Namjivan ji,
Sat Nam _/|\_
I'm reading through a website on Sanatan Sikhi and its various sects. One of the things it says there is that Sikhi goes back to the beginning of time. Is this a mainstream concept amongst Sikhs?
You'll have to explain their beliefs if you want to get a discussion going. I don't know what they believe but I have heard things like everyone is a Sikh before they convert to another religion. :grinningsingh: This is coming from mainstream Sikhs.
But here's what I understand of 'sikh'.
1. To be a sikh, apprentice, is to have a relationship with a guru, master.
The guru-sikh relationship which defines Sikhism has been there since the beginning of time. There was someone who knew something and knew the steps to do it, and they passed on this information to the next generation and so on. This continued even after the advent of paper and books. A strong oral tradition was present, and apprentices had to devote their lives to learning the material and memorize it (often with the use of music and poetry). This is pretty easy to grasp. Masters like Peter Paul Rubens had a whole bunch of apprentices who would copy their master and get their input on their creations to learn art. The same is true of spirituality,when it comes to attaining union with God.
2. the beliefs of Sikhism predate Guru Nanak and his successors.
We can trace the guru-sikh relationship starting from Sant Kabir ji (16th century, a contemporary of Guru Nanak) who was one of Guru Ramanand ji's sikhs. Kabir ji is the 5th largest contributor to Guru Granth Sahib ji, but bani of many of Guru Ramanand ji's sikhs, including the guru himself can be found in Guru Granth Sahib ji. At this time many gurus around India were taking followers from lower castes, as they believed the lower castes should also get involved in bhagati. Guru Ramanand ji did so as well, and many of his Sikh belong to different professions. Ramanand ji was a successor of his guru, who was a successor of someone... and so on. Bhagats from the 13th-14th century including Bhagat Namdev ji, Bhagat Jaidev ji, Bhagat Trilochan ji also preach the same message embedded in Guru Granth Sahib. The belief system they followed had a famous proponent, Guru Ramanuja ji (of the 11th century, otherwise known as Ramanujacharya, acharya means guru), who himself had a guru. So basically what you read in Guru Granth Sahib ji is a window to the teachings of Guru Ramanuj, who was a sikh of a Muni (those who practice silence) and other gurus who lead to the development of Guru Ramanuja ji's teachings. I haven't traced back further but I am sure there are records of gurus who came before Ramanuja ji who echo similar thoughts as him.
To wrap up 1 and 2 with an analogy from art, we see many elements of Peter Paul Rubens' art today, particularly, his dynamism and muscular and heroic male characters, and fantastical elements. He would have studied artists before him, artists like Michelangelo and Raphael, whose influence in visible in his style. They themselves got their knowledge from Greek and Roman sculptures. Today's hollywood films are a window to Greek art. The Greek portrayal of the human form is not the same as the Indian, Egyptian or Japanese one. The Greeks based their forms on I believe Pythagorus' mathematical ideals. Even their architexture is based on the mathematics. Pythagorus and his students (you may read: sikhs) believed the beauty of nature could be captured with mathematics. So they came up with certain ratios that described many beautiful things in nature, also known as the golden ratio.
So we find that the guru-sikh relationship has been present for quite a long time. The teachings are transformed over generations. As the masters adapt to new surroundings. The relationship exists not just in spiritual circles but in art, math and I believe in all fields of study where knowledge and practice meet.
Does anyone here agree with this idea? How does it seem true for you? I'm not judging one way or another. Just want to learn.
You'll have to tell us what they are saying exactly. If they are saying what I am saying then I agree. :grinningsingh:
My other question is that I read there Sanatan Sikhs believe anyone who believes in Nirankar and sees the Divine in all is a Sanatan Sikh.
This is the same as mainstream view that union with God results in such a perception where God is seen in all individuals.
How did Guru Nanak define a Sikh?
He didn't, there isn't a need to if a sikh is an individual who follows a guru. But as a religious label, we did this back in the 20th century for religious, politcal and maybe socio-economic reasons.
Back then Guru Nanak's followers were called by several names including Nanak Panthi. A sikh of Guru Nanak was differentiated by a sikh of another guru, say Kabir (who did not name a successor). Kabir's followers were called Kabir Panthi. Both of these lineages still exist today.
