GURMAT

[Niranjana]

Gur Fateh!

I would like to have a discussion concerning “Gurmat†or the path/way of the Guru/Light. This is essentially the Sikh school of thought, if one will permit such an expression and I would like for us have this discussion in relation to the 3 main schools of philosophy within the Indian tradition that on the face of things appear to agree that the Absolute Transcendental Supreme is ever-present, all-knowing and all-powerful.

However, these three schools differ on the relation to God with the Soul and the Universe and by way of a very quick summary present the main points (which are by no means exhaustive given that one can finds volumes upon volumes seeking to clarify only the definition of these terms!).

1. The advaita school (Adi Sankarcharya)

-only one Absolute Reality.

-the Soul and Universe are ultimately the same as the essential Divinity, that is called brahman in the Upanishads.

-the Soul is infinite in its presence, infinite in its consciousness and infinite in bliss.

-the Universe is only an appearance, superimposed on the Transcendent Reality.

-the Soul has an individual existence only so long as it is wrapped up in ignorance of its identity and therefore, a total merging of the Soul with brahman.

-what appears as the external Universe is only a phenomenon born out of ignorance, a beginningless ignorance which ends when the release ( moksha) takes place.

-the plurality that we perceive during our period of Ignorance is only an apparent plurality. If that is taken as real then it is impossible to reconcile the experience of the sages with such a creed; because in that case Deliverance from samsAra (the cycle of births and deaths) would have a beginning and then there is the inevitable consequence that such a deliverance must also have an end!

2. The viSishTAdvaita school (Ramanuja)

-the Soul and Universe are only parts of the Absolute God.

-relationship of God to the Soul and the Universe is like the relationship of the Soul of man to the body of man.

-Individual souls are therefore only parts of brahman.

-God, Soul and Universe together form an inseparable unity which is one and has no second.

-Matter and Souls inhere in that Ultimate Reality as attributes to a substance. Cit (souls) and acit (matter) are only the body of God.

-So though there is difference from God, this difference is subordinate to the non-difference.

-Creation is a real act of God. It is the expansion of intelligence. Matter is fundamentally real and undergoes real revelation. The Soul is a higher mode than matter, because it is conscious. It is also eternally real and eternally distinct.

-Final release is a communion with God. Individual Souls retain their separate identities even after moksha. They live in fellowship with God either serving Him or meditating on Him.

3. dvaita school (Madhva)

-God, Soul and Universe are three mutually and fundamentally different categories, each having a separate reality, though the latter two are dependent on the former. However, God controls them.

-God's Grace is necessary for the liberation of the Soul.

-God is only the Agent. He causes the universe to be born and controls it. But He is not its material cause.

-Five differences are absolute: God and Soul; Soul and Soul; God and Matter; Soul and Matter; Matter and Matter. Each Soul is essentially different and belongs to different grace, even in its enjoyment of bliss after moksha.

-The philosophy is one of down-to-earth realism.

-To quote Vyasaraja’s nine point summary of this school of thought:

• Lord Narayana is possessed of countless qualities, is devoid of all blemish and is an independent Reality.

• He creates and sustains the world.

• He is the One who grants moksha to pious souls;

• The universe is real.

• There is a five-fold difference.

• Souls are dependent on God.

• All souls are not alike.

• Moksha is a state of existence when the soul enjoys eternal bliss; the only way to reach that state is Devotion.

• The Lord can be only known through Scriptures.

So with these summaries as our background, I would like to know how we can assess Gurmat –I have found that depending on whom one speaks to within Sikh Institutions, Oragnisations, Jathas and Cults, the understanding of Gurmat vis-à-vis the above mentioned schools of thought tends to vary considerably with some Sampradhas such as Nirmalas being keen to tie into only the viSishTAdvaita or Advaita school and others institutions such as Nanaksar and Taksal clearly sharing this, whilst others within them favouring more of the Adi-Sankara stance, yet more recent groups within the Sikh Diaspora talk of Gur Kirpa in a format similar to Madhva’s dvaita.

Some speak to me as if Gurmat is part and parcel of the continuing Vedanta traditions, others as if it is wholly distinct and unique.

Please discuss and enlightment me...

[DSM]

niranjana,

Thats deep stuff way over my head , i don't know whether the below will be of any relevance but don't you believe that if you follow the Gurus teaching by living in the rehat , reciting and practising the bani , doing the daily and evening prayers with love without the mind wondering ( That is the key do path and seva with pyar ), slowly the answers will come to you i.e. keeping it simple taking it one step at a time , because the bani is so powerful , we can waste our whole lives trying to understand what certain things means hence our focus on the overall goal fades .

kema da jachak hair

[Guest]

excellent thread niranjana...this is very deep stuff...tsingh veer ji can enlighten along with amrit veer ji, bahadur singh veer ji and others..

Please continue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

I think only way we can draw simliarties and diferences between Gurmat and three school of thoughts posted above by Niranjana is through posting Gurbani quotes and it's interpertations via different steeks of Siri Guru Granth Sahib ji Maharaj ie- Faridkot teeka, sahib singh teeka, bhai vir singh ji teek, dera sato gali teeka and other famous teeka's accepted in the panth.

[Dynamic_Banda]

yaara you do not need many quotes to see a complete inclusion of all the three schools and concepts beyond that in the beej mantar itself, Ek Onkaar.

If i could explain and type what I felt I would but I cant so either take the above statement as a point of reference in your own search for a comparison or ignore it completely.

[Guest SAdmin]

Nirajana Ji,

You have started really great discussions. Please add more to it so we can learn from it. I think having ability to compare different thoughts should be part of every Sikh.

DSM,

It is Sikh way of life to improve our knowledge and become Pundit which Gurbani explains.

[Guest]

very good point dynamic banda

[Guest Javanmard]

I believe in the religion of Love, whatever direction its caravans may take, for Love is my religion and my faith - Ibn 'Arabi

[Guest]

3. The Varan of Bhai Gurdas mention the Vedantic school. Bhai Gurdas mentions how Vyasa went astray by meditating on the Upanishadic formula: So'ham (I am he). The point being that like Hallaj's Ana'l Haqq So'ham is an expression of extatic rapture than an ontological a statement about the nature of the relation between the Divine and the soul.

Yes-starting up with upanishad forumula -Mantar So'hong could be very dangerous in bhagti marg ie- becoming egoistical.

But I have read literatures of sant baba jagjit singh ji and sant baba isher singh ji in their literature...it does mentions- at gyan/ bhramgyani stage- you could say- Mein Sat Hu, Mein Chit Hu, Mein Anand Saroop because there is nothing else left without bhram and there is no trace of Ego/subtle Ego...

[Hari]

There is only One Guru.Only One Identity (Naam).I reccomend reading Yoga Vasishta.It is the the dialogue between Shri Ram Chandra and His Guru Maharishi Vasishta Ji.

The Guru is Nirmal Chit.It is there "behind" your idiot changing self.That self which is only there for a few hours of the day and then dies into deep sleep.

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

In response to Shaka’s comments here and earlier;

- I agree with Shaka about the need to look at the variety of Vedanta. Likewise within each school for example you will find a diversity of stances also. For example within Advaita you have absolutists who see all ishtadev as illusory, to others who see a relative series of increasing realities, with the devtay holding a position of increased reality.

- 'some Nirmala scholars have put a lot of emphasis on Vedanta'

Understatement of the century!! I cannot think of any I've met or read who have not placed great emphasis on studying and talking Vedanta. That doesn't mean that Vedant and Sikhi are identical. If anything Sikhi does not fit into any of the above forms. Secondly the implication that it was the 19th century that produced this change in Nirmalay is simply untrue. It is there in Pandit Gulab Singh back in the 1770s also. It is there in the first Nirmala compositions of the 1750s. It is there throughout.

- Just because colonialists were fed and enjoyed Vedanta (and particularly Advaita) shouldn’t influence our opinion of it by association. I dislike Swami Vivekananda and much of the post-colonial 'swami' stuff simply because it is grounded on certain modernist principles and assumptions much in keeping with the essence of the Singh Sabha - reformist ideology. Yet we find Advait prakarnagranths in steek form from the very beginning also. This influence exists even in mainstream Nirmalay. If anything of modern times it is Baba Ishar Singh Rarasahib who arguably isthe strongest exponent of Advaita Vedanta in modern print.

- I wholly endorse this affinity to Abhinavagupta, and was pleased to read a modern Nirmala scholar (seemingly independently) coming to the same conclusion.

- To my mind the answer to your questions Niranjana lie in first truly defining and understanding the nature of Guru. Once you understand that, then you will see the link with Kashmiri Shaivam. Then you need to look at the use of specific terms. In this sense you may then come to your own conclusion.

For example, my own position is different from Shaka’s. I reject the idea presented earlier by Shaka that the term ‘agam agochar’ is grounds on which to reject the idea of complete knowledge of Waheguru in the vedantic sense. The problem with this is that the term has been used out of context. Agam or in its original form, agamya, in sanskrit means not able to walk to, inaccessible, unattainable, unintelligible. When used in Gurbani the Guru at one point asks how can one get to that agam puray or inaccessible city, and then concordantly advises the practice of truth and self restraint. The inaccessibility and ineffability being referred to here is the non-intellectual, non-physical nature of essential Brahman; used to denote the essential nature of Vaheguru, not the nature of the final state. Guru Nanak himself uses the term ‘turiya’ to describe the final state, with the modification that it arises out of sehaj samadhi.

To a vedantic Nirmala, the interpretation of the agam agochar would be that it teaches the essential nature of the mind. The limit of present experience before having taken the path is merely sensory and intellectual (in a causal sense). For as long as the aatma is plagued by upaadhi, Waheguru is inaccessible and unknowable. Unknowable in the sense that there cannot be any true real apprehension within the illusion. It is a contradiction in terms that the illusory can have accurate knowledge of the real. It is only until the illusory has been removed that real knowledge exists. Hence while the upaadhi through the antahkaran exists, nothing of God is truly accessible or knowable.

[Niranjana]

Veer T Singh, thank you very much for your excellent input. I'm having to dash off to a meeting in 2 secs, so will re-read and respond further later.

Gur Bar Akaaaal!

Niranjana.

[Guest]

In this thread, I have learnt a lot from gurmukh pyares- Gurmat could have loads of simliarties to above school of thoughts but it's not exact carbon copy of school of thoughts listed above.

That makes me wonder- What is Gurmat Sidhant exactly?? both from (adhyatamik) spiritual and temporal point of view (Miri- Piri) ?

This is very important question. I think lately everyone using gurmat word too loosely on very small pitty things...makes me wonder really - why people making out Guru Di Mat soo narrow and tunnel visioned..

passing on tsingh, bahadur singh, niranjana, drawof , amrit veer ji and other gurmukh pyares.

[DHANBABANANAK]

neo where is that scanned literture from, source plz?

[Guest]

ishvar amolak lal.

[SAadmin]

In this thread, I have learnt a lot from gurmukh pyares- Gurmat could have loads of simliarties to above school of thoughts but it's not exact carbon copy of school of thoughts listed above.

That makes me wonder- What is Gurmat Sidhant exactly?? both from (adhyatamik) spiritual and temporal point of view (Miri- Piri) ?

This is very important question. I think lately everyone using gurmat word too loosely on very small pitty things...makes me wonder really - why people making out Guru Di Mat soo narrow and tunnel visioned..

passing on tsingh, bahadur singh, niranjana, drawof , amrit veer ji and other gurmukh pyares.

Anyone here????

[Guest]

Just like to request javanmard to edit back his post with orginal post, if back up of what he wrote it's avaible on his computer.

This is probably one of the best threads ever on this forum, quite deep.

[Guest Javanmard]

I don't have those posts anymore but I don't mind continuing the thread.

[Guest]

Anyone here????

javanmard, perhaps you can do that by answering my million dollar question above? :wink:

[Guest]

I was speaking to drawrof, i really like what he said which i would like to share: he said, Gurmat is about celebration (tuk that comes in gurbani starts like- bhram sunaie, bhram dekyie... ) gurmat is not about hating one's life to get de-attachment, there is fine line between bairaag and school of thought- adi shankarcharya which advises one contemplate the filth of the human body to rise above from panj tats.

[drawrof]

don't listen to drawrof...he's 'backward'

[Guest]

and forward :lol:

[jsingh96]

Yes-starting up with upanishad forumula -Mantar So'hong could be very dangerous in bhagti marg ie- becoming egoistical.

But I have read literatures of sant baba jagjit singh ji and sant baba isher singh ji in their literature...it does mentions- at gyan/ bhramgyani stage- you could say- Mein Sat Hu, Mein Chit Hu, Mein Anand Saroop because there is nothing else left without bhram and there is no trace of Ego/subtle Ego...

how do you understand the shabads on pg 60 and 599, where maharaj says "Soham"?

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/Page.asp?Sour...G&PageNo=60

and

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/Page.asp?Sour...&PageNo=599

[amardeep]

There is also a shabad by Bhagat Ravidas saying I am you and you are me (Tohi mohi mohi tohi)

[Malwe Da Sher]

How old is the term "Gurmat Vedant"