Talk:Jaimal Singh

Untitled

Wow, okay this article really needs help. Bad grammar, written like an advertisement, no sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.110.234 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no authentic photographs of Jaimal Singh in circulation. The ones appearing on the interent such as the one shown here are not of Jaimal Singh. Of the two photos that do exist one is a group photo of him with his regiment. Sawan Singh, his Beas successor, described the other as being of "two boys". In both photos he could neither be distinguished or recognised even by his own disciples. (Taken from 'A child's remembrance of Baba Ji' an autobiographical short account by a disciple of Jaimal Singh who was shown the two photographs by Sawan Singh. Printed in the RSSB Hong Kong Sangats's circulation 'Path of Love'. Mysticbumwipe (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sikhism

Sikhism and Sant Mat are different from each other. Neither Sikhs nor Sant Mat followers want to be equated or compared with the other. Orthodox Sikhs get especially offended at any hint or mention equating Sikhism with other movements or beliefs. Orthodox Sikh websites indicate as much. Sikhs regard the Guru Granth Sahib not only as their living master but also as the last Guru (in much the same way that Muslims view Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets after whom no more shall come). And after the assassinations of Sant Nirankari Gurbachan Singh and Ravidassia Rāmānand by orthodox Sikhs, and the serious threats against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and other groups, it is best to avoid connecting these and other groups with Sikhism. Ravidassias have gone so far as to formally announce that they are followers of Ravidas and the Amrt Bani Guru Ravidasji, no one else, so as to leave no doubts about the issue.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite correct, there are differences. But you are not correct to say that "Sant Mat followers [do not] want to be equated or compared with the other." The opposite is true: Sant Mat followers revere both the Adi Granth and the ten sikh gurus and actually regard themselves as a continuation of pure sikh philosophy and practice (just as the Namdhari sikh sect also do). Jaimal Singh himself was a keshdari sikh. And he initially had a problem with the man he eventually accepted as his guru being only a sejhdhari sikh who smoked tobacco. Also all Jaimal Singhs successors plus the majority of his followers were also keshdhari sikhs. All these sikhs both revered Guru Nanak and his nine successor sikh gurus and attempted to live their spiritual and mundane lives according to the bani contained in the Adi Granth. Therefore not to mention their sikhism for fear of offending what has become the orthodox sikh movement would be censorship.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your points. At cursory glance, it would seem like censorship (which of course you and I and others do not like, especially in consideration of scholarship and scholarly freedom). However, I would like to reiterate that Sikhism and Sant Mat are different: 1: Sikhs revere the Bhagats (those in the GGS), the Ten Gurus, and the Holy Granth, and follow the Rahet Maryada. Sant Mat devotees revere bhagtas and gurus (even those not in the GGS) but follow their physically living master -- this makes a huge difference. 2: To be an Amrtdhari Sikh is to disavow allegiance to any other religion. Sant Mat is open to all (Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, etc) without a mandatory change in religion -- again a big difference. 3: Sikh identity was formulated by the Singh Sabha and made distinct by the Rahet Maryada. Sant Mat is not a continuation of Sikhism, since Sant Mat existed before Sikhism and even before Guru Nanak Dev. 4: In Sikhism, NO MORE guru comes after the Holy Granth -- this THE main underlying root of irritation to Sikh sensibilities. In Sant Mat, God continually sends His Sons to earth (to bring Souls back Home via the Holy Spirit / Shabd / Nam), and will continue to do so for as long as there are Souls in the material realms. (This is the fundamental difference.) 5: Sikhs say that Sikhism started with Guru Nanak Dev and has no connection with any other religion (unless you would like to engage in a very long academic discussion on Hindu and Islamic influences). Many modern Sant Mat followers, on the other hand, are realizing and accepting the clear and compelling affinity of Sant Mat with the classic Gnostics (See Davidson's The Gospel of Jesus, then scan the Nag Hammadi Library and many other books). There still are other differences, but these are major and suffice to lay out the difference. As a Sant Mat devotee, I have the utmost respect and affection for the Ten Gurus (as Perfect Masters) and the Holy Granth (besides seeing Sikhism as very aesthetic), but I don't regard myself as a "Sikh" (as defined by the orthodoxy), and I know others who don't either.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Oliver, Sant Mat Masters are born in a religion but then went beyond that, as much as Christ was Jewish when he was born, but surely we can't say nowadays that he was a common Jew (and accepted as Jew by Jewish).

so it's not so correct to but sikhism as Jaimal Singh's religion... that was just his starting point when he was born. Then he accepted things avoided to sikh people (a new Guru!) --GurDass (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to discuss what the differences are, as that is not in dispute. The facts remain that Jaimal Singh did retain his keshdhari sikh identity his whole life. He did study and revere the Adi Granth and the sikh gurus his whole life. He also conducted satsang using the bani of the Adi Granth. He taught that RS was merely a new expression of sikh philosophy (gurmat sidhant) and that RS was merely a new name for the same deity worshipped by the sikh gurus. So... can you explain what changes exactly are either of you or both of you are suggesting making to the article? If you want to improve the article what it really needs is some citations.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

i really suggest to remove "sikh" from the religion(s?) of the infobox. This person may or may not claim to still be a sikh but he clearly does not accept all the sikh dogmas (he does not use the 5 k's, he does accept other Masters and revers his Master as God himself). And he had followers not Sikh (i'm a Sant Mat follower and I don't consider myself to be in any religion at all!) --GurDass (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If Gandhiji speaks from the Bible, does it mean that Christianity and Hinduism are the same? If a Muslim became a Sant Mat initiate, does it necessarily mean that Islam and Sant Mat are the same? That Baba Jaimal Singh Maharaj was a Sikh does not necessarily mean that Sikhism and Sant Mat are the same. Sant Mat is not a continuation of Sikhism. The earliest known Sant in India, Namdev, died (1350) before Guru Nanak Dev was born (1469).Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is what region was Jaimal Singh? Was he sikh? Yes. Was he a RadhSwami follower? Yes. Did he follow and teach Sant Mat? Yes. Was he Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu? No.

Nowhere does the article claim these three categories of Sikh, RS, Sant Mat "...are the same..." And the criteria for what constitutes a sikh has changed since the time of Nanak, and is still disputed today. Mardana the disciple and companion of Nanak was a muslim. 'Sikh' literally means 'disciple'. So anyone who was disciple of the sikh gurus was a 'sikh'. Shiv Dayal Singh and his father and grandfather regarded themselves as Nanakpanthis, which at the time meant sehjdhari sikh. The important thing for this article is that Jaimal Singh regarded himself as Sikh and so did his contemporaries. After his death the SGPC even tried to claim the Dera as a gurdwarah and therefore sikh SGPC property BECAUSE they regarded him as a SIKH and his teachings Sikhi and his followers as predominantly Sikhs.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of Sant Mat initiates in Europe, North America, and Latin America. Wow! So many Sikhs!Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

sant mat masters sometimes born as sikhs (not always) but always they does not observ sikh religion: they accept other Masters. So they stop being sikhs... just surf some sikh blog and read what they say about radhasoami... sorry I can't agree! On Sikhism you can read: Guru Gobind Singh was the final guru in human form. Before his death, Guru Gobind Singh decreed that the Gurū Granth Sāhib would be the final and perpetual guru of the Sikhs. So this means that Jaimal Singh was NOT a sikh, or that you must correct Sikhism page. Choose! --GurDass (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

To Oliver. People of different religions followed and still follow RS Sant Mat. On this we agree. But this article is about Jaimnal Singh. NOT about "...tens of thousands of Sant Mat initiates in Europe, North America, and Latin America....". Jaimal Singh was a sikh who became a Radha Swami Sant Mat initiate. This does not mean that all Radha Swami Sant Mat initiates are sikh. That would be a strawman argument. For example Rai Saligram, Faqir Chand, Shiv Brat Lal, Munshi Ram, and Dayai Lal Kapur were hindus. Etc., etc.

To Gur Dass. We need to have a reliable secondary sources to include material in Wikipedia. As you know, it is not enough to write according to our own opinions. We must cite sources. Here I provide some.

"...he [Sawan Singh] first met Jaimal Singh, also a Jat sikh, and became his disciple."

'Radhasoami Reality' by Mark Jurgensmeyer. Publ.1996. Pg. 48.

Here is another: "One day... I saw an old sikh going up a hill along with a middle-aged lady. ...Little did I think he was to be my Master. He was no other than Baba Ji himself and the lady was Bibi Rukko."

Sawan Singh in a letter published in Spiritual gems. Letter no.4. Pg 8.

Here are some more that demonstrate Jaimal Singh's sikh identity. When jaimal Singh went to Murrie in October 1994 he

"...put up in the gurdwara (sikh temple). He held satsang from the Granth Sahib... On the 4th day when I went to attend satsang, Baba Ji was explaining the meaning of Jap Ji Sahib...."

Sawan Singh, Spiritual gems. Letter no.1. Pg 2.

Sawan Singh refered to the teachings of his Guru Jaimal Singh as gurmat. He wrote and published one book in his life which he called 'Gurmat siddhant'. In a letter to a follower he wrote:

"Gurmat is above all religions." Spiritual gems. Letter no.1. Pg 1.

At the following wiki article it is written: "Gurmat... is a term which may in its essential sense be taken to be synonymous with Sikhism itself." [[1]]

Jaimal Singh was a sikh, born in a sikh family and he did retain his sikh identity throughout his life. His contemporaries regarded him as a sikh. He served in a Sikh regiment consisting totally of Indian Sikhs (apart of course from the British officers). Therefore I do not see the need to try to deny readers of the wiki online encyclopedia, this well documented and attested aspect of his life?

Finally I understand your concerns regarding the SGPC's criteria for who and who is not a sikh today. But I don't think their criteria need concern us here. If we are to apply the SGPC 1925 Act retroactively NONE of the sikhs prior to Gobind Singh's creation of the Khalsa - not even the first eight sikh gurus after Nanak - would be regarded as Sikhs. Which of course would be ludicrous.

In the following article on sikh identity by a University graduate, you will see the author refers to Radhaswami Sikhs, Nirankari Sikhs and Namdhari Sikhs which shows that sikhs CAN also be followers of Radha Swami, Nirankar, Namdhari, Sant Mat, etc. So the terms are NOT universally regarded as mutually exclusive in the way that you two appear to be applying them. This Sikh author is here arguing against such a narrow sectarian criteria. I include this here as it demonstrates criticisim of the illogicality and inaccuracy of the SGPC position exists within the orthodox sikh movement. So to use that disputed SGPC postion as a guage is clearly not applicable as a definitive and final arbiter.

"...The definition of a Sikh as provided in the SGPC 1925 Act raises some fundamental questions concerning the identity of a Sikh person. Firstly, it does not exclude Sahejdhari (those who do not wear outward symbols) Sikhs from participating in the election of the SGPC. It suggests that the Sikh leadership in the 1920s was more liberal than now and that they accepted the definition provided in the Adi Granth: 'He who calls himself a Sikh of the True Guru should get up in the early hours of the morning and remember the Name of the Lord ... Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that Gursikh who not only contemplates himself but also makes others contemplate the name of the Lord'. (Adi Granth, 305-6). Secondly, it does exclude those Sikhs who believe in the living Guru, i.e. the Namdhari Sikhs, Nirankari Sikhs and Radhasoami Sikhs. As a matter of fact, the Act reflects the political and religious ideology of the Singh Sabha Movement, which had endeavoured to reform and re-define Sikh tradition since its inception in 1873. Another interesting feature of the definition of a Sikh in this Act is the inclusion of the declaration that 'I have no other religion'. This definition, which still applies today, implicitly rejects the teachings of Sikh Gurus. For example Mardana, the lifelong companion and first Sikh of Guru Nanak was a Muslim minstrel. This part of the definition clearly indicates the impact of Western and Judeo-Christian tradition as opposed to the traditional Indic culture which is based on the principle of inclusivity rather than exclusivity. It is interesting to note that the PSG Act was passed by the Punjab Legislative Assembly which was composed of Sikh, Hindu and Muslim legislators including members nominated by the British Government. The Bill became an Act on 29th July 1925, when it obtained the formal assent of the Governor General of India. It may be argued that the central body of the Sikhs, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) constituted under the PSG Act, 1925 was originally created by non-Sikhs (Muslims, Hindus and Christian administrators)..."

From: Problems of Defining Authority in Sikhism. Dr. Sewa Singh Kalsi. Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds [[2]]

"Sikh" originally meant "student" or "pupil." As used today, it means one who follows Sikhi, Rahet Maryada, Akal Takht, SGPC, five Ks, etc. Islam was surrender to God, now it's a specific religion; Muslim was one who surrendered to God, now it's not just anyone who did this, but one who recognizes al-Lah and the Prophet exclusively above others and follows the Islamic culture. Many a term has changed from its original meaning. Hence, there are those who would readily assume or receive such words as personal labels in the original sense, but not in the contemporary sense as commonly understood. We could go on and on and on with this, but obviously I won't convince you that Sant Mat and Sikhism are different, and you won't convince me that they are the same.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

question: how is that possible to have more than one religion? clearly that statement in infobox can't be right. --GurDass (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To Oliver: I agreed right at the start that there are "differences". You are not responding to what has been written. Core wiki policy requires using reliable sources. Therefore there is no need to argue with anyone for our own individual points of view. I don't know how new you are to editing but you may find it helpful to read up on wiki policy regarding sources and verifiability [3] and also on what wiki policy regards as original research [4].

To GurDass. See above answer. I see no no need for us to get into semantic arguments with each other to push a personal point of view. Can you supply reliable secondary sources that show Jaimal Singh was NOT a sikh or did not follow Radha Swami Mat or Sant Mat? I have supplied sources demonstrating he was and still is regarded as a sikh. I can supply sources demonstrating he followed RS Mat and Sant Mat, if you doubt this and need convincing.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"We are very much with Sikh community and never consider that we are separate from Sikhs. For us founder of Sikhism Baba Nanak is supreme," Gurinder Singh Dhillon told reporters here. " [5] --Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite suggestion

This short description of Baba Jaimal Singh might help the lay reader. But maybe, a scholar can write a more detailed (more academic?) article. Before I did some minimal editing and wrote the lead, the article was a verbatim copy-and-paste job from the Tarn Taran website.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding image of article subject to infobox

There is a photograph of the subject titled Baba-jaimal-singh-ji.jpg at wikicommons. It has been added to the article a few times over the years (most recently by me) before it was deleted from the article. Does anyone know what the reason for its deletion from the article was? If it was due to disruptive editing/trolling/vandalism, I will attempt to re-add the image to the article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)