shaheediyan Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 N30 Singh ji, do you eat satoguni food? If so could you give us a few examples of what you eat and how it is prepared. Ta. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 where is it even written that women cant be panj pyare? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 N30 Singh ji, do you eat satoguni food? If so could you give us a few examples of what you eat and how it is prepared. Ta. I dont yaar, i eat extreme rajoguni food..i m soo fat that if i sit on tiolet seat it starts shaking/moving...lol ..now you can imagine. hehe..you can ask xyiltol, he even have seen my big fat kachera in my inlaws balcony. jk, but seriously speaking i dont eat satoguni food, i love to but i cannot i m in grisht, one cannot be fully satoguni in gristhi, ideally my goal in future to have mixture of satoguni/rajoguni diet. I will ask a gurmukh about an list/procedure how satoguni food is made in sampardava's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niranjana Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 These concepts of "Rago, Sato and Tamo" are at best "philosophical" and not scientific, hence the manner in which they are applied in a scientific context (i.e. Auyrvedic Nutritional Science) often results in more than one interpretation. I have see spices qualified as Sato by some, Rajo as others and even Tamo by yet another. Same thing happens when discussing meat, some see it as Tamo, others Rajo. This is whole framework frankly falls on itself when it comes down to hard and fast nutritional science, since Auyrveda is devised from philosophical assumptions not hard science, not to mention the intermingling of prayers and astrology into its 'scientific' reasoning. I agree that the contents of today's Langar has become at times questionable (re: that 'sleepy' feeling one gets after going to the Gurdwara!) however this is not the sole reason for Gyanis being fat - the whole literal interpretation of "eat little and sleep little" has also had an impact as have the lack of exercise and training as Shaheediyan mentioned above (and sorry, Bhai Sahib, a walk around the Gurdwara complex doesn't count as sufficient exercise!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 "the whole literal interpretation of "eat little and sleep little" has also had an impact" Do you mean hasn't had an impact? Xylitol Ji, "Mahapursh is a very high avastha Sikh. More powerful than the sant level. Bhramgiani is a mahapursh who's reached an even higher level and become one with God." What is Sant level? And could you give some examples of some Gursikh who fit into either the Mahapursh or Brahmgiani category and say what these findings are based on. Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niranjana Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Shaheediyan asked with regard to my earlier statement "the whole literal interpretation of "eat little and sleep little" has also had an impact": Do you mean hasn't had an impact? A: No, I meant exactly that, although in hindsight, both - here's why: (a) In your assessment, presumably you are referring to those who eat too much and sleep too much. This part is obvious and agreed in its contribution to bad health and the "fat singh" syndrome. ( I actually had jumped a few steps ahead and not explained myself properly (typical I know!), however on the other end of the above syndrome, I find many 'religious' Sikhs take the above quite literally and in the mistaken belief that 'eating less' will in itself result in weight loss and improved health, end up with some pretty bizarre dietary trends, coupled with reduced sleep and resultant increase in the hormone cortisol, explains the large bellies of otherwise well-intentioned actions. This trend I have tended to find amongst Gyanis and Granthis than amongst the wider sangat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 What I wrote is solely based upon ordinary usage of the terminology by the knowledgable/spiritually advanced sikhs in my area. For us, these are subjective categorisations that many use to define/label the avastha (spiritual height) of a particular Sikh. First comes the sant stage, next comes the mahapursh stage, which is like a very powerful sant, after that is the bhramgyan stage, where one is one with God and the Guru. I cannot understand any stage without experiencing it first. All I know is that to be a sant one has to have gone past the stage where they receive Naam dhan (not referring to Gurmantr here). However, there are signs that indicate whether or not someone has reached the sant stage, I don't recall all of them but somebody did post them to this forum some time ago. An example of a Sikh widely recognised as Mahapurkhs and Bhramgiani is Baba Sunder Singh ji Bhindrenvaley, Baba Gurbachan Singh ji, Baba Attar Singh ji. Findings are based on determinations by very advanced avastha waley singhs. When a person's dhib dhrishti (spiritual eye) opens, they can see into the spiritual world. They can see the avastha of others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Personally i've never heard of this distinction before. Where did you get it from? Its sounds like a fairly recent attempt at categorisation. Its interesting in that it does take sant to hold more of a good sadhu status rather than the puran brahmgyani thing. I'm not sure it holds very well as a working definition for older texts like Sevapanthi literature by the likes of Bhai Sehaj Ram which from 1750s which wax lyrical about Sant status as being brahmgyani. This is more the case for a lot of the older literature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I havent heard this distincation between sant and mahapursh/bhramgyanis before either, as gurbanis talks about sant being one with ram. However, in sant mandali terminology there is distincation between sadhu/tapavsi and sant because sadhu is widely used to even utam jaigasos. To Clarify further what Xylitol meant, and he can correct me if i m wrong, i think he is trying to point out an distincation which is made between bhramgyanis who are karaks and person who have attained bhramgyan this life. This is nowhere to be seen as difference in avasthas, avastha is all same its just karak bhramgyanis are given different task to benefit human kind whereas person who have attained bhramgyan is in sat chit anand saroop avastha all the time in internal as well external therefore no parchar just in samadh roop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Question, Sant= state of experience of the individual or title given to an achieved accolade? This brings me to a real 'jalebi' because...things get sticky. Somehow the path of unraveling is seen as a path of linear evolvement in which case that really thin line (which I believe is referring to the bareekness of bibek buddhi') becomes very thick because of all the imposed baggage we attribute to an accorded lifestyle. One suggestion for the sangat massive...stop idolizing sants, and actually take what they say seriously...otherwise its like knowing there is a nice blueberry cheesecake sitting in front of you, but no one having the urge or appreciation to dig in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Thanks Xylitol, but I asked you to provide examples for famous personalities who fit into each of the 3 "levels" you have defined. If you could fit 2 famous people (past or present) into each category, would be much appreciated, and if possible, please do this showing reasons for your decision. Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Once again, sorry for being unclear. As a person evolves in avastha they reach sant status, at this point they are not bhramgiani yet. After much further evolution they become one with God and have reached the bhramgiani status. The bhramgiani is a sant, but not all sants are bhramgianis. Mahapursh is a term referring to very powerful sants and is somewhere in the middle. This is how I've heard people informally using this terminology. I think the confusion lies int the fact that I'm referring to colloquial uses of the terms as I've heard them whereas others seem to be thinking of more formal uses such as in puratan literature. Famous people? I honestly have no way of knowing 100% whether someone is a sant or not. There are other Sikhs I know who are quite advanced whose opinion I rely on. I also use my own judgment and ''feeling'' to make a determination. Baba Attar Singh ji Mastauna vale and Baba Isher Singh ji Rara Sahib would fall into all 3 categories. Baba Nihaal Singh ji Harien Valen and Baba Hari Singh ji Randhawa vale would be considered sants as well as mahapursh by many, so fall into both of those. This example is based on opinion of Giani Thakur Singh ji. Giani Thakur Singh ji falls into the sant category. In this case I'm relying on a determination made by avastha vale singhs who do seva in the punj. Perhaps some might consider him a mahapursh. Drawof, the way I'm referring to the title sant refers solely to avastha and not public opinion. Hope that clarifies things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Baba Attar Singh ji Mastauna vale and Baba Isher Singh ji Rara Sahib would fall into all 3 categories. Baba ..... Xylitol, I've heard a Deevan where Sant Isher Singh Ji say that "Sikh, Sant, Gurmukh, Gursikh..." are all different words for the same thing. However they do go on to describe the different types of Bhramgyani up to Kharak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Matheen, Could you please post those sometime, that sounds very interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Xylitol, Matheen veer is talking about discourse fetched from the divan, you can find that discourse here: http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=6235 sorry just little reminder, i think we are getting little off topic. I ll split the topic if you guys like to discuss it further or you can actually use the link i gave above to discuss further on that thread link provided. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 sorry just little reminder, i think we are getting little off topic. *A little*!!!! way off....... Xylitol - I'll have to listen to a few Deevans, but i will post a link once i find it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.