The Role of Avatar in Traditional Sikh Metaphsyics

[tSingh]

Another article which has intellectual copyright, so no cutting and pasting please

The role of Avatar in Traditional Sikh Metaphysics

This should have been put into Bhavrasamrit Tika, but I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

In my opinion the fundamental question that should be posed, one that was put to me a couple of years ago by a Nirmala sadhu I'd met, is 'who is your Guru?'. I feel it is on this issue that so much else stems. In fact I have advised others I have spoken to to do the same, think carefully about it. Although there are a number of positions on this, for the sake of this article it is worth taking the two most oppossed ones within the realm of Sikh thought. The first is the samprday view; that the Guru is nothing other than Parmatma in sargun svaroop. The second the Singh Sabha view that the Guru was a prophet blessed with perfect doctrine. While the literature to support the first position can be found with Bhai Gurdas, Pandit Gulab Singh, the Gurbilas literature and everything else prior to the reformists, the literature supporting the latter includes scholars such as Sirdar Kapur Singh, Macauliffe, among other Singh Sabha scholars who write in english.

Taking the second position first, the motivation behind understanding the Guru as a Prophet is in a sense to validate the position that Sikhi is an addition to the spectrum of world religions, but as a distinct self-autonomous, revealed tradition from its inception. God takes Guru Maharaj to his darbar and gifts him the pure doctrine that is untainted, unlike other present religious traditions. As a consequence of this, the problem of the Bhagat's affinity in philosophical terms is resolved by stating that they in fact came later as disciples. This necessity for total distinctiveness and revelation is demonstrated at its most ludicrous in Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal's redefinition of 'Ik Ongkar', the view that 'ek ongkar' is a mistranslation of the symbol, that Dakhni Onkar bani is about a temple named Ongkar, that Bhai Gurdas is the first guilty of this mistake (how on earth could the Guru praise Bhai Gurdas' Varans so highly if he supposedly got the very first symbol wrong I don't know!). Although his writings are perhaps some of the most surreal examples, the fundamental motivation behind his and many other writers remains the same; if the Guru recieved a prophecy, then he cannot have been given old information. It has to be new and different, in otherwords, totally unrelated to prior religious beliefs. The highest truth therefore has to be exclusive. This exclusivity factor is what makes modern Sikhs so very sensitive and potentialy violent.

The traditional position is quite different. Sikhi is distinct from earlier traditions, yet it is built, to a degree, on philosophical concepts that preceeded it. How does it relate to that which was prior? What is their position on truth prior to Sikhi? It is here that writings such as those of Bhai Gurdas and Pandit Gulab Singh are most useful. Both state that there is a continuity between the avatars of prior yugs and Guru Maharaj. But why? Gurbani often alludes to individuals from earlier yugs who reached mukti through naam. They are even referred to as Gurmukhs. If the Guru was a prophet, such a position cannot be maintained. The samprdas hold the position thus that the Guru is the avatar of kalyug.

There are two ways of looking at this. One is as a Nirmala would, the other as a modern scholar. A Nirmala holds that the Guru is avatar, sargun self-aware parmatma, with the specific duty of upholding and gifting the 'yug dharma', in otherwords the correct practice of the present yug. Prior avatars brought their dharma, Parmatma again has manifested to articulate yug dharma. Be clear here, Parmatma has not taken birth! How can Parmatma take birth when it is beyond the treh guna. On this point about truth precceding the historical appearance of the Guru, Gurbani is explicit about it, 'Aad Sach, Jugaad sach, Hai Bhai Sach Nanak Hosi Bhai Sach' - Jug or yug, aad meaning original or beginning, truth. The truth was there at the beginning. Therefore, for traditional Sikhs there is no fundamental need to strive and distort both Gurbani and itihas so as to demark a totally seperate group of religious principles.

So far within modern scholarship on Sikhi it has been the position that whenever the term 'avatar' is used in relation to the Guru, it is yet another example of 'brahminical' beliefs creeping into Sikhi (see S.S. Hans 'Reconstructing Sikh history...', Pashaura Singh, McLeod, etc). They have totally missed the point here! Even taking this from a purely scholarly perspective, the use of the concept of Avatar is a means of delineating exactly HOW the Gurus relate to the other samprdayas, darshanas, traditions within India. The truth existed prior to the Guru, the Guru has brought the most suited method for realising that truth, the Gurus were not prophets, they were not merely 'saints', they were the knowing-givers of truth. That is the difference. Look at any supposedly 'hinduised' painting of the Gurus and notice how exactly the devtay and prior avatars are relating to Guru Maharaj. Thus the concept of Avatar can be taken at its functional level, a concept everyone would have understood, and used as a means of establishing the correct philosophical nuance about the relationship between the status of Gurbani in relation to the eternal truth.

Tirath Singh Nirmala

[kelari]

great post

[Malwe Da Sher]

Thanks for the brilliant post. People often innocently or ignorantly refer to Guru Nanak as a messenger of God, a prophet etc, without considering the impliciti differences between say mohammad sahib as a profit and guru nanak dev ji as a guru. the theological implications and connotations of the word 'guru' are very unique.

[fatehsingh]

Tell me about it! It's like everyday there are newer and newer 'CONCEPTS' of every thing pertaining to Sikhism! Majority of all these 'concepts' (Read: problem in understanding plain and simple Punjabi) is in many cases caused by those who have received 'foreign' education.

Might I be so bold as to suggest some more 'Concepts' to be added to your list of ever-growing concepts:

a) Concept of Naam - it is already within you - so no need for Guru/Avatar

Concept of Gyan - it is already within you - so no need for Guru/Avatar

c) Concept of Jappa - it is not chanting Naam because Naam is already within you. It is rather repeating of Gur-Gian (Already within you?) - - so no need for Guru/Avatar

So frankly there is this 'self-serve' (buffet restaurant anyone?) concept by which there is no need for any Guru (read: HINDOO, RSS, Brahminical figure) to get involved.

I'd say have a great weekend but then again I'm confused what's the concept of weekend again? Is it time starting from Friday morning or Friday night? Or is it Midnight? Don't tell me! I will google it and thereby rely on no foreign Gyan of any of you HINDOO agents.

-Fateh Singh

[shaheediyan]

Bhai Tirath Singh Ji,

First of all I would like to thank you for your great seva on translating Bhav-ras-amrit, it has wonderful commentry, provides a rare insight into older Sikh traditions and provides explanation of misunderstood concepts (as in your post above).

Could you kindly answer a few questions for me Bhai Sahib (please forgive my ignorence):

1 - Is it possible to say (or is it known) the chronological time periods of the 4 yugs. (with source i.e. ? purana)

2 - Are these 4 yugs also known/acknowledged in any other world culture?

3 - How do the likes of the respected Prophet Mohammed, Jesus Christ, Abraham, Siddhartha Gautama, Zoroaster and Confucius fit into the yugs, and how do these divine personalities differ from Guru Nanak Dev Ji Mahahraj in terms of their role and being?

4 - Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a truth for the old age and the new, for east and west, for Hindu and Muslim (and all other unmentioned variants of the aforementioned), so uses metaphors in relation to the common and most respected belief systems of the the time, in order to explain the truth in a truely universal context (reach out to all audiences). How do we differenciate between metaphor and fact? e.g. reincarnation, heaven and hell, angels and demons, numerous holy rituals...

Dhanvaad

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Thanks for the kind words. Fantastic questions which cut to the real central issue here; to what extent are such terms metaphorical.

Well, in all honesty the Puranas are not my speciality (to digress for a second, one of the highest authorities among the Udasis in Punjab I was recently speaking to identified this as a key difference between the Udasis and Nirmalay in their prachaar, the Udasis would adopt puranic narratives to illustrate points from Gurmat, while the Nirmalay were much more into the adhyatamic philosophical side of things, the darshanas, vedanta, etc. Looking at Nirmalay granths, they rarely translated puraanas and focused on brahmgyaan scriptures).

Be clear, the following is merely my own unlearned view. The yugs can be taken at varying degrees of metaphor. Obviously once the nirgun became sargun, causality with its accompanying factor, time, manifested. Causality cannot exist without time. This is a central point of Adi Sankaracharya's advaita vedanta, that causality and time are co-dependent for action and thus constitute maya, hence within the more austere version of this updesh, all considerations of time and space and causality are also illusory or upadhi! This is a very intense view if mulled over, a bit like nihilistic insanity! Have a go!

But back to the issue, so time has existed and with it humanity has evolved. Exact numbers are given in the puranas for each yug's duration (from which strange people calculate the reappearance of nehkalank avatar, etc). But for me the point is that it is a model of social evolution, as the model states the quality of life, the quality of morality slowly deteriorates. Socio-politically speaking from my biased perspective here, if Fukuyama is correct about capitalism being the Hegelian perfection of civilisation, then were doomed! Any Sikh knows that, that the principle of greed is at odds with dharam. This is why I've said in the past jokingly, that satyug will come with a nucleur warhead. Can society return back to a state of general mindfullness for the environment and each other? Not if Fukuyama's correct.

Do the yugs exist in other models? Never checked, apart from the fact that semitic traditions generally see things getting REALLY bad and then God sorting it out...which is not too dissimilar! Buddhists and Jains not surprisingly hold the wheel of time thing....I've got to go but will continue this random warbling tomorrow, sorry if it makes no sense.

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

Publius Ovid the Celtic influenced Roman writer Describes the gold silver bronze and iron ages

The first age of man was a golden age, during which men did what was right without laws and without the threat of punishment. No one strayed far from home. Everyone lived at peace with his neighbors, and the earth itself gave up its fruits without cultivation or labor. Berries, fruits, grains, and flowers abounded although the land remained untilled. Rivers flowed with milk and nectar, and honey dripped from the trees. Springtime was the only season.

When Saturn lost his rule to Jove this golden age on earth gave way to a silver age. Jove, the sky god, shortened springtime and added the seasons of summer, fall, and winter. The earth now yielded its bounty of grain only from plowed fields, made fruitful by the labor of man and beast.

Then came an age of bronze. Just as bronze is harder than silver, men were now more disposed toward warfare than heretofore.

Finally came an age of iron, a metal baser and harder than gold, silver, or bronze. Now the natural virtues of man gave way to baser, harsher qualities. Modesty, truth, and loyalty were replaced by treachery, deceit, and greed. Sailors now traversed the seas seeking new lands and power. Men sought wealth in foreign places and from beneath the earth, wealth that in turn became the cause of much wickedness and suffering. Friend betrayed friend, and relative turned against relative.

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-ovid.html

My viewpoint on the metaphor/fact thing is this; an image from any mythology is a powerful way to remember something. It is only a fact if it improves your behaviour in life. By improve i mean as a Sikh takes you closer to living the perfected life of a brahmgyani. People are very quick to forget and carry on living, so a myth is powerful because it gives an image to your brain that 'sticks' so when you remember the image you remember that you should be acting in a certain way. For example the myth of reincarnation (i do not use myth in a deregotary way) would teach a person detachment and vairaag to the problems he faces in life because he believes it is the fruit of karma from previous births, it can be negative also e.g. i won't do bhagti now i'll wait for a better birth or something along those lines.

In other words a myth is not fact until through your own experience you make it into a fact for yourself whereby it takes on a deep meaning for your self. Internal experience and perception of the world lends truth to myths an individual imbues a myth with his own shaktee and makes it useful for him in his daily sadhana. But nowadays we have no societal myths which in my opinion were very powerful and guided socities on the path of dharam. The value of myth is decreased nowadays as reflected in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, not to say that myths have no value now. As in Bhai Gurdas Ji's vaara in satyug a man commits a sin the whole world is punished, in treta the whole city, in dwapar his family and in kaliyug aape he biij appe hi khaae. man is becoming more and more segregated from his fellows a sad sad truth.

[drawrof]

Well, I beg to differ

Sau saakhi says that guru gobind singh ji will return in 2012 and the special ones, and many know who they are, will be along with him!

[tSingh]

The point I need to clarify here which will hopefully tie up these issues shaheedian is this;

It is best to consider sources of brahmgyan as a) individual atmas working up, and becoming that - i.e. brahmgyanis. the other is avatars coming down, in the sense that they are unafflicted by maya from inception, that they likewise bestow the means to brahmgyan. Was the Guru ever out of touch with his aatmic essence, was he afflicted by maya? Thats the question. If the answer is no, then that is in a sense an avatar, always perfectly self-realised atma (hence parmatma) projecting itself within gunas to gift yug dharma.

How does this relate to other teachers of truth? This is the crux. If we start with say Baba Farid. Baba Farid clearly was considered by the Gurus to be articulating that same Truth, yet the Gurus gave diksha and didn't send their shish to the Chisthis. Within Sikhi there exists a residual recognition that the path given by Guru Maharaj is the 'nirmal panth', the pure path in our opinion as we have taken diksha from that Guru, we live by those teachings. It is not a path of 'everything goes'. We have specific teachings that are odds with other traditions.

Yet, Guru Granth Sahib contains the writings of individuals linked to other panths, Ramanand and the Bairagis, Baba Farid and the Chisthis, Kabir and the Kabirpanthis. These panths all existed by the time of Guru Arjun Dev's compilation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Therefore, although this residual level exists for us, we hold no exclusivity on truth. If we did, there would be no bhagat bani... without writing bizarre books claiming the bhagats to be historical disciples of the Guru, against a huge amount of contrary proof otherwise from the rest of the world! At the same time, the bhagats themselves hold a similar position philosophically.

I hope that answers the questions without too much confusion.

[shaheediyan]

Bhai Tirath Singh Ji,

Thank you for acknowledging the metaphoric aspect - I haven't as yet figured out if it is healthier for people to read bani as is or metaphorically, maybe there is room for both, and it is meant to be seen in both ways depending on the person, so long as the point is made I suppose it doesn't matter, it just annoys me some times when I hear people focusing on the details of the story, rather than the point of the story.

I agree with everything you say, and particularly like your description of Avataars and Brahm-Gyanis.

But what I would like to hear, is your opinion on whether or not the holy personalities I mentioned are Avataars or not. I know this question is seemingly shallow, and I also understand the greater point you have made, but am interested (if you are ok to share) in your view none the less.

All faiths believe their path is nirmal.

On another shallow point, I cannot bring myself to believe that India has the monopoly on Avataars (sorry don't mean to sound rude). Although some people like yourself can see above this, for the majority, things like this cause divides and hankaar (which maybe they are meant to).

Lastly, on Avataar's, another question - using the above definition of an Avataar (self realised atma), Guru Nanak Dev Ji is an Avataar. But where does that leave Guru Ji's 9 Mahallai?

The difference I take it between a Brahmgyani is that they are not born one where as an Avataar is. So If Guru Angad Ji recieved Nirgun Jyot at a specified time, then can they be Avataar, if so, then what were they before hand? That leads on to the last question, what is jagdi jyot? Is it a physical transfer of spirit or was it the transfer of the light of divine knowledge (Brahm-gyan) which reached it's final form in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj?

Sincere apologies for these further questions fom a tiny mind, I am genuinly interested in your opinion.

Bhai Mekhane'ch Jannat Ji,

I agree, thank you.

[tSingh]

Sure thing, and these are good questions.

I can see what you're getting at. It has to be in my mind kept at that level though. If someone holds that 'we have avatars, you haven't therefore da di da' then clearly they are profoundly ignorant and have missed the flipping point!

As regards other human sources of truth, the issue is not whether they are or are not 'avatars' since this is just a term for a concept. If they are considered to be manifestations of self-realised parmatma then they are. If they are brahmgyanis, then that is what they are. Semitic tradition generally speaking - which is always a dangerous thing to do obviously - has held an ideology of dvaitvaad, in the sense that the minority/mystics (countless Catholic and Orthodox Christians, more esoteric shia thought like the ismailis, sufi traditions) have always been pushing up against the charge of heresy through their allusions to oneness or experiential immanence. This isn't the case in the Indian tradition, therefore it is not a problem to describe figures as avatar. Whether a Nirmala considers semitic and nastik figures as 'avatar' seems more down to the individual - there is no set line on these things.

It is important however to recognise one thing about the Nirmalay. They are NOT just a random bunch of scholars. They HAVE a tradition, and that tradition according to the historical literature goes back to Guru Gobind Singh directing them to learn sanskritik shaastra. If they were simply scholars no more no less, then they would be just a namesake, taking on a gurdev would entail spending a few days with them and getting aagyaa. This is not how it has worked for the last 300 years! Furhter, he did not send them to Baghdad to study arabic in the sufi lodges. From this point onwards, the Nirmalay have been particularly studying adhyatmic and darshana literature (and generally not Puranas), thus philosophical material. Their katha has been therefore enriched by this study. Apart from one Nirmala who translated the Quran, reading through all the Nirmala granths one does not find much persian or arabic translation. In their commentaries, one does not come across hardly any (beyond a few minor references I've seen). This isn't a later development, this is there from the inception. Alternatively the sevapanthis however have lots of it from the time of Baba Seva Ram onwards (possibly before that also). Linguistically they were closer to and more influenced by persian (lahindi, pathohari, etc).

On the issue of Guru Maharaj and joti jot, have a read of bhavrasamrit's introduction, its in there.

all the best

[shaheediyan]

Bhai Tirath Singh Ji,

Thank you very much for sharing.

[Guest]

Great posts here guys, amazing discussion happening here. some really fantastic posts by shaheediyan and tsingh baba ji.

I ll write my thoughts later on when i have little bit time but just want to throw an questions to educated veers here:

Is there any difference between Guru Avtars and bhramgyanis who are Karaks *? No doubt they are merged with vahiguroo and one jot , if one thinks they are not they are suffering from big dubta.

Question is though , is there any difference between them in terms of kala, everyone knows sri guru nanak dev ji is sarab kala(beant kala) guru avtar came in kalyug and bhramgyanis who are karaks come to this earth also to benefit human kind.

1. Speaking from sharda and socio-religious perspective i wouldnt compare between sarab kala guru avtar sri guru nanak dev ji and other karaks who are bhramgyani's because no doubt sri guru nanak dev is higher in terms of sarab kala. But in esssence(Tat), i think karaks and sarab kala guru avtar is one, how could u differentiate between water which has merged with ocean already, once its merged in ocean and its part of the ocean and its ocean because karaks dont have subconsciouness(man, chit, buddh, ahankar) they are above from panj koshas just like sarab kala guru avtar.

However with that mindset number 1- speaking from sharda and socio religious perspective.. subtle dubta may come in the mind of jaiagaso because then in a way arent we ignoring the fact that both sarab kala guru avtar and bhramgyanis who are karaks indeed came from sat chit anand saroop nirgun paratma and sent by sat chit anand saroop vahiguroo?

so one has to be careful, nothing wrong with the mindset number 1 just have to be careful to avoid any dubta creeping in to mind of jaaigsoo.

* In sampardae traditions bhramgyanis who are karaks are given more upma and signifance than bhramgyanis who have struggled their way in thier life ie- sikh to jaaiago sikh then to murid sikh then to atamgyani then to bhramgyani.

[drawrof]

I say the following with the 'little' knowledge I have.

I don't feel the sampardai approach focused on figures per se. The virtues of nirankar are expressed through out creation, but even those expressed as 'genotypes' in brahmgyani's (for a better lack of words) would 'generally' be satoguni-rajoguni-tamoguni based on the circumstances they were in. The will is of akaal purakh, and the directive or examples are inidicative of those who are in complete 'tune' with creation/reality/spirit/force/oangkar...they would be 'rajai' in 'hukam'. At a deeper level, is maya real, semi-real, false....I do not know, but I feel it is safe to presume that recognizing the reality behind maya in itself would be mind blowing.

As for the sampardai perspective, I can't give a full explanation from their perspective, from what I think....the point here is self-realization and if your gurdev gets you to that point...then the game is done. What I mean here is that sargun qualities would be expressed through that interaction, but I truly don't feel that this is about hierarchies of saints and their abilities, as these are narratives which appeal to the masses who see bhagtee MAINLY as a means to acquire material wealth.

[tSingh]

precisely!

[Xylitol]

I'm interested in knowing what else sau sakhi has to say about 2012 and the future. Drawrof (and others), would you mind explaining this to us, perhaps in a new thread?

[Dynamic_Banda]

in my simple dumb jatt response, I agree with what you saying..

It seems now we are much more intrested in quantative data facts figures the actual numerical years in a juga etc, whereas the sampradayas (and my belief all true spirituality) is more qualatative its more about the experience. hence all the sampardas have this great method of teaching where you just experience everything, slowly and gradually building up a greater understanding

When I met a great great Nirmala in Patiala (someone who in the span of a few hours literaly changed my life, a gurdev as such) it wasnt what we chatted about that mattered as we just chatted random things, some specifics but mainly random and it wasnt want he showed my as we only sat in his front room. (so no historical sites or anything) but there was an experience there, and he made me acknowledge that experience and taught me alot through something i would never have thought coudl be used to teach.. its weird.

what im trying to get at is the metaphorical meanings in bani are in my opinion to express feelings and emotions not something which is so literal.

I dont know maybe im on a tangent ..

[drawrof]

words like intelligence, take us to that brink....thereafter its all experience...something that can't be quantified as it has 'dynamically' been said

[tSingh]

Again slightly out of context BUT an interesting point though.

In a recent conversation with someone who ardently holds to the 'all experience nothing to do with knowledge' post Singh Sabha type thing, she was essentially holding to the view that intellectual learning is worthless...yet after a number of years of long real intense AKJ type hath yog early morning naam simran practice she was there asking me questions like 'what is naam?'.

So I dropped the analogy of digging a house. Without knowledge and its focused contemplation, you are like a man trying to lay the foundations at night, you know your digging but thats all. You don't understand what you're doing, can only imagine it. In the cold light of day, the house is weak and unliveable because it has poor foundations. Whereas the woman (women are generally more intelligent from experience) who begins digging the foundations with a clear understanding in the clear light of day, builds a strong and effective building. Thats the role of sound philosophical knowledge, thats the role of the Guru!

And I usually hate analogies...BTW that analogy is copyrighted too, TSN 2007 hehe. No cutting and pasting on sikhsangat please.

[Guest]

Again slightly out of context BUT an interesting point though.

In a recent conversation with someone who ardently holds to the 'all experience nothing to do with knowledge' post Singh Sabha type thing, she was essentially holding to the view that intellectual learning is worthless...yet after a number of years of long real intense AKJ type hath yog early morning naam simran practice she was there asking me questions like 'what is naam?'.

So I dropped the analogy of digging a house. Without knowledge and its focused contemplation, you are like a man trying to lay the foundations at night, you know your digging but thats all. You don't understand what you're doing, can only imagine it. In the cold light of day, the house is weak and unliveable because it has poor foundations. Whereas the woman (women are generally more intelligent from experience) who begins digging the foundations with a clear understanding in the clear light of day, builds a strong and effective building. Thats the role of sound philosophical knowledge, thats the role of the Guru!

And I usually hate analogies...BTW that analogy is copyrighted too, TSN 2007 hehe. No cutting and pasting on sikhsangat please.

This is great analogy tsingh, exactly my thoughts.

I beleive gyaan vidya has to be understood before walking on this marg, because then you defeniately have strong foundation, no one is asking one to become totta gyani but have basic gyan of your self by reading gurbani and doing vichar of gurbani then do naam simran, you will find it easier on your atamik marg. Lets be honest here, not everyone is as pure as bhagat dhanna here. so basic atamik gyan needs to be understood first then contemplate to make it easier to expereince that gyan on spiritual level.

[drawrof]

I feel knowledge and experience go hand in hand. Yet, this scenario isn't so simple. I like analogies, so here goes one .

aim: to swim across the lake

2 options:

1) jump in and wade your way across...not knowing how you're going to get there...where you're going, or how to prevent yourself from drowning

2) read and read and read....till you have understood the history of the lake and why which rock forms the basin.

after a little while...........

a person sits and thinks....hmm, I am on land, which is on an ocean...so in essence I am travelling...but with no aim...so why not create a raft, learn about the raft...and use that raft to cross the ocean....and maybe even follow instructions on how to raft......that way a person can do both, if they fall off the raft, the can learn how to get back on...but when the aim is to cross the lake...why not choose your raft wisely?

any comments?

[Guest]

good analogy drawrof sion

[Dynamic_Banda]

I like the nihang analogy. let the sant lokh build the rafts.. and then just take over them. all in the name of love..

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

knowledge and experience what is the correct mixture must depend upon what is the aim. Following on from the previous analogy the lake could be our society and the evils and good contained within. So to cross the lake is to be an effective integrated member of society - the mesocosm. This is part of crossing, so to slightly change the analogy our society is the river we must flow with to get to the sea. you -microcosm river - mesocosm and sea - macrocosm each level is absorbed into the higher so the macrocosm absorbs all, is all (please anyone correct this if have got myself confused.) For me the aim is going along with the flow to take you to the sea. How much knowledge does an individual need to be able to go with the flow? This depends on the current of the river which is the society. If the current is strong it is difficult to go against it and it will take you without much effort to the sea the society is attuned to the flow then what knowledge is needed? But if the society is going aganist the flow and the flow is weak then a lot of knowledge is needed to realise that what you are doing is against the flow and you have to attune yourself to nature to let her take you to the sea. Herein is the danger of knowledge whereby without using this knowledge to change fundamentally, internally it makes you fight harder against the current. In other words sadh sangat negates the need for knowledge if the whole society was full of sadhu's then no knowledge is required, knowledge required for moksh rises proportionally with social degredation. Or the need for moksh comes about because of social degredation?

[Xylitol]

we need some gian of the path before us. I once heard of a man who had Amrit start dripping ddown from his Dasm Dwar. He didn't know what was going on and thought he was ill! he told many others and went to the doctor for medical advice.

So... some foreknowledge definitley helps. always good to know that you're not going crazy...

btw, will anyone here indulge my obsession with 2012 and the future??