Sant

[singh_bling]

sMq shweI pRym ky hau iqn kY lwgw pwie ]

sa(n)th sehaaee praem kae ho thin kai laagaa paae ||

The Saints are the helpers of the Lord's lovers; I fall and touch their feet.

[N30S1NGH]

What V is saying is that the word "Sant" is being misused by many who are not even close to being real Sants. In Gurbani, "Sant" in singular form is either used for Guru Sahib or Waheguru and in plural form it is used for Gursikhs, Sadh Sangat etc. It is not used to praise any single individual as Gurbani only praises Nirgun Waheguru. No human is praised in Gurbani. Being Sant is an avastha not a title. Every Sikh is Sant and Sipahi so I fail to see the ridiculous need to have a "Sant" title with your name. Bhai Randhir Singh Ji has explained it very well in "Sant Padd Nirnay".

Debate in the video and character of Hari Singh are two different topics. I simply focused on what was being discussed or debated and learned something about Gurmat. Leave it at that. Don't mix the topics.

Bhai Randhir Singh Ji on the same book or different book i m not too sure but one of the books gave jawala singh ji as title of sant which is confirmed by tapobani singhs. And on your own site you have saint section where you have label gurmukhs pyares as title of sant-

http://www.searchsikhism.com/gal1.html

question here comes down if you don't believe in title of sant why would you label them as such bijla singh ji?

[Bijla Singh]

Bhai Randhir Singh Ji on the same book or different book i m not too sure but one of the books gave jawala singh ji as title of sant which is confirmed by tapobani singhs.

Jawala Singh (not Sant Jawala Singh of Harkhowal) was referred as "Sant" because of his avastha or his character i.e. "Bahadur" with Baba Banda Singh.

And on your own site you have saint section where you have label gurmukhs pyares as title of sant-

http://www.searchsikhism.com/gal1.html

These Gursikhs were real Sants not fake ones and they never referred to themselves with such titles unlike today's Hari Singh, Ranjit Singh etc. I also have pics of Baba Nand Singh Ji, Bhai Kanhaeya Singh Ji etc which proves that "Sant" is their avastha. I used the same titles they were famous for. Bhai Randhir Singh Ji is called "Bhai" something he was referred to by the majority of the Panth. So I am not giving them such titles but used the same ones and their character reflects that such title was not misused. I used to see nothing wrong with using this word but since so many are misusing it now, I think it is better not to use it otherwise it would become corrupted like "Masand" and "Akali" if it has not already. I prefer the concept of Bhai Bhai which retains equality amongst Sikhs. Besides, I learned about viyakarn and true meanings of "Sant" years after the page was created. So I left it like it is. I could easily change the titles now but that wouldn't make them any less Sant. I rather use what Panth used.

Someone said, Sants exist in Gurbani and my point was that word "Sant" is not used for a single individual in Gurbani.

sMq shweI pRym ky hau iqn kY lwgw pwie ]

sa(n)th sehaaee praem kae ho thin kai laagaa paae ||

The Saints are the helpers of the Lord's lovers; I fall and touch their feet.

Word "Sant" is plural so it refers to Sadh Sangat or Sangat of Gurmukhs. It doesn't refer to particular individuals in the Sangat like we usually do these days where everyone is part of a sangat but there is one wearing white clothes called "Sant Giani........Ji Maharaaj 108".

[N30S1NGH]

Jawala Singh (not Sant Jawala Singh of Harkhowal) was referred as "Sant" because of his avastha or his character i.e. "Bahadur" with Baba Banda Singh.

Thanks for reminder that it wasn't harkhowal.. i used to think it was reffered to harkhowale sant until balpreet singh corrected me. I am already aware of that after that correction.

These Gursikhs were real Sants not fake ones and they never referred to themselves with such titles unlike today's Hari Singh, Ranjit Singh etc. I also have pics of Baba Nand Singh Ji, Bhai Kanhaeya Singh Ji etc which proves that "Sant" is their avastha. I used the same titles they were famous for. Bhai Randhir Singh Ji is called "Bhai" something he was referred to by the majority of the Panth. So I am not giving them such titles but used the same ones and their character reflects that such title was not misused. I used to see nothing wrong with using this word but since so many are misusing it now, I think it is better not to use it otherwise it would become corrupted like "Masand" and "Akali" if it has not already. I prefer the concept of Bhai Bhai which retains equality amongst Sikhs. Besides, I learned about viyakarn and true meanings of "Sant" years after the page was created. So I left it like it is. I could easily change the titles now but that wouldn't make them any less Sant. I rather use what Panth used.

I do agree there is a abuse of highly respected terms these days like- sant but on the same token there is also quite bit of abuse of terms like- shaheed, gurmukh, gyani ji, bhai sahib, granthi sahiban etc etc. I think main key is education and awareness of meaning of these terms instead of reactions of out righting rejecting the "sant" term that they don't apply to human being.

Someone said, Sants exist in Gurbani and my point was that word "Sant" is not used for a single individual in Gurbani. Word "Sant" is plural so it refers to Sadh Sangat or Sangat of Gurmukhs. It doesn't refer to particular individuals in the Sangat like we usually do these days where everyone is part of a sangat but there is one wearing white clothes called "Sant Giani........Ji Maharaaj 108".

Vikayaran is not the only to interpret gurbani. Bhai sahib bhai kahn singh nabha talks about meaning of word sant being avastha as you confirmed yourself. Meaning of sant being avastha is commonly accepted in the panth as well.

So if the meaning of sant is individualistic avastha of an being then vikayaran arth of sant being in plural form in each and every tuk of gurbani which talks about sant seems contradictory.

[Bijla Singh]

So if the meaning of sant is individualistic avastha of an being then vikayaran arth of sant being in plural form in each and every tuk of gurbani which talks about sant seems contradictory.

No because Sant (singular) = Guru/Waheguru and Sant/Santan(Plural) = group of people (Sant). More than one person can reach the same avastha, can't they? Every word can have multiple meanings but only one will best fit the context and the meanings must not contradict rest of Gurbani. I have not found any viyakaran meaning that contradicted Gurbani or any rule that could not be applied to any particular shabad. Bhai Randhir Singh's meanings are sometimes different and sometimes Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha did different meanings than Prof. Sahib Singh but viyakaran wasn't ruled out. Bhai Veer Singh also refers to many viyakaran rules in his teeka. It is the context that changes. You can read Sant Padd Nirnay and study some viyakaran for more clarification and see if you find errors.

[Inder Singh]

Please stay focussed on the topic than to generalize.The topic is thugs masquesrading as learned and reformer sikhs having discussion with Baba( Do not call him sant and that is not issue here) Randhawawale.Baba ji has given them to the point answers.

These thugs know nothing about Gurmat.Why are they misleading sikh youth?Are they on the payroll of anti sikh forces?

Ghorandhar

Please stop misleading sangat here and stop defending missionaries .These are same people.If you want proof,read list of trustee memebers of newly formed organization in spokesman a few days back .That list includes top missionaries also including Principal Bedi of so called SMC.Missionaries are destroyers of fabric of sikhi these days.

[SunSingh]

i would advise admins to split this topic. That would be best.

good idea.

Bijla Singh, word sant is used in reference to Bhagat Prahlaad ji and Bhagat Kabir ji uses the word when referring to himself. This is written in Guru Granth Sahib ji which proves that the label is used for individuals. While I agree that the label is used too loosely these days by many, to try to redefine the use of the label and do parchaar that it should not be used as a title seems to be a step in the wrong direction. If someone is a sant I see nothing wrong with using that label, it's like calling a spade a spade. To try to prevent all such labelling leads to useless controversy, and there is no such rule in Gurmat regarding use of the label. Rather, useing it for people is allowed as shown by the examples from Guru Granth Sahib ji. Better to disagree with the wrongful application of the label, just like people disagree with the wrong application of the label shaheed to certain person associated with the Air India bombing.

During the Guru's times there were also many fake holy people, the thags of Benares shabads and Sajjan Thag come to mind. Yet the Guru still included shabads using the sant label for individuals in Gurbani, which shows that he accepted use of the labels in such a way.

Besides that, in the Bhatt Vahis, which is stated on searchsikhism to be one of the most authentic sources of sikh history, uses the term for Madho Dass in reference to Bhai Daya Singh ji telling Madho Dass to get ready for Amrit.

[ghorandhar]

Please stay focussed on the topic than to generalize.The topic is thugs masquesrading as learned and reformer sikhs having discussion with Baba( Do not call him sant and that is not issue here) Randhawawale.Baba ji has given them to the point answers.

These thugs know nothing about Gurmat.Why are they misleading sikh youth?Are they on the payroll of anti sikh forces?

Ghorandhar

Please stop misleading sangat here and stop defending missionaries .These are same people.If you want proof,read list of trustee memebers of newly formed organization in spokesman a few days back .That list includes top missionaries also including Principal Bedi of so called SMC.Missionaries are destroyers of fabric of sikhi these days.

Your telling people not to make generalisations, Yet you are the first to do this with missionarys. :lol:

Veer jee im not misleading anyone, I asked you a simple question, which missionary school have these people studied at?

There are many people who are destroying Sikhi these days, it includes those Taksalis who have joined hands with the RSS and Missionarys who do parchar against the panth.

[V]

Bijla Singh, word sant is used in reference to Bhagat Prahlaad ji and Bhagat Kabir ji uses the word when referring to himself. This is written in Guru Granth Sahib ji which proves that the label is used for individuals.

1- Could you please give us the specific Gurbani tuk so that we can look into the context.

2- I find ir rather ironic that you are comparing Bhagat Prahlaad Ji and Bhagat Kabeer Ji, who have officially been accepted by Guru Arjan Dev Ji, with people who are being called sants today. I'm not saying there aren't good people in sant samaj, or those with an uchi avastha; but my question is: Who gave them this title? Who gave the person this title? If Sangat did - how does the sangat know that this person is indeed a brahmgyani, Gurbani tells us only a brahmgyani can know who another brahmgyani is. Hence why I have no problem with Guru Arjan Dev ji recognizing sants. Today we don't have Guru Arjan Dev ji here to specify which sants are real, and which are benaras ke thug.

All I know is that Gurbani tells us that these individuals we are speaking about are virley ke-y ke - and I would hardly accept that all of the members of the sant samaj to be one with parmatma. My belief is that Guru Sahib told us to take a step towards HIM. though sants have had a role in increasing the parchar; the fact remains that a lot of us have more allegience towards our specific saint than Guru Panth and Guru Granth. That being said; We know that there are saint that have been doing great seva (incl Baba Attar Singh Ji, who ironically was also a founder of Singh Sabha); and those who have later on exposed as something else (Pehowa valey.)

While I agree that the label is used too loosely these days by many, to try to redefine the use of the label and do parchaar that it should not be used as a title seems to be a step in the wrong direction. If someone is a sant I see nothing wrong with using that label, it's like calling a spade a spade.

A spade is a spade. A human is a human; however who is a sant? Who will recognize who is true and who is not? Those who believed in Pehowa to be a sant; he was a brahmgyani for those people. Those who see Ranjit Singh as a sant (and recognized him as a brahmgyani) were also wrong; he wasn't beyond mistakes either. He was a Gursikh, a parcharc who got loads of people into the fold of sikhi, yet in the end of the day also a LEARNER of the truth.

To try to prevent all such labelling leads to useless controversy, and there is no such rule in Gurmat regarding use of the label. Rather, useing it for people is allowed as shown by the examples from Guru Granth Sahib ji. Better to disagree with the wrongful application of the label, just like people disagree with the wrong application of the label shaheed to certain person associated with the Air India bombing.

Yet is there any one single example pro 1850s where the tile sant was used? Sant Banda Singh Bahadur? Sant Gurdas Ji? Sant Kanieya Jee? Sant painda khan? Sant Buddha Singh? Sant jhujhar Singh Ji?, Sant Fateh Singh Ji?

Our ithhas is full of the tile: Bhai and Baba. I could have missed out someone, please fill me in if that is the case

Besides that, in the Bhatt Vahis, which is stated on searchsikhism to be one of the most authentic sources of sikh history, uses the term for Madho Dass in reference to Bhai Daya Singh ji telling Madho Dass to get ready for Amrit.

if I'm not mistaken its used synonomously to the english word "a saint", not as a title. Was it Sant Madho Das?

[Singhstah]

I respect sant samaj members who are doing good seva

but personally if a group of Dhan Dhan Guroo Nanak Dev Sahib Ji's sants came together to do some panth di seva looking at Gurbani's description of what a Sant is like, one would think that the group would be called panth de daasan daasa!