Gurmat and the Gita

[Bijla Singh]

Ramamand was a Ramanuji who stepped away from his guru raghavnand ji (from the sri samparda) and became less casteist, opened up the doors of bhagti to females (ie. sarsuti) and is famed for being a proponent of sargun bhagti in the form of seeta's love for ram (as opposed to many of the other ramanuji's who were still focusing heavily on krishan-leela....which in itself had become riddled with nuances that would make it seem heretical in the least and hedonistic at best). There came a point though where ramanand clearly became a nirgun upashik and that is the one 'hindvi padha we see in guru granth sahib ji.

This is not related to the topic but very interesting note. As you mentioned Ramanand Ji left his Guru (Raghva Ji) and started Raam bhagtee as opposed to Krishan bhagtee and gave new mantra “Ram-E-Namah”. Then what changed his mind that made him turn from sargun worshipper to nirgun worshipper? In his shabad he says Satguru came to him and showed him the true path and Satguru’s shabad erased millions of his karams. If he didn’t have a guru then which Satguru came to him? Which Shabad was it? Who started Nirgun worship first that influenced Ramanand Ji to become nirgun worshipper? Something for you to ponder upon. Have fun

ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ ਮਹਲਾ 3 ॥

ਪੂਰਾ ਥਾਟੁ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਪੂਰੈ ਵੇਖਹੁ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ॥

ਇਸੁ ਪਰਪੰਚ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਚੇ ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਮਤੁ ਕੋ ਧਰਹੁ ਗੁਮਾਨਾ ॥1॥

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਮਤਿ ਆਵੈ ਸੋ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਮਾਹਿ ਸਮਾਨਾ ॥

ਇਹ ਬਾਣੀ ਜੋ ਜੀਅਹੁ ਜਾਣੈ ਤਿਸੁ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਰਵੈ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ॥1॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਚਹੁ ਜੁਗਾ ਕਾ ਹੁਣਿ ਨਿਬੇੜਾ ਨਰ ਮਨੁਖਾ ਨੋ ਏਕੁ ਨਿਧਾਨਾ ॥

ਜਤੁ ਸੰਜਮ ਤੀਰਥ ਓਨਾ ਜੁਗਾ ਕਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਲਿ ਮਹਿ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਾ ॥2॥

ਜੁਗਿ ਜੁਗਿ ਆਪੋ ਆਪਣਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਹੈ ਸੋਧਿ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨਾ ॥

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਿਨੀ ਧਿਆਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਗਿ ਤੇ ਪੂਰੇ ਪਰਵਾਨਾ ॥3॥

ਕਹਤ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਸਚੇ ਸਿਉ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਲਾਏ ਚੂਕੈ ਮਨਿ ਅਭਿਮਾਨਾ ॥

ਕਹਤ ਸੁਣਤ ਸਭੇ ਸੁਖ ਪਾਵਹਿ ਮਾਨਤ ਪਾਹਿ ਨਿਧਾਨਾ ॥4॥4॥

Amardeep ji, read the entire Shabad and see what it actually implies. It does not declare that previous religions were correct or what Vedas and Puranas preached is the right way. Shabad clearly rejects “jap tap teerath” etc and advocates only Naam japna by meeting Satguru. We can discuss it in details if you want but I think the Shabad is very clear. It does not say that people were required to do “jap tap teerath” in earlier times. It only says what people did and followed in previous times and Guru Sahib rejected it altogether. Only Naam is the savior. Your initial post states that people were required to do such rituals and sargun worship but Gurbani only states what people did and then rejected it. Gurbani doesn't prove that people were really required to do it.

[amardeep]

I'll look into it before i'll discuss this matter further.. thanks for your input bijla singh ji

[drawrof]

Bijla,

the questions you pose are in line with what I was getting at....IF I weren't clear before I'll say it again, We are all byproducts of our experience and our environment. Nirgun brahm is the inexpressible and any attempt we make to describe nirgun brahm falls short of the truth because that sach which is in creation can not be captured in creation. Similarly, when dealing with these kinds of theological issues, one would have to talk in the vernacular that people are aware and people are conversant. Ramanand, who is deemed to be the guru of kabir, sain, ravidas, pippa and dhanna believed in sargun brahm. Avtarvaad is definitely part of sargun bhagti, what I am saying is that the bhagats and the bhatts, when getting diksha from the guru's and attaining their respective avastha's would only praise the guru in the highest/best/most profound way they know how...

On the topic of whether avtarvad is a theological reality or not...I not informed enough to make a comment, but I do believe there is some sort of descent...hence making us all avatars of a sort....

As for gurmat, I believe it is mostly nirgun upashana, but there are many 'sargun' elements of worship that have become part of sikhi (all across the board)....<Drawrof, preparing his own gallows>....

Nanaksar- guru bhagti- the way guru granth sahib ji is worshipped is guru bhagti

Focusing on waheguru mantar in your mind in its 'akhree' form is a form of sargun bhagti

Focusing on a picture of the guru, picture of a sant, or any point is part of sargun bhagti

I don't say sargun bhagti is any less (I definitely don't think it is more), but I see it as being a stage one has to get past to do nirgun upashna.....if one has a 'jugti' or way to circumvent it, then yes....nirgun upashana is the way to go......

[amardeep]

I came across this tuk

ਕਲਿਜੁਗ ਕਾ ਧਰਮੁ ਕਹਹੁ ਤੁਮ ਭਾਈ ਕਿਵ ਛੂਟਹ ਹਮ ਛੁਟਕਾਕੀ ॥

कलिजुग का धरमु कहहु तुम भाई किव छूटह हम छुटकाकी ॥

Kalijug kā ḏẖaram kahhu ṯum bẖā▫ī kiv cẖẖūtah ham cẖẖutkākī.

Tell me, O Siblings of Destiny, the religion for this Dark Age of Kali Yuga. I seek emancipation - how can I be emancipated?

Another tells you to find the dharam of this yug.

[SAadmin]

The translation is wrong. Check Bhai Veer Singh’s teeka of Vaars in which he translates “Jug Jug” as 2+2=4 which means Satguru will change 4 more human bodies. Sikhs are questioning Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji about how many more ‘cholas’ will the Satguru change and Guru Sahib replies that 4 more. Then the Guru Light passed to the Shabad.

Sorry for late reply, from uthanka point of view (taking the whole pauri) -bhai veer singh ji translation on this tuk is 100% correct as its pretty much consistent with the pauri. But as there are more than one interpretation of gurbani as long its within gurmat sidhant because from vikayaran pakh- bhai kahn singh nabha in his mahan kosh translates jug jug = each age not 2 + 2, also if one compares this tuk of 48th pauri with bhata svaiie on different yugas then initial translation i posted seems more consistent. Nevertheless, I think both interpretations are correct.

[Bijla Singh]

Bhai Kahan Singh gives multiple meanings of the word "Jug". First meaning he gives is "two" or pair. The context of Pauri prevents us from coming up with multiple meanings. Sikhs are specifically asking how many forms will be more and the answer "in every yug satgur takes avtar" is not valid and does not address the question. Further, Satguru does not come and go. Satguru is not like other avtars that have limited powers. Satguru is Akal Purakh Himself. Read all of the Vaars and you will see it yourself. Guru Sahib is placed at the highest place. Even Gursikhs are called better than many of the bhagats like Kabir Ji, Dhru Ji, Naamdev Ji, Janak etc.

[SAadmin]

I couldn't find multiple meanings from bhai kahn singh nabha mahan kosh, i was searching through mahan kosh online, just found the meaning i posted above. Please share other meaning bhai sahib explained from mahan kosh in Gurmukhi or just give the page number. I will look it up.

Sant baba gurbachan singh bhindranwale talks about six different types of avtars of vahiguroo for understanding where guru sahib comes first- guru avtar then followed by puran hari avtar- krishan/ram thats more consistently fit with bhaita da swaiye gurbani and concept of avtar laid out in gurbani.

I think i have already discussed three different context of satguru shabad in gurbani with you in the past. The problem is always been semenatics and your attempts to make satguru nanak dev ji as standlone prophet through all the yugs to put down other dharams or other avtars like krishan, ram chandar ji, narsingha, janak, bal avtar. Either way its all in wording, i don't have major issue with wording but have major concerns with your intent, because for me there is no difference between sargun and nirgun but for the sake of non duality-advait and for sake of staying in align with sidhant in mool mantar/jaap sahib of nirgun vahiguroo lachan just like puratan samparda's , i would like to use Nirgun Parbhram Vahiguroo transcendent its different kala/attributes (upon need) into respective avtars of various yugas to benefit human kind and gave them marg towards bhramgyan.

If one wishes to argue and say- our satguru were shabad naam all along not bodies, thats fine, no problem in essence that is indeed the reality. That same shabad gurmat naam resonance also created everything along shud satoguni avtars like- guru maharaj ji panj bhootak choola along with other avtars and sargun parsara. Shabad resonance is sanjha and its been there since aad.. we(sikhs) don't have monopoly over ongkar or aumkar(difference in nasal sound). So all this talk of differentiation or aucha nivha or even dharam is gone off the window. RIP.

[SAadmin]

Also going back in topic, sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale who spent close to 50 years studying all granths including sanatan ones said gurmat marg has nirole tat gyan of nirgun vahiguroo but that does not make other school of thoughts/marg/matts false, they also have tat gyan of nirgun bhram too for eg- vedant, ant of vedas- tat nichor of vedas, but its hard for normal person to decipher due to linguistic barriers and unncessary karam kaands mentioned in them.

[Bijla Singh]

In pdf file look on page 1873 under the word “Jug”. Multiple meanings are given. According to the context of the Pauri interpretation 2+2 fits better.

I think i have already discussed three different context of satguru shabad in gurbani with you in the past. The problem is always been semenatics and your attempts to make satguru nanak dev ji as standlone prophet through all the yugs to put down other dharams or other avtars like krishan, ram chandar ji, narsingha, janak, bal avtar.

Had you studied Vaars and Gurbani in proper context you would’ve known the truth. Your understanding of the word “Satguru” is incorrect and not in context with Gurbani. Vaars clearly make Guru Sahib the greatest. Everyone else is a bhagat not Satguru because a person whose avastha changed over time and eventually became mukat is a bhagat whereas Satguru’s avastha stays the same and is already mukat. I don’t put others down. I advocate Gurmat. It is you who brings Guru Sahib down to the level of avtars most of whom are mythology characters. Gurbani makes clear that many characters were simply kings of their time periods and people made them out to be avtars i.e. “Jugeh Jugeh Kay Rajay Kieay Gaveh Kar Avtaari..” and even then they are not Waheguru but part of His creation. Bhai Gurdas Ji calls true Gursikhs “better” than bhagats. Study Vaars first. Bhai Veer Singh Ji also says that only Satguru Nanak Sahib Ji is the greatest. Kabir, Farid etc were bhagats because Guru Sahib called them bhagats “Bani Bhagat….Ji Ki”. If you want to do veechar on individual bhagats and their status based on Gurbani and Vaars I am open to it but I am not willing to debate as it leads to personal attacks, angry posts and wastes much of my time. Gursikhs are supposed to do veechar anyways.

Also going back in topic, sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale who spent close to 50 years studying all granths including sanatan ones said gurmat marg has nirole tat gyan of nirgun vahiguroo but that does not make other school of thoughts/marg/matts false, they also have tat gyan of nirgun bhram too for eg- vedant, ant of vedas- tat nichor of vedas, but its hard for normal person to decipher due to linguistic barriers and unncessary karam kaands mentioned in them.

I respect Sant Ji but he was not god. He was a human and did make mistakes in interpreting Gurbani. Just pick up Gurbani Paath Darpan and see it yourself. He used to say that Gurbani has no limits then why should we limit the interpretation to him only. Have you studied Gurbani from viyakaran perspective? How about interpretation of Bhai Kahan Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh, Bhai Veer Singh, Prof. Sahib Singh, Prin. Teja Singh etc? Giani Gurdit Singh spent more than 30 years in researching about Bhagats and their banis. His work cannot be matched by anyone else and facts he has brought forward cannot easily be ignored. I do not say other religions are 100% false (meaning have no truth) but they are not complete and cannot give muktee. They will give gyan, may help one progress spiritually but salvation is only in the house of Guru Nanak Sahib. Gurbani gyan is not as same as gyan of Vedas or other books. Daya Nand stated that Gurbani is “vedan da saar” and your statement is not any different if gyan is the same. Vedas are full of hypocritical stories and karam kaand whereas Gurbani is not. This is a long topic but Gurbani says that Vedas cannot give muktee even if one reads them for four yugs. Vedas are not Guru. Only Poora Guru gives muktee and Gurmat does not give status of Guru to anyone but Guru Nanak Jot.

Your understanding of Gurbani is very limited. So I suggest you study Vaars first in proper context and also study bhagat bani. Do not simply limit yourself to a certain sant and take his words to be absolute truth. Study with reasons and disagree with reasons. Once again I can only do veechar as it leads to Sikhs learning from each other by keeping their personal opinions below the authority of Gurbani. Veechar is done with an open mind and if at the end two people disagree, it does not end with frustration and personal attacks but with happiness and joy.

[Kaljug]

Fateh!

NeoSingh:

From a strictly historical point of view, it's pretty clear that the devas like Indra and Durga are originally nothing more than deities of natural events and places, the Indian cognates to the Greek Zeus and Athena or the Roman Jupiter and Bellona.

Are you saying that worship of any of the deities of any pantheon will grant similar results to worship of Nirguna Parbrahma? If not, and this only applies to the deities of the Hindu mythological pantheon, why do they deserve such an honour?

Regards,

K.

[SAadmin]

Are you saying that worship of any of the deities of any pantheon will grant similar results to worship of Nirguna Parbrahma? If not, and this only applies to the deities of the Hindu mythological pantheon, why do they deserve such an honour?

Kalyug veer, your question was already answered in the thread that you opened up where sargun and nirgun upasana was discussed.

[Kaljug]

Kalyug veer, your question was already answered in the thread that you opened up where sargun and nirgun upasana was discussed.

Fateh!

From what I could make of your argument, it seemed to suggest that it was only prem that was important. Am I correct in my understanding?

If this is correct, why is worshipping Krishna as the form of Waheguru any different to worshipping Zeus (or Superman for that matter) as a form of Waheguru, since at the end of the day it is only prem bhagti and the upasak's belief that matters? If this is so, what difference is there between worshipping a stone and imagining that it is Akal Purakh?

Regards,

K.

[amardeep]

When we say Satguru is sadaa, are'nt we refering to his nirgun state? Several times in Gurbani it is stated that the Guru's took birth:

Page 1390, Line 5

ਧੰਨਿ ਧੰਨਿ ਗੁਰੁ ਧੰਨਿ ਜਨਮੁ ਸਕਯਥੁ ਭਲੌ ਜਗਿ ॥

Blessed, blessed, blessed and fruitful is the sublime birth of the Guru into the world.

Dasam Granth

ਬਹੁਤ ਕਾਲ ਇਹ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਬਿਤਾਯੋ ॥ ਜਨਮ ਸਮੈ ਨਾਨਕ ਕੋ ਆਯੋ ॥੩॥

बहुत काल इह भांति बितायो ॥ जनम समै नानक को आयो ॥३॥

A long time passed like this till the birth of Nanak.3

ਇਹ ਕਾਰਨਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਮੋਹਿ ਪਠਾਯੋ ॥ ਤਬ ਮੈ ਜਗਤਿ ਜਨਮ ਧਰਿ ਆਯੋ ॥

इह कारनि प्रभ मोहि पठायो ॥ तब मै जगति जनम धरि आयो ॥

For this reason the Lord sent me and I was born in this world.

Other's however say that the guru pargat and parkash'ed into this world..

[SAadmin]

Fateh!

From what I could make of your argument, it seemed to suggest that it was only prem that was important. Am I correct in my understanding?

If this is correct, why is worshipping Krishna as the form of Waheguru any different to worshipping Zeus (or Superman for that matter) as a form of Waheguru, since at the end of the day it is only prem bhagti and the upasak's belief that matters? If this is so, what difference is there between worshipping a stone and imagining that it is Akal Purakh?

Regards,

K.

Singh sorry, but can you please carefully read this thread you opened - http://www.sikhawareness.com//index.php?showtopic=11526 . I thought i was very clear what i meant in discussion with bijla singh. Hint Hint- Please read lines in bold in my post. Your query should be best discussed in the other thread that you opened veer , its already been discussed there anyway but if still unsure we can discuss it there. I don't want to go off-topic on this thread as this is different topic all together.

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Bijla Singh said 'Your understanding of Gurbani is very limited.'

I think thats a little cheap Bijla Singh. Just because Neo Singh chooses to adopt the line taken by the majority of Brahamgyanis, Sants, Pandits, Gurmukhs, Gyanis from the last four centuries rather than the mat of academic revisionists of the last hundred years hardly makes it 'very limited'! I'm sure the majority of people on this forum will recognise that Neo Singh's posts are rich with learning and insights taken from the teachings of the Sant Mandali.

Each to their own Bijla Singh, but spoken with respect.

t

[SAadmin]

Bijla Singh,

I will respond back to your initial post in next couple of days, this weekend is quite busy for me. stay tuned.

[Bijla Singh]

I think thats a little cheap Bijla Singh. Just because Neo Singh chooses to adopt the line taken by the majority of Brahamgyanis, Sants, Pandits, Gurmukhs, Gyanis from the last four centuries

I hardly doubt every "brahmgyani" accepts the same interpretation or has the same viewpoint about Gurmat. They don't know everything about Gurbani and Gurbani interpretation is not limited to them. I did not take a cheap shot but respectfully told him what I think. Scholars have done much research on Bhagats and facts they have brought forward are not known in sampardas. I am correct when I made that statement. He does not know the context of the word "Satguru". Internal evidence of Gurbani, Bhagat Bani and Vaars prove my point. Bhagat Bani shows how Gurmat prema bhagti is different from bhakti movement. Many Hindu scholars have written PhD thesis on Kabir Ji, Farid Ji and Naamdev Ji. They know more about Bhagats than Sikhs and sampradas whereas it should be the other way around. Anyways, my intent was not to insult him but point out that other scholars' work needs to be studied because Gurbani has no limits.

[Kaljug]

Gurfateh

I think thats a little cheap Bijla Singh. Just because Neo Singh chooses to adopt the line taken by the majority of Brahamgyanis, Sants, Pandits, Gurmukhs, Gyanis from the last four centuries rather than the mat of academic revisionists of the last hundred years hardly makes it 'very limited'

Fateh!

Most of these "Brahamgyanis, Sants, Gurmukhs, Gianis" have been influenced by Nirmalay who have in turn been influenced by Vaishnavism. That is the reason you still get Sants ignoring all of Sikh History and claiming that meat is anti-Sikh, shikaar is anti-Sikh, Sukhnidaan is anti-Sikh, respect for shastar is anti-Sikh, etc etc.

There is nothing in Gurbani to suggest that Krishna or any of the avatars are worthy of worship or have the avastha of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

Regards,

K.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Kaljug

[Xylitol]

Fateh!

Most of these Brahamgyanis, Sants, Gurmukhs and Gianis have been influenced by Nirmalay who have in turn been influenced by Vaishnavism. That is the reason you still get Sants ignoring all of Sikh History and claiming that meat is anti-Sikh, shikaar is anti-Sikh, Sukhnidaan is anti-Sikh, respect for shastar is anti-Sikh, etc etc.

There is nothing in Gurbani to suggest that Krishna or any of the avatars are worthy of worship or have the avastha of Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

Regards,

K.

You should be more careful in throwing around the term bhramgiani ji, brahmgiani don't promote things which go against Sikhi, as their ignorance has been entirely eradicated. However, sants and those who pretend to be brahmgiani often do have gaps in their education.

[Kaljug]

You should be more careful in throwing around the term bhramgiani ji, brahmgiani don't promote things which go against Sikhi, as their ignorance has been entirely eradicated. However, sants and those who pretend to be brahmgiani often do have gaps in their education.

Fateh!

I was quoting the last person's list. My bad, it should have been in quotes. Corrected now.

Regards,

K.

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Kaliyug, your argument doesn't stand.

Nirmale were not bringing vaishnav thought into Sikhi, its already there. Anyone trying to explain the writings of the Satigurus and scholars like Bhai Gurdas Ji are required to make a decision about the extent to which Sikhi is influenced by vaishnav thought. Bhakti of that era was nearly entirely vaishnav. All our beloved bhagats were vaishnav sants. The vast majority of the names for Sargun Braham in Gurbani are vaishnav. The sakhis found in Bhai Gurdas Ji's writings and alluded to in Gurbani are vaishnav (Ajamal, Dhru, Prehlad, etc), from the Ramayan, Mahabharat and Bhagvat Purana. Valimiki Ramayan and Bhagvat Purana were translated from sanskrit into bhasha by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself! In Bachittar Natak Guru ji writes in detail about his suryavanshi lineage! Even in Uggardanti bani about the Devi, the male aspect to that shakti is still Visnu Bhagvan (Krishan, Ram, Narsingh, etc). Bhai Gurdas Ji defines Vaheguru mantra as simran of Vishnu bhagvan in earlier yugas. Vaishnav bhakti is the source of nau prakar bhakti including naam simran, kirtan, and seva. Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji himself includes the bani of the Bhats praising He Himself as the present avatar of Vishnu in Kalyug. Where is the shaiva influence? So the Nirmale respond to it by acknowledging a continuity with earlier avatars, but generally (not all) maintain the sargun Braham as Akal Purakh rather than chaturbhuji Visnu svarup. Nothing in their practice steps out of Gurmat practice because they are more concerned with the nirguna - there are no murtis, no vaishnav mantra, no karamkhand, etc. It also doesn;t make sense that the authors of the historical works stating that the Satigurus hunted were Nirmale themselves!

What you are talking about regarding hunting and eating meat is gunas. Satoguni action among all sadhu orders in and outside of Sikhi includes the prohibition of meat eating and killing animals - its not the way of a sadhu. We see this in Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji's transformation of Banda Bahadur from a sadhu to a warrior in the mold of a kshatri. Udasis who are most certainly shaiva nowadays also don't go hunting or eat meat, and among the ones I have spoken to feel quite antagonistic toward nihangs for doing so, one of whom was one of the four current sri mahants of the Udasin samprdai. Regarding the use of bhang in adhyatmic practice, I'd say most of the panth except nihangs accept that the effect of bhang on the antahkaran is one that clouds it in tamoguna rather than making it more subtle and satoguna. Thats not vaishnavism saying that.

t

[Bijla Singh]

Bhai Gurdas Ji defines Vaheguru mantra as simran of Vishnu bhagvan in earlier yugas.

Is this last Pauri of Vaar 1 you are referring to? Because Bhai Veer Singh has written veechar in his teeka.

[Kaljug]

Gurfateh

Kaliyug, your argument doesn't stand.

Nirmale were not bringing vaishnav thought into Sikhi, its already there. Anyone trying to explain the writings of the Satigurus and scholars like Bhai Gurdas Ji are required to make a decision about the extent to which Sikhi is influenced by vaishnav thought. Bhakti of that era was nearly entirely vaishnav. All our beloved bhagats were vaishnav sants. The vast majority of the names for Sargun Braham in Gurbani are vaishnav. The sakhis found in Bhai Gurdas Ji's writings and alluded to in Gurbani are vaishnav (Ajamal, Dhru, Prehlad, etc), from the Ramayan, Mahabharat and Bhagvat Purana. Valimiki Ramayan and Bhagvat Purana were translated from sanskrit into bhasha by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself! In Bachittar Natak Guru ji writes in detail about his suryavanshi lineage! Even in Uggardanti bani about the Devi, the male aspect to that shakti is still Visnu Bhagvan (Krishan, Ram, Narsingh, etc). Bhai Gurdas Ji defines Vaheguru mantra as simran of Vishnu bhagvan in earlier yugas. Vaishnav bhakti is the source of nau prakar bhakti including naam simran, kirtan, and seva. Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji himself includes the bani of the Bhats praising He Himself as the present avatar of Vishnu in Kalyug. Where is the shaiva influence? So the Nirmale respond to it by acknowledging a continuity with earlier avatars, but generally (not all) maintain the sargun Braham as Akal Purakh rather than chaturbhuji Visnu svarup. Nothing in their practice steps out of Gurmat practice because they are more concerned with the nirguna - there are no murtis, no vaishnav mantra, no karamkhand, etc. It also doesn;t make sense that the authors of the historical works stating that the Satigurus hunted were Nirmale themselves!

What you are talking about regarding hunting and eating meat is gunas. Satoguni action among all sadhu orders in and outside of Sikhi includes the prohibition of meat eating and killing animals - its not the way of a sadhu. We see this in Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji's transformation of Banda Bahadur from a sadhu to a warrior in the mold of a kshatri. Udasis who are most certainly shaiva nowadays also don't go hunting or eat meat, and among the ones I have spoken to feel quite antagonistic toward nihangs for doing so, one of whom was one of the four current sri mahants of the Udasin samprdai. Regarding the use of bhang in adhyatmic practice, I'd say most of the panth except nihangs accept that the effect of bhang on the antahkaran is one that clouds it in tamoguna rather than making it more subtle and satoguna. Thats not vaishnavism saying that.

t

Fateh!

It sounds to me like you believe that Sikhi is simply an appendage of the Vaishnavite school and the Gurus were mere bhagats in the Bhakti school? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Why do you suppose then it is that modern day Nirmalas and their students have become staunch followers of Vaishnav mat to the exclusion of anything else? What Nirmala scholar these days talks about gunas and diet? All of the ones I have met and spoken to have an extremely anti-meat stance and anti-Sipahi anti-Shastar stance.

I am concerned that they are killing Sant-Sipahi traditions in Sikhi and are turning Sikhs into skinny little Sadhus living on a diet of water, fruit and Hindu mythology. As such, I have no concern for whatever the mahant of the Udasi sampardai says about this. He may be a chardikala guy, but I don't believe he is preaching Sikhi when he says such things.

There are plenty of Shaivites who smoke bhang for spiritual purposes, but in Sikhi, Sukhnidaan (not bhang) is part of a complete warrior lifestyle which includes hunting, jhatka, shastar vidiya, intense physical discipline and seva, and Dasam Bani. If any of these things are missing, then the effect is tamoguni. However tamoguna is not bad, it is a normal part of a human's nature. The difference between Sant-Sipahi Shastardharee Sikhs and Hindu saadhs is that Sikhs channel tamoguna to the service of Akal while Hindu Saadhs try to get rid of it by concerning themslves completely with a Sattvic lifestyle (living on fruit, fasting, stationary meditation, begangum lifestyle, etc). A Sikh is above the treguna, not a slave to one of them.

Regards,

K.

[Mithar]

Interesting post TSingh Jee.

[tSingh]

Gurfateh

Yes Bijla Singh I'm referring to the last line of pauri 47...which is entirely contextualised by the following pauri using the same term 'jugi' in the context of earlier avatars and the term sat jugi, kaljugi. It also reads like a direct paraphrase of the Gita regarding 'yada yada'. The following pauri directly draws parallels between avatars in earlier 'jugi's and the historical 'Satiguru'. That is the interpretation of Pandit Narayan Singh also. The two plus two interpretation I find a little odd and inconsistent with references elsewhere in Gurbani. plus I think we are all aware of Dr. Veer Singh Ji's agenda as seen in his editing sakhis out of Prachin Panth Prakash (see elsewhere). There was no way on earth that he would be willing to accept that line as it is.

Kalyug,

To your first question...no. You have misunderstood what I have written. Continuity with earlier avatars does not mean that our dharam is the same as earlier dharam. I tried to explain to you in simple terms why there is a need to think and clarify where we stand in relation to vaishnavs.

Secondly, there are a number of errors in your post. Firstly Sikhs are not 'beyond the gunas'. This is to become something termed gunateet and is an indicator of one who has obtained brahamgyan. The antahkaran is inherently shaped by the influence of the three gunas, so to be removed of the three gunas is an indicator of what is called manonash, the end of the modifications of the mind. A Sikh is undertaking the teaching and practice of the Guru to achieve that state. To achieve this one has to first remove the blemishes within the mind and that means keeping it fixed in satoguna. Then even this has to be removed. Your reference to 'hindu sadhus' is by proxy also a reference to the majority of the brahamgyanis who have manifested through the Guru Panth, because if you read of their jivans you find that they all usually undertook intensive sadhana and austerity to achieve brahamgyan. This teaching is found in the very khalsa mehima section written by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself on the nature of the khalsa. Therefore what you find among Nihangs, Nirmale, Sevapanthis, Udasis, Gyanis of the last few centuries is a recognition that when Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji created the khalsa panth he recognised the svabhaav of his different Sikhs and instituted differnet practices for different natures. At its most intense the shaastardhari yudh Khalsa - those great warriors constantly engaged in battle, constantly focused on the need to kill effectively - are to follow practices different from others, and vice versa, those who followed the sant roop were to follow different practices. The sant path is satoguni, the soorbir path is either said to be tamoguni or rajo-satoguni depending on which nihangs you speak to. I have yet to meet a pukka Nihang in the UK or India who rejects the place of Udasis and Nirmale in the Panth as Guru instituted orders.

Lets not get too technical but bhang means cannabis which is the key ingredient in sukhnidhaan!

You state you have spoken to a number of Nirmale about this. Could you tell me who you have spoken to? Who exactly do you mean by Nirmale? The reason I ask is because I'm surprised that you think Nirmale are killing off the sant-sipahi tradition among Sikhs because Nirmale are numerically small and have marginal influence these days. Plus the Nirmale I know and the Nirmale who over the last two centuries have written on this don't agree with eating meat for themselves but accept that it is one path that exists. The reference to the Udasi mahant is because you stated that i) all sants have been influenced by the nirmale and ii) influenced by the supposed vaishnav dietary habits adopted by nirmale. Udasis are quite distinct from Nirmale and are certainly not vaishnav.

I'm surprised that from reading your post you do not see a place for satoguni sants in your definition of Sikhs. A couple of questions for you:

1) What are your feelings about Bhai Kanhaiya, Sant Sundar Singh Bhindranwale, Sant Nand Singh, Sant Attar Singh, Sant Ishar Singh Rarewale..to name a few? They were not Sikhs right?

2) From your reading of Gurbani what is the means of gaining moksh with regards to spiritual practice?

t