Bisan Avtar ||

Created many gods, and Adi Kumars, sons of brahma (Sanak, Sanndan, Sanatan and Sanat Kumar), many Krishnas and incarations of Vishnu.

Sanatan Matt was created by son of bhrama. Sanatan Mat does not have anything to do with Gurmat.

Gurmat does not equal to Sanatan Matt

However Gurmat equal sanatan sikhi because it's enternal.

Anyone can be sanatan Sikh ..mind you it's not a sect or a brand..it's has it's eternal meaning.

Now main issue-

- Do Nihangs from UK use Sanatan sikhi term as eternal or create another brand within sikhi (ie- Sanatan Matt/traditional).

Answer: Some Nihangs from uk consider Sanatan Sikhi as eternal, not traditional and consider it's more of a spiritual term than actual brand or sect/orders BUT some DON'T and consider sanatan as traditional because they misinterperated Sanatan Sikhi as Sanatan Matt (distinctive group).

Remember Sanatan matt is completely opposite of Gurmat.

One who follow Gurmat and can not alinged themselve to Sanatan Matt but they can surely aling themselves as "Sanatan Sikh" because it's eternal.

Because it means eternal..if we look at the ultimately and study from those quotes above under sanatan sikhi then every one of us is sanatan not traditionally but spiritually because we follow sikhi of nirankar..we follow bani which is from dhuro(divine message) - Dhur Ki bani.

Reason i m clarifying is because of this hatred towards sanatan word itself...and that's not right..one has to make distincation between sanatan sikhi and sanatan matt.

so please guys don't just hate word sanatan sikhi because it's means more than you think it means..it means eternal, not tradition.

defination of eternal :Being without beginning or end

Ikongkar satnam karta purkh nirbhau nirvair akaal murat ajoni sahibang Gurparsad ||

Jap Ad such, jugad sach, hai bhi sach nanak hosbhi sach ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"he believes Sikhs are part of the Hindu race" :shock:

2 things:

1. I made it clear that I am paraphrasing him, and as such there is a clear possibility that I am doing it badly.

2. Please do not take something I have said out of context. There was a reason why I didn't stop the line there. I went on to explain the context in which he used the term Hindu race (ie Hindustan == India)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i read the following lines but i don't see how race can equate to cultural practices. i think it was a bad choice of word because the phrase has a lot of historical context. was surprised that he would use such a statement, if he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the interpretation is fine. the issue is defining hindu in a comprehensible manner.

hindu race = gene pool

hindu faith = religious practices that come under the umbrella of "religion" (although some scholars will argue that hinduism as a religion doesn't exist since the beliefs and practices followed by religious hindus are so varied)

i believe what beast is trying to say is that sikhs are hindus in the sense that we all share the same genetic pool (ie most of us are indian in terms of heritage and ethnicity), not practitioners of the hindu faith.

is that clear enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmmmm, how can i put this simply.

hinduism isn't a race. it is a belief system. any race can adopt it.

even indian isn't a race as far as i know, perhaps you mean dravidians etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think hindu word used most of time in gurbani refers to hindu dharam rather than orgin of place - hindustan...because think about it..there are verses in gurbani where hindu prefix was used in same align with muslim?

so i think it really depends on the actual full verse.. some instances it was used in context of orgin of people and some instances it was refered to the actual dharam.

i may be wrong though in my observation..

*cry's out intelectuals of the panths to solve this one* :?

can we get more proper vichar on the actual tuks which has hindu has them?

via puratan steeks of various sampardha in the panth...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never previously written on threads that have the words "UK Nihangs" "Sanatan" "nangs" etc in them, simply because they descend into hysteria and finger pointing along the lines of "my fourth cousin twice removed once met a bloke on the bus who overheard someone talking to Nidar Singh on a crackly mobile phone and he said . . . " This seems to be no different. However, I really have to add to my voice to this question and I apologise for actually having met and spoken to many of the people and having some first hand experience !!(I know we dont an informed voice on Internet boards but here I go)

I travelled with, and spent a great deal of time with the Buddha Dal back in about 1990-1993. I spent a great deal of time around the Dal with a Farladaar Akali Singh (who happens also to be my mums youngest brother), I also met Santa Singh and spoke to a number of his close associates and continue to do so, although not nearly as much now as back then. I feel I have a pretty good knowledge of the BD and it's ancient philosophy and indeed it's own personal shortcomings and issues.

I also met Nidar Singh while I lived in Wolverhampton around 1989-90ish. And funnily enough Harjit Singh from Watford introduced Nidar Singh to me in Slough sometime in the mid nineties when I was working back in London! After an long initial interaction with him I have had really sporadic contact with him. I have gone to hear him talk only a few times including just one of the recent Sanatan Sikh talks in London and spent some hours talking with him on a one-to-one basis -I didn’t even go to the V&A talk back in 2003 (that I had organised).

Why am I telling you this? well, the reason that I dont really go and listen to him is quite simple he has little to say that is particularly new to me. What I am saying is that what I heard and experienced back in the Buddha Dal first hand from Akalis and from Santa Singh's kathha and writings seems entirely congruent with what Nidar Singh seems to be advocating - there really is no difference - it is pretty well down the middle BD philosophy.

What is different is the context - ie in the English language, with a certain flair and strength of argument and increasingly with a good historical reference rather than a reliance on Oral trads alone. He also stresses the shaster vidhyia aspect far more strongly than I had heard in India/Punj all those years ago.

My final comment would be that the Buddha Dal is a "broad church" it is not the strictly codified, highly regimented organisation that many modern Sikh organisations endevour to be. This makes it incredibly open to all and it also means that the breadth of knowledge is very wide. I have fond memories of a Nihangs whose expertise lay in breeding horses, or growing bhang or the art of the nagaara or whatever and I suspect that Nidar Singh’s personal expertise in the knowledge and arts of weapons is a special characteristic of his. As an historian I am surprised at and encouraged by the academic and scholarly rigour of the argument that is presented and I am sure that the Dal is fortunate to have Nidar Singh reclaiming and conserving some of the lost arts that are so central to their very being.

Now you can all kill me

Amandeep Madra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...