tSingh

My first post in a long time! For the sake of clarification... Swami Parmanand Ji is a dashnami sannyasi, not a Nirmala or Udasi. Nirmalas have always fallen into two types, those who were deredaar and those who were virakat. The former provided education to the community around them and propagated things like amrit sanskar, etc. The latter moved from place to place from itihasik gurdware to the ancient tiraths propagating dharam. Virakat maryada is different from deredar on some points. This does not fall into dharam singh upsamprday vs dya singh upsamrpdaya. I get the feeling that beyond Rare wale Sants and Hoti Mardan people are less aware of the many other branches of those whose guru pranalis fall under Bhai Dya Singh Ji, but they include just as many virakat sadhus as any other. Bikramjit, I'm afraid you're a little out of your depth on this topic. Unfortunately people cannot wake one morning and find themselves an Udasi or Nirmala. I don't know how it works for Nihangs but you have to be formally taken on by a Nirmala, Sevapanthi or Udasi sadhu as a shish. This gives you a guru pranali which is recognised by the sampradaya and at least for the Nirmalas that means authorities in the bhekh knowing who you are. The one thing that has surprised me is the inner consistency within both the Sevapanthis and Nirmalas on their curriculum of study, siddhant and exegesis across centuries! Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised considering the perfection in Gurmat Sidhant, which leads me on to chatanga again raising this 'vedant vs gurmat' point...the point is advaita lies at the heart of both. The concepts of trehguna maya, agyan, nirgun braham, turiya, paramarth, atam-braham being one, the explicit reference to 'projecting falseness' onto experience are at the very heart of Sikh metaphysics! It is not possible to deny this because these words are used consistently and precisely in Gurbani! Show these words to someone well versed in an Indic form of qualified vedanta or monotheism and they will know exactly what it means in terms of metaphysics. The means by which we reach that state are different. Sachkhand has always been interpreted as turiya or brahamlok across the centuries. Hope this helps

It is with much sadness that I report that at the beginning of October Pandit Sadhu Singh Shastri Ji became brahamleen. Although the sangat over here may not have heard of Shastri Ji, he was widely regarded within the Nirmal Panth to have been a pooran brahamgyani. After having studied Gurbani and Vedantic texts in braj bhasha, he was sent by his gurudev the great Tapasvi Tattveta Pandit Tara Singh Ji of Khadur Sahib to Kashi to study sanskrit. He studied the Vedas, Upanishads, Vedangs, Puranas, Khat shastra, etc for many years gaining the shastri title. Along with his shish Sant Prithipal Singh Ji they founded Dera Buddhsar in Chakvendal pind near Jalandhar. Sant Prithipal Singh Ji has now been elected Mahant and the dastarbandi was performed on the 23rd of October by Nirmal Bhushan Sri Mahant Swami Gyandev Singh Ji, Mahant Balwant Singh Ji secretary of Nirmal Panchayti Akhara, Mahant Teja Singh Ji and Pandit Jagjit Singh Ji Harkhoval among others. The dera continues under guidance with the support of Shastri Ji's other shish Sant Raja Singh Ji and Sant Seetal Kaur Ji.

http://www.ajitjalandhar.com/20100517/ Very shocking news. Sriman Mahant Pradhan Singh Ji was a highly respected mahapurush of the Nirmal Bhekh (not Udasis as it states). He was closely connected (through pranali also) with Devapura Ashram in Haridvar and Mahant Darshan Singh Tyagmurti Ji, a link which goes back to Sriman Baba Mishra Singh Ji (who was the illustrious shish of Brahamgyani Thakur Dyal Singh Ji) and Dera Baba Mishra Singh in Amritsar. I was lucky to have darshan of Mahant Ji at the kumbh only a couple of months ago. He was keen to publish the literature of the bhekh and had assisted in publishing two works by Swami Deva Singh Ji. A great loss for the panth. I'll try to add more tomorrow.

Great photos! More names - although facing away from the camera, in the bhandaar/langar photo there is Mahant Lakshman Singh Ji of Lakheempur Khera dera, shish of Swami Avatar Singh Ji. He also spent many years with the highly respected Mahant Hari Singh ji in Dera Gali Bagh Vali in Amritsar. Next to him is myself on his right, and the elderly Mahant Purushottam Singh Ji Shastri of Delhi on his left. You also have Mahant Baldev Singh Ji (forget which Dera he runs) further towards the left of the photo.

You have Sant Kashmir Singh Bhuriwale, Mahant Balwant Singh Ji Secretary of Panchayti Akhara, Mahant Hari Singh, Mahant Ajeet Singh of Bhajangarh Ashram, Mahant Teja Singh and a few of others I forget the names of.

Why did Guru Ji create Guru Ki Tribeni and Kirtapur? So you could go to Ganga? What can Ganga recieve from the Sant Mandli when Guru Ji already placed his charan there? If, as you seem to believe, that Guru Maharaj created these guru-tiraths to prohibit ishnan in any other water source...then Guru Maharaj would have made a point to not have taken ishnan at the ganga or any other location. Bachittar Natak and the itihasik asthans suggest otherwise. Guru Ki Triveni is to demonstrate (as I keep reiterating) that in terms of actions that produce purity the sangat of the Satiguru is obviously superior. If a Sikh feels they can benefit more from the ganga jal, yagya, vrat, etc than they can from Guru darshan, then Guru Maharaj is not their ishtadev and they're not treading the path of Gurmat. But no one here has ever said this! This is what has been said: Verily the sadhu sang is prayag raj to paraphrase Gurbani. The kumbh is saadh sang. It takes place at the ganga. The saadhs do ishnan. A further point I made is that Guru Maharaj does not deny the superior purity of ganga jal itself as a substance. For example, if someone states 'this beautiful chair is like a throne of pearl' the similie can only work if the throne of pearl is accepted as something beautiful. So when Guru Maharaj states 'so girhee gangaa kaa neer' (p.952) (that householder is as pure as the water of the ganga), the householder's purity is qualified by comparing it to the acknowledged purity of the ganga neer. Kabir ji states of his mind's purity 'Kabeer! man nirmal bhaiyaa jaisaa ganga neer'. The criticism in gurbani is for the yatra to the ganga which is merely 'sansaar ke kaamaa' - worldly action - or the belief that vrat, niyam or ganga ishnaan alone is an effective practice.

Gurfateh, I've answered all your questions in previous posts earlier.

Gurfateh 'gurbani misses the point' - No, I didn't say that. I said you, not gurbani, have missed the point in the way you haved used the quotation. I apologise if I seem 'full of myself'! I assumed that you think the Nirmale are a joke based on the words you posted on this forum a couple of weeks ago which were 'udasis are a joke. nirmale not far behind'. I was taking you on your word! t

Gurfateh As you like Chatanga. You've already made it clear that you think that the Nirmalas and presumably therefore Taksal, Rarewale Sants, etc to be a joke. But your use of gurbani here misses the point - a hindu at that time, and still now, believe that ganga jal purifies paap and/or gives moksh (just as some feel that one can get mukti by simply chhaking khande da amrit). Guru Maharaj is teaching us that naam is the real means of obtaining purity, the precursor to moksh. Nowhere above have I stated that Nirmale believe that ganga jal removes paap or gives moksh. Yes gangasar jaito sakhi is there, and so is Guru Maharaj's taking ishnan at different tiraths on the ganga 'bhaati bhaati ke tirath nhaanaa'(Bachittar Natak), with asthans commemorating their ishnaan and their prachaar...pretty much what the nirmale do.

Gurfateh Shahi ishnans are taken by all the different akharas at the most auspicious times during the kumbh. i.e its when the whole akhara goes for ishnan at an alloted time. Whats so great about it? Sadh-sang, sanatan sadhu reeti, satkar to the sants, opportunity to perform prachar, etc etc. Furthermore as Sri Guru Granth Sahib makes clear, among water ganga jal is sresht, just as among trees chandan is sresht.

Gurfateh, In support of what I wrote on this post a while ago, ...it was nice to see Baba Harnam Singh Dhumma attending the shahi ishnan with the Sri Panchayti Akhara Nirmala, taking ganga ishnan with Sants at Haridvar during the kumbh mela on monday.

Gurfateh Ji, Thank you for the seva you are doing. However, I just want to voice a concern about digitising texts that are still easily available (DTF or direct from India) to the sangat at very low costs, and which are hard to shift at the best of times. Jvahar Singh Kripal Singh publishers are humble and meagre in their output, are hardly making much from their sales as it is, particularly among modern Sikhs who rarely can be bothered/interested to buy or read such texts. It is certainly the case that most Sants/Gyanis care little for the money/attention selling books will bring them, but, surely we should get their permission prior to putting this on-line and perhaps make a donation to help support future publications? My benti to the sangat, please buy these texts which are readily available in shops in the UK/Canada.

My last post for a while - no more time. Chatanga - the answer to your question is simple - did prehlad, dhru, shukdev, etc from earlier yugs recognise a different truth? did they obtain a different 'gyaan' about Braham...or the same? If its different, then Braham changes. If their understanding was wrong, we wouldn't hear about them. So then what is the difference? As I wrote earlier - yug dharam. there are differences, but the advaita truth is just that, truth. Amardeep - first section, lakshana of braham, not less important for 'nirmalas' than any other section, just so happens to be something that springs to my mind.

Chatanga ji, simply because if you make a list of the sidhantic principles of Gurmat they are entirely in accordance with advaita. Now I have mentioned before that there is an advaita vedanta tradition (focusing on the ant of the vedas i.e. upanishads) and there is advaita or monism. Sikhi is advaitvaad taught independently but entirely in line with Advaita Vedanta. We are most certainly not Jiv Gosvamis achintyabhedaabhed as harjas kaur states purely because: i) Braham is identified to be aatam 'anadar aatme braham n chiniaa...' ii) aatam is defined to be satchitanand iii) maya is moh-maya, that which veils, and is defined as the treh guna iv) avidya and maya are described synonymously. The name for that is 'advaita' a term Sri Guru Maharaj uses liberally in Gyan Prabodh. None of the descriptions of jivanmukti describe a qualitative difference in the nature of aatam and braham, they are entirely the same thing - satchitanand. Thus i) the jeevbhaav we are in now is not eternal but mithyaa, ii) Braham is not at its essential nature (svarup lakshana) the param purushottam of achintyabhedaabhed, that is the very opposite of Gurmat Therefore in opposition to vasisthadvaita and achintyabhedabhed and all other alternative forms of vedant. I have a number of friends who are gaudiya, both traditional gaudiya and the less traditional ISKCON, and there are very strong divergences in our siddhant. This is exactly the focus of Vivek Pradipika.

I'm sure you recognise that that's a massively complicated question - Nirmalas have written long books on this. Sadly I won't have the time to write long posts unpacking this but Vivek Pradipika has sections on this. So with the forewarning that this is a dumbed down answer - our dharam is the yug dharam, our sidhant is advaitvaad which is sanatan, our ishta is svatantra but aastik (in accordance with the Vedas, as Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji Bhindranwale also states), satiguru ji was the yug avatar. hope that helps.

oops. I apologise. You had me worried there for a second.

'I don't think comparing dhur ki bani and a myth is realy going to work, Singh' A myth?! If its a 'myth' why would Guru Maharaj trace his own suryavanshi lineage through the 'myth' that forms a major part of the Bhagvat Purana?! I've come across your type of argument about chaubis avatar before, which seriously ignores the fact that Bachitar Natak is NOT based on any puranic material! Surely what Sri Guru Maharaj is saying of himself cannot be thought of as a 'myth'?? Now if we take your 'myth' argument further it makes the devtas and avatars 'myths' also. Did the events that are mentioned in gurbani take place or are they 'myths'? Are the accounts of those 'Gurmukhs' mentioned in the Bhagvat Purana such as Ajamal, Ganika, Prehlad, myths? Did Bhagvan not manifest as Narsingh? All of this is the content of the Bhagavat Purana.

Kalyug, There is only a contradiction if we take the references to Mahakalika described in Bachittar Natak to have separate bhaavrup (ontological difference) from Akal Purush. That would be two rather than one...whereas all the quotations cited so far such as Bhavani being 'charan saran', etc do not suggest two, but one alone. Likewise we have Khandaa and then Durga as Kam points out. In Chandi Di Var we have Durga and Kali as two seperate entities, and therefore forms of the devi at the same time, not the singular Akal. So there is the maya-prakirti-paraashakti as the icchashakti of Mayapati Sargun Parmeshvar, and then there is the created devi and devtas as we already know including Durga. Now just as Parmeshvar is indicated through the actions and names of Vishnu Bhagvan, similarly the icchashakti is indicated through the actions and names of the Devi. But yes, this begins to get complicated when we start to think through all this in terms of siddhant. Still working on it. I'd disagree with you on Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin and Panth Prakash. Its not a retelling. If you actually read all the historical texts themselves you'll see for yourself that this is not a mere retelling of the sakhi. There are clear differences not only about who was involved, what was done, but also what the intention was. For example Gyani Gyan Singh ji states that Sri Guru Ji was prompted by the Mahabharat katha and was conducting an enquiry of sorts into the Brahmins claims. Yet still the devi manifests. Whereas Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin states clearly that Sri Guru Ji was a devi upaasak and sought a boon from her. If these two are a retelling, then similarly Chaubis Avatar is a mere retelling of Bhagvat Purana...but they are not, there are important differences. Different interpretations of one event. I'm no expert on the Udasis at all. I've mentioned the sources I'm talking about. Perhaps ask Nihang Niddar Singh Ji instead. t

Gurfateh I'm currently working on this topic and its very interesting indeed and quite complex. For the Nirmala perspective (which of course it varies), there are three separate issues involved: 1) The nature of the Devi 2) Whether or not the Devi manifested 3) Whether Sri Guru Jis ishta was the Devi There is generally unanimity in the views on issue 1. The majority of Nirmale take the line that the Devi is to be considered maya-prakriti as explained in much detail within the Devi Bhagvatam (which has a long section describing the Devi as agyaan-maya-avidya) and the Gita. The Devi here is not to be recognized as a separate entity in the chaturbhuji sargun svarup. Issue 2 - of the Nirmale I've spoken to, and generally in writings on this, the view is that the Devi did manifest (I cannot think of one historical text that says the Devi didnt manifest Panth Prakash, Suraj Prakash, Sudharam Marg, Mahima Prakash, Bansavalinama, Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvin). Part of this issue could be the definition of a Nirmala. When I talk of Nirmale I'm referring to those who are bhagva wearing, sanatani Sants and Mahants who maintain puratan virakat maryada, the importance of dehdhari guru, aarti puja, etc, and not to Sants who have emerged out of the Nirmala tradition during the 20th Century like Damdami Taksal. On issue 3, I have not encountered the view that Sri Guru Ji considered the Devi his isht among Nirmale. This goes back to issue 1 that for Nirmale that Parashakti Mahamaya is inseparable from Akal Purakh. However, the idea of Sri Guru Ji being a devi-upaasak is very much an Udasi view, found in a writings dating way back (Swami Anandghan in the 19th century, Swami Shivram Das Chakravarti in the 20th century), something that was openly criticized by Kavi Santokh Singh Ji. I fully agree with Jvala Singh here that this holds great importance for the Nihangs. For example, Ive only come across a little of Avatar Singh Vahirias writings but he describes the various shaktis contained within the Amrit Sanskar.

Gurfateh Bhram is more than 'doubt'. According to the samprdais it is false cognition and is of five categories. This is described in the book. Could I also politely request that people do not scan any sections of the book on-line. There is an sample of the text on the website for people to download for free. thanks t

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh That is very shocking news. May his example inspire all of us in our sadhana.

Sharangati, complete dependence upon Parmeshvar, is a fundamental teaching in Gurmat also. The interpretation of what karamyog refers to in the Gita from samprdai mahapurush is that it is the means of purifying the antahkaran, mainly because we concord with the arguments put forward by Sureshacharya in Naishkaramya Sidhi rejecting the mimaamsaka view that karam of itself cannot remove agyaan.

Of course, and I wholeheartedly agree (I have a few good friends who are gaudiya vaishnavs)...but would you advise someone to begin a study of Gurmat Sidhant by asking them to read Kala Afghana?

Gurfateh I'd actually say don't start a study of the Bhagvad Gita with Swami Prabhupad's 'Bhagavad Gita as it is' as given on the above link. Although there are many commonalities in gaudiya vaishnav practice, their siddhant inverts ours by placing the poorantvam purush (personality in completeness) of sargun Braham as the essential form of Braham. For us satchidanand nirgun svaroop of Braham is considered the essential form. That then places our siddhant among 'mayavadis' loathed by gaudiyas! The Madhusudan Saraswati is a very high level commentary which may be too unnecessarily technical for those looking to get to grips with the key teachings of the Gita. In a sense the same can be said for Adi Sankara's commentary. I've only dipped into it occasionally but perhaps the Radhakrishan translation maybe a better place to start, or, there is the fairly neutral Advaita Ashram straight translation without commentary which is also good to get to grips with it.

Great seva!