tSingh

A couple of weeks ago I was fortunate to travel back from India with Sant Satinam Singh Ji. Although I knew of him, I'd not met him in person before and we got talking. For those of you who don't know, he is an expert proponent of Kirana Gharana. He is the mahant of the Sant Satinam Singh Udasin Ashram in Jalandhar. I know him through a Nirmala Sant who is a shish of his. Our flight was delayed in Amritsar for four hours, which passed like minutes while Sant Ji quietly demonstrated different aspects of khyal most beautifully. Not only is he an expert in raag vidya he also has a sound grounding in traditional shaastar vidya (he studied in Haridvar with an Udasin svami). He's in the UK for a few weeks teaching the shish he made on his first visit. He mentioned that he's giving a private performance at some point. I think he will be initially based in Gravesend with the someone linked to the Ramgharia Gurdwara (possibly, i think). If anyone would like to have his darshan then please pm me as I have a contact number for the family he is staying with.

I've never read it anywhere in any granth. Gurmat Sidhant yes, gurmat being advaitavad yes. Gurmat Vedant no.

Guv, Atma and Parmatma are two perspectives on the same thing. The effect Maya has when associated with consciousness can be categorised into macrocosmic and microcosmic. The macro is Ishvar, the micro is Jeev. The real essence of both is the same thing. There is a distinction between agyan (the ignorance experienced by the jeev) and the mahamaya that ishvar is untouched by and liberated from but conditioned by. Gurbani states 'there is You and nothing else', not that 'you are the greatest, we wish to be close to you'. The book goes into this in a lot more detail.

Kam's absolutely correct, avoid all of gyani bhagvan singh's steeks like the plague. They contain lots of errors. I even recall hearing Jathedar Vedanti quoting from Saruktavali at a smagam a year ago or so. Sri Narayan Hari Updesh is exactly that, the updesh of Sri (Pandit) Narayan Hari, Hari being a surname used by Nirmalay occasionally (often when writing in Hindi, Pandit Tara Singh Ji did the same and this text above was originally also in hindi). Pandit Narayan Singh Ji was one of the greatest saints and pandits of his era. Nirmal Virakat Kutiya in Haridvar was his asthan. The text is immense. It is written by Pandit Hardev Singh Ji and quotes liberally from a vast array of sanskrit vedantic material.

I used the phrase annihilation to paraphrase the original author. It is an extreme and unfortunate term. Gurmat is not about destroying yourself, its about uncovering your essential identity. It is not the shunyavaadi buddhists emptiness. It is not the fluctuating consciousness of the madhayamika buddhists. It is the eternal, blissful, source of this infinite diversity and beauty. It does not lead to the nihlistic swamp that some monist philosophies end in, since Sikhi upholds a theological stance throughout, even for the jivanmukt. Turiya signifies the absence of limiting ignorance, not the absence of self. Mithr ji, I shall be setting up a webpage to make both books available on line. If you are in India then I can pm you an address to write to to get a copy of the first book.

hopefully before the end of the year.

yes a second book, a translation and commentary on Bhai Adhan Shah Sevapanthi's Bibeksar from 1748 which goes into a lot of this. Its a difficult, long but very rewarding read. I'll be publishing it in the UK so I should be able to distribute it a bit better. Posting on tapoban, no need. They have their own views which they are unwilling to question as the discussion has demonstrated. This response is for those of you who were unclear by the end of the discussion.

I’ve been asked to comment on the following statement by a prachaarak of AKJ background. Since it is an important clarification I thought I’d make it into a general post. The author is a well read and intelligent person for whom I have great respect. But on this topic I do feel he is somewhat out of his depth, as some glaring errors demonstrate. The full discussion can be seen at; http://www.tapoban.o...p?1,4508,page=1 From the Nirmala perspective the following statement contains premises that are incorrect. In fact nearly every statement is questionable; " As long as we don't associate Gurmat with Advaita Vedanta, I am fine with it. Gurmat is unique and nothing in the world comes even near it. To describe Gurmat through the lenses of Vedant or any other worldly philosophy is what I am against. Gurmat can be described through Gurbani, Bhai Gurdaas jee's Baani, Bhai Nandlal jee's baani and by Gursikhs who have lived Gurmat all their lives. Where does Vedant come in picture when talking about Gurmat? The root of Vedant is Vedas and these Vedas have been rejected by Guru Sahib in Gurbani, then what to talk about Vedant?" The relationship between Gurmat and the Vedas is certainly not as simple as the author makes out. Nowhere in Gurbani are the Vedas ‘rejected’. Indirect knowledge is considered redundant without the Satiguru, but never ‘rejected’. The knowledge within the Vedas is never questioned, only the capacity for individuals to understand its meaning; Pandit parray vakhannay veda, anatar vastu n jannay bheda The pandit reads and recites the Vedas but does not know the inner meaning The quotation doesn’t state the pandit is reading falsehood. The issue here is whether or not Gurmat is nastik or aastik. In common parlance this is used to describe ‘athiests’. This is not the real meaning of the term. Naastik means those who reject the Vedas and aastika are those who uphold it. Therefore Buddhists, Jains, Charvaaks and others are said to be naastik because they reject the message of the Vedas. Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhaindranwale like all Nirmalay maintains that Gurmat is aastika. The teachings conform to the mahavakya (great statements of non-duality) found in the Upanishads within the Vedas. At the same time, Gurmat is svatantar, meaning that it is independent. It is not an explicit form of Vedanta in which its claim to orthodoxy is rooted in its Vedic origins. Traditionally post-Vedantic orthodoxy requires the samprdaya to produce a detailed commentary on the Braham Surtas of Badrayana drawing upon the Upanishads. This is the distinguishing line. For Gurmat the Satiguru is the supreme authority and Gurbani meets the category of ‘unspoken’ revealed knowledge. Since this knowledge is eternal truth, it does not disagree with the mahavakyas. Nowhere in Gurbani is the attribution of Ishvar to the Vedas questioned. It is also worth noting that Gurmat is not the only tradition that has this kind of relationship. The Sri Bhagvata Purana so cherished by vaishnavs, especially gaudiya vaishnavs, takes a similar position at points about the inadequacy of the Vedas to reveal the highest truth, only the saint can assist the bhakta. Yet they are undoubtedly aastika as a tradition. Returning to the statement above, the author’s second misunderstanding is to contrarily argue that ‘Gurmat can be explained through Gurbani’ which implies that Nirmalay describe Gurmat through some other unrelated conceptual language. The truth is that his statement is a bit like saying that you cannot explain English through English. If the Guru says ‘atma’ you need to know what He is talking about. The fact that the above author in an earlier post mistakes jeev for atma is testimony to the danger of not understanding the conceptual language of Gurbani (rather than Advaita Vedanta). This lack of knowledge is very dangerous. Nowhere does the Satiguru say ‘Jeev is Ishvar’, it is written that Atma and Parmatma are one and the same. Jeev means the ontological condition of being an individuated living being. Ishvar is the supreme being in the theological sense. This is apparent duality. The quotation he cites as evidence for the eternal nature of Jeev is considered by many Nirmalay as one of the more insightful advaita quotations in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. In fact Sadhu Gurdit Singh bases a sizeable portion of his text Sri Gurmat Sidhantsar to exploring that quotation. Lets have a look at it; 1) Pratam parmatma ka roop which is correctly interpreted to refer to Atma 2) It is then explained that Atma is not affected by time, does not die, does not experience pain, was there at the beginning of time, is within each and every heart, has neither mother or father - these are identical qualities as Parmatma, they can only apply to Braham, and then if there were still any doubt it is written ‘teen guna ek shakti upaya, mahamaya ta kee hai shaaeiaa’ â€" from His shakti the veiling or ‘shadowing’ effect of the three guna mahamaya exists. 3) If we maintain this is still talking about a jeev, this is a jeev that now possesses the same qualities as Braham! 4) The author then states that the man of the Atma is Atma roop. This demonstrates a serious lack of understanding. Atma has just been shown to have nothing attached to it beyond an inherent shakti. The man is made of the treh guna (this is stated in Rag Asa), hence the very idea of turiya. If Braham was accessible to the man, there would be no mention of turiya â€" by definition the transcending of the antakaran. The man is by its nature insentient until it is illumined by Atma. Atma is nirgun, as has been explained above, it is pure consciousness. In Gurmat, for as long as the Atma is affected by microcosmic ignorance (agyan) then it can never be Ishvar. Only Ishvar can be Ishvar. Yet what underpins both is Atma, non different from Parmatma (as so many shabads maintain). Thirdly, I maintain that there is a difference between Advaita and Advaita Vedanta. Advaita is non-duality, a philosophical position about being and divinity. Advaita Vedanta is the particular tradition descending from Adi Sankaracharya. As soon as you accept that Atma is nothing other than Parmatma (satchitanand as is written in Jaap Sahib), and that Maya possesses three gunas (which constitutes everything including the antahkaran), then you are taking an Advaita position. It is not uncommon to find scholars referring to the medieval bhakti traditions as Advaita devotional traditions. That is what Gurmat is. The irony is the alternative position presented by the above author may well avoid Advaita but to uphold that; a) jeev an eternal reality a sargun form of mukti as eternal residence in a heaven of sorts c) a realm in which Parmatma exists d) although separated somehow from the eternal witnessing jeev e) all attained through bhakti and naam - is word for word the vaishnavism of the Hare Krishnas. What makes Sikhi distinctive is its nirgun credentials. Nirgun, without guna, without defining characteristic and Sarguna meaning with any guna or defining characteristic, deen dyal, patit pavan, nirbhau, etc. Anyone who has studied tatashta lakshana and svarupa lakshana will understand the difference here. Nirguna is accepted across the board through the centuries to be the Braham of truth-consciousness-bliss. Jaap Sahib describes Parmatma in the same terms. There is no division of Parmatma into threefold division with different parts veiled from the jeev atma, as some vaishnav schools do. He is Ek. The author has failed to recognise that metaphors contextualise the non-dual statements making our updesh very ‘chintya’ (conceivable) and far from the troubled philosophy of the gaudiya vaishnav tradition. At various points in Gurbani the Satiguru has explained that a) the Atma by its nature is untouched by the experiences of the individual Maya constitutes everything including time and space, our mind and body c) transcending the three gunas is mukti/turiya. Turiya is EXPLICITLY contrasted with the other three states of consciousness. Turiya BY DEFINITION is the ‘annihilation’ or ‘loss of identity’ the author above finds repugnant. The last statement the author makes is worth picking up on. The fact is that for the last 300 years up to this day, the Sant Mandali of Sikhi has drawn upon Advaita to describe their experiences and their understanding of Gurmat. They didn’t all necessarily study it, but they did recognise its truthfulness. Apart from possibly Nanaksar and those post singh sabha types influenced by their Semitic schooling, I can’t think of anyone who has rejected the traditional understanding of nirguna as has been given above. We have in the panth many many texts (literally thousands) dating from the 18th and 19th Centuries which uphold this stance, this use of terminology. So what does his statement mean? It either means that not one single brahmgyani existed between 1699 and the initiation of Bhai Randhir Singh which corrected everyone OR that all these brahmgyanis chose not to speak out against this incorrect version of Gurmat for all this time! Both are ridiculous and unfounded. With regards to Bhai Gurdas Ji, I feel the author has not studied his Kabit Svayay in which many very interesting quotations are found describing the Advaita position, explicitly describing the dissolution of ‘seer’ and ‘seen’ (duality). Nb - My second translation and commentary which is now finished goes into all of this in great detail.

Its dangerous to talk of a 'they' but on this issue Nirmalay are agreed. It is not acceptable at all. I have never seen a nirmala take shaheedi degh, mainly because for nirmalay it is tamoguni khalsa maryada, while they are to remain sattavguni. Nirmalay tend to look down on it. From my knowledge of cannabis its far less like samadhi and far more like sukhopati. It clouds (tamogun) or increases vritti (rajogun) rather than focusing them. Ekaagar is not something that happens with bhang, only numbness or firing thoughts. Udasis use it nowadays, but I've not been around any who can tell me about it. Shaivite sadhus see it as a blessing from shiv maharaj, a special herb to heighten meditation.

definately bhai dya singh upsamprdaya, possibly hoti mardan pranali.

Thank you! I have it from one source that in the 'old times' just as a wife took on her husbands caste on marriage, so a shish took on his guru's caste on initiation (hence the khalsa sodhi kshatriya thing). I've got something seeming to allude to that in a code of conduct from another tradition, that 'one should never be initiated by a guru of a lesser caste'. But manusmriti talks about the seventh generation of a mixed marriage regaining the husband's original jaat meaning that the wife does not actually change jaat at all.

I recall reading eons ago bahadur ali saying something about how once it was the case that a wife would take her husbands caste on marriage if there was any disparity. I've read something similar recently and was wondering if anyone knows a source for this or can corroborate it? thanks

Xylitol ji, the reason for studying shaastra is not exactly as you have it - to improve prachaar or to explain to hindus. Sant-sadhus have more respect for vidya than that, and usually lack an 'us and them' attitude toward it because it is the conceptual bedrock of gurmat - atma, parmatma, gyan-agyan, parmarth, trehguna, maya, ishvar, karn-kaaran, panchikaran, bhava-ras, nav prakaar bhakti (kirtan-seva-simran), dharma, shabad-braham, omkaar, panchtattva, mahabhut, tanmatra, antahkaran, jagrati-svapna-sushupati-turiya, treh-lok, etc, etc.

this is actually termed the sapt bhumikaa and its from the yog vasistha granth which is very ancient, was very popular in punjab alongwith panchdashi by swami vidyaranya. Its 'padarth bhaavanii' rather than bhami although this maybe a colloquial description. Baba Attar Singh Mastuanewale used to read Yog Vasistha, Baba Bir Singh Ji Naurangabad used to have its recital daily, Sevapanthis were BIG fans of it and again had its daily recitation and exegesis, and there is even mention of a 'nanakpanthi' being the source of a sakhi from it in Mohsin's 17th century summary of samprdayas in india in the Dabistan. there used to be quite a lot of punjabi renditions of it floating around. I've seen one, and since yog vasistha is huge, it is also a massive manuscript. Being so early it leans closer to drishtsrishtvad than later vedanta.

Silence, we have our own form of advaita (a term used repeatedly by Guru Maharaj in Akal Ustat and Gyan Prabodh). This is an old discussion, there is masses written on this so please search past discussions. Please show me one shabad that says Atma is anything different from Parmatma. Aham Brahamasmi (I am that) = So ham (I am Him) = same term used in shabad by Guru Nanak Dev ji twice (p.60 and p.599). You just called gurbani 'mahamanmat'. Be careful not to jump to conclusions. Mithr Ji, Dvaita Vaad is about as far as you could get in terms of Vedant from Gurmat! It holds firmly to three real and seperate realities, Jiv, Ishvar and Jagat. Within them are five real differences, between jiva and matter, Jiv and vishnu, etc, etc. It is described as the extreme realist form, perhaps more like Nyaya (which some Madhavas built on). There is no maya in Dvaita vaad! Ishvar is entirely sargun as sargun Vishnu in dvaita vaad! Jiv is dependent but not of the same thing as Ishvar...whereas in Gurmat the two are repeatedly described as being one and the same. the metaphors used in Gurbani all stem from advaitavad, e.g. moon reflecting in water, the two birds in one tree, rope and the snake, water and the pot, wave and the ocean, seed and the fruit, etc, etc. I hope this helps. in Gurmat very simply; maya = 3 gunas, everything is of 3 gunas inc mind, Atma is not touched by 3 gunas = Parmatma (described as 'advaita'). Its that simple!

ananya has different meanings depending on different samprdayas. For Sri Samprdaya of Ramamnuj or Gaudiya vaishnavs it is taken to mean 'exclusive' devotion, and they establish types of devotion in which there is a relationship between 'thou' and 'that'...because they accept a real distinction between self and braham. For Gurmat this is not the case, there is devotion toward that which is truly oneself. We accept only Braham and Maya. So our 'ananya' is not so much exclusive, but 'non-different'. Our forms of bhakti culminate with the visah between Jiva and Braham...in actual fact all we do is remove the veil of maya as Guru Maharaj has said Atma is Ram and Ram is Atma. Antahkaran vritti means the mind events that flow constantly. Upasana strictly means symbolic worship, we perform this through naam, but eventually move to the highest form, ahangreh upasana, deep meditation upon the Self. Turiya is the chautha pad, amar pad, etc of Gurbani, the state beyond the three gunas, beyond time and space (also the three gunas), beyond subject and object (triputi), etc, etc. After which there is jivanmukti until the end of prarabdh karam (currently fructifying actions) have run their course, the attachment to the body ends and videhmukti meaning bodiless mukti.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbHZwzfP-aE...feature=related Also check out my favourite qawwal, aziz mian. If you can track down his early LPs, incredible! I can't imagine this particular qawal being performing in a Southall Gurdwara anytime soon. Obviously, if you know even a miniscule about sufi poetry you'll know the meaning of sharab.

I use 'mind' broken into mind, intelligence, memory and ego

I concur shaheediyan, but was just giving him his due, that he was also instrumental in opening up mukti which traditionally within varanashramdharma was only really accessible for 'dvaijaatis' to all regardless of 'varan'.

in answer to your question...no i'm not giving my opinion, and no i'm not making things complicated, merely pointing out basic facts which you can see for yourself by reading Ram Avatar and reading basic information about the bhagats. I am totally unconcerned whether something 'sounds like hindu dharam', I'm bothered about what my Guru's teachings are, removed of any political bias and modern paranoia.

so did tulsidas! lol.

Its worth keeping in mind that Guru Maharaj gave his own version of the Ramayana (Ram Avtaar) alongwith sections of the Bhagvat Purana (Krishnavtar) in Sri Dasam Granth, so I would be cautious in castigating it. In Ramavatar Guru Maharaj celebrates Sri Ram Chandra's kshatriya virtues. The quotation identified by David Lorenzen is true (a scholar who has done sterling work on bhakti traditions like kabirpanthis and dadupanthis - both of whom as it turns out have drawn on Sri Ram Chandra as their saguna ishtadev, at least among the books, few ashrams and sadhus I've met). However many of the crucial aspects of the bhakti movement are found within ramcharitmanas such as sadh sangat, nam simran, and contrary to the earlier post...everyone (including the ajaati bhilni tribe girls who were devoted to Sri Ram Chandra) being qualified for mukti through raam bhagti. I guess the million dollar question is for most bhakti traditions, in the realm of mukti all of us are equally qualified (adhikari), but in terms of the structure of society, did these traditions desire an end to varnashramdharma as a social model....or a modification of it? The extent to which Guru Maharaj worked with kshatriya dharma makes me think the latter not the former, and perhaps a more horizontal model removed of its notions of pollution, its inherent prejudice and the premise of birth rite (just thinking aloud). Furthermore, the inspiration for many of the bhagats was a vaishnav understanding of saguna braham. Namdev on 'raghu ram', Ramanand himself being linked to the Sri Viashnav tradition (ramanuj), dhanna bhagat being his disciple and attaining mukti through devotion to hari, etc.

great great seva

gurfateh Ah sorry. I've been too hasty again and not read the context about praying for someone else's cancer.