Jump to content

Destination Sachkhand


Recommended Posts

Gur Fateh!

“Destination Sachkhandâ€

I would appreciate some help from the forum on this point, as currently the various views expressed on this matter leave me confused. We as Sikhs, like many Eastern spiritual traditions aim for ‘mukti’, however what is this mukti? Liberation from the 8.4m life forms…okay, to where?

1. The majority of modern Sikh texts and parcharaks speak of ‘Sachkhand’ as the realm of absolute, i.e. we aim for complete annihilation of the individual self into the Parmatma, much like the Buddhist doctrine.

2. Others speak of heaven or paradise, as popularized by the Semitic traditions, or a kingdom of eternity.

3. Yet others, speak of receiving the honor to engage in battle with the Almighty and die at the hands of the One and be absorbed into the Light of Nirankar.

Which is it? I’ve personally grown up with the thoughts presented in 1, being fed the doctrine that paradise and heavens are also transitory and not the ‘final destination’. However if this is the case, then how do we reconcile this with point (3), which in traditional Indian thought would appear to be scenario cut out for demons and rakhsas or indeed in Semetic traditions, the route for the Satanic –i.e. complete annihilation and absorption of the darkness into the Light. Moreover, if “Sach Khand vase Nirankarâ€, and given the account in JapJi Sahib, the bhagats of the worlds reside in Karam Khand (and Sikh lore appears as if to suggest Shaheed Singhs do so as well) then why is that recent focus appears to be on Sach Khand, which would appear to be unreachable?

There are further complexities to why this matter is becoming increasingly confusing, such variations in interpretation of Sach Khand within Sikh thought (re: Bhai Mani Singh’s Sateek vs Prof Sahib Singh Sateek), issues arising from the Sankharya-styled doctrine concering Sarguna and Nirgun aspects of Akal, however let’s start with the above 3 points for now.

Thanks,

Niranjana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's definately 1st doctrine Niranjana veer ji without any doubt ...2nd came with sikh missionaries and 3rd one came with uk nihangs ideology which is taken from puranas yet they think they follow kshatariya maryada :shock:

excuse me but we are not sikhs of puranas ..we are sikhs of siri guroo granth sahib ji (in three forms).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neo,

Without making too many presumptions, someone with your background and leaning (i.e. Nanaksar / Nirmala derived/related institutions), it is natural to concur with (1) above, however (3) is not limited to the (UK) Nihangs alone -although, this is worth a separate discussion.

The concept of total self-annihilation is closely tied in with Buddhist teachings, along with which comes the generic stereotypes of the world being all illusionary and 'not real' which then leads to themes of self-alienation, suppression of emotions...in short a sort of pseudo asceticism, which in many ways seems contrary to Gurmat.

Is paradise really a purely Semetic concept?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddhist belive in sun samadhi ..i don't know if sun samadhi and total self-annihilation is same thing but regardless..overall layer of concepts are same with buddhism but ways are different ..they are being told- to have self-alienation, supression of emotions, asceticism but we are told to be "Gurmukh maya vich udasi" by our Guru Sahiban.

Also paradise is not only semetic concept. Hindu dharam has beleive in it and more emphasis are put into this concept ie- swarag, shivlok, indarlok, bhramlok.

source: http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...asc&start=0

After death there are many "lokas" (metaphsical regions of creation). They are at different levels of karam, upasana, gyan

1. Gandharab Lok.

2. Dev Gandharab Lok

3. Pitar Lok

4. Swarag Lok

5. Inder Lok (place for people who do inder ji upasahana)

6. Karamdev Lok

7. Ajan-Dev Lok

8. Prajapat Lok

9. Braham Lok (for yogis upasahana)

10. Shiv Lok (place for people who do shiv ji upasahana)

11th Baikhunt (mentioned in gurbani few times).. This is where all the bhagats do bhagti of nirankar with their surat before merging themselves.

Last- Sachkhand. Sachkhand Vase Nirankar ||.

One energy no other indentity..to explain what's in the sachkhand is like chewing on a rod as Guru Baba Ji says in Japji Sahib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

I think we need to take a few things into account:

1. The philosophy of ek-omkar which is neither dualism nor kevaladvaita. It is in many ways closer to the wahdat al wujud of irfan, the bhedabhedadvita of Nimbarka and Trika Shaivism as exposed in Abhinavagupta's works.

2. In Indian traditions not all heaven-like states are transitory. In Nimbarka's system the state of oneness with the Absolute Krishna-Radha (Shiv-Shakti, ek-omkar) is achieved in the state of Goloka where the liberated souls merge in the Absolute but still continue to exist.

3. In the Islamic tradition there are different stages of heaven. The batini (esoteric) traditions who believe in tanasukh (reincarnation i.e. early and batini Shi'ism) clearly state that the lower heavens are temporary states for those who have merely followed the religion of ruling (shariati religion). The realm in which those who have become one (oneness and sameness are not the same thing) is again different from the mysterious heart of Divinity itself. There has been a tendency among certain people who have adopted non-dualistic cheap asceticism to reject the idea of a permanent realm of grace and beauty because as they say "it's all about losing your self". Rejecting the graces that the Divine offers them they chose the way of annihilation.

4. Gurbani recognises two main aspects of Divinity nirguna and saguna. Both are equal i.e. there is no hierarchy. The nirguna or nirankar aspect is by definition agam agochar: inaccessible!!! It has become a sort of trend to say that it is all light but light itself is an aspect of saguna not nirguna. The nirguna aspect is simply inaccessible for if it were the Divine would stop being the Absolute. In fact because the Divine is both transcendent and immanent, the nirankar-nirguna aspect is transcendent and thus out of reach. This does not mean that we cannot be one with it. That is why the saguna aspect exists. It is the aspect of Divinity we can interact whith. Now regarding Sachkhand, if we carefully read about karam khand we find that only the bhagats and surbal attain this stage. Japuji Sahib goes on to say that Sach khand vasai Nirankar. It does not say anything about people attaining it, entering etc... To hence extrapolate that Sachkhand is the final aim is a dangerous interpretation as the text does not specify sachkhand to be an aim. It is a khand, a realm not a stage.Sachkhand is the realm of the ultimate ream of truth and the only way we interact with it is with the saguna aspect.

5. This new trend of saying that the ultimate aim is to merge into the Formlessness of the Absolute (which is not the same thing as being One with the Divine)is clearly rejected by Sikhi. Bhai Gurdas, in his Varan, clearly rejects the whole philosophy of Shankara's advaitavedanta by explaining how Vyasa by meditating on so'ham (I am He) was lead astray and how the way of bhakti saved him. Notice that Vahiguru implies the idea of extatic rapture in a state of love, incompatible with the idea of dissapearing in the Formlessness of the Divine.The way of merging into the formlessness of the Divine is not considered the aim in Sikhi and in fact it is considered arrogance. That is why in his Chaubis Avatar Guru Gobind Singh declares that the Buddh avatar (most likely representing Jainism, Theravada and most of Mahayana apart from Tantric Buddhism rather than the historical Buddha) came to send demonic people to non-existence by preaching them the way of the mayavadi annihilation in the formlessness of the Divine. That is why Guru Gobind Singh prohibited his Sikhs to interact with Jains who do not believe in the necessity of Divine Grace, hate life (gift of God), are fanatic vegetarians and do not engage in the way of bhakti as they wish to get rid of all emotions.

6. Needless to say that these tendencies exist in the Panth via all these movements that teach this hatred of the world, teach sexual repression, hatred of women and the Feminine Divine, aggressive vegetarianism, have a predilection for white, declare Nirankar to be above saguna and say that the ultimate aim is annihilation with the Formlessness in Sachkhand. Their arrogance is truly demonic as they think that they can go beyond grace. If annihilation is really the aim then ahy this world, why us and most important why the Guru?

7. This demonic tendency is equally present in those who chose the way of Ravana, fighting God, be destroyed by Him and be absorbed in Him. Those who chose that way say that the Khalsa warriors are tamoguni and have a rakshasi nature. This is utter non-sense as Giani Gian Singh clearly specified that the nature of the Khalsa is sato-rajoguni, a combination of satya and rajas.

8. We have now twho groups made each of two components. One group made of the bhagats (lover of the Divine) and surbal (divine warriors) who attain the realm of grace, are one with their Lord. Another group made of life hating ascetics (Jain type) and demonic warriors (tamoguni rakshasi type) who chose to lose themselves in the Formlessness of the Divine, reject the path of grace, love and beauty and in their arrogance decide to "reach" this highest state by rejecting God's love or fighting Him.By dissapearing into the Formless they become non-existent. This what Origen says about Satan when at the end of times he merges into the Divine Light and ceases to exist. This is also what is said about Yazid, Umar and Satan in the Shi'a irfani tradition. In Sikhi this is the way of Ravana, the demonsand the Jain type of religiosity.

There is a word for that: Satanism...

It certainly isn't Sikhi!!!

Our aim as Sikhs is expressed by Bhai Nand Lal Goya:

Like Holi the world is in blossom!

Let smiles play on your lips like sprouting buds.

The scents and hues of rose, amber and musk are everywhere,

Like rain clouds, fragrance and colour are all around.

Love is like a sprinkle of saffron water,

It makes the colourless, gay with scent and colour.

When the hands of the beloved rub ruby paint on me,

It makes for me, both Heaven and Earth colourful.

This life and the hereafter became colourful,

When through the beloved’s royal grace the cup of colour touched my lips

He who had a glimpse of the Holy,

Has the sublime desire of his life fulfilled.

To be a sacrifice to the dust over which the lover’s feet tread

This, O Goya, is the only wish of your heart.’

No hatred of life, no cheap asceticism, no fighting God in some dark forest, no merging into Fromlessness. Only Ishq, Beauty and Majesty!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sowwie lalleshvari bro,

This vichar reminded of similiar vichar few months ago on a different thread: http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=6593

Just to get clear understanding - I think this your main argument if i m not mistaken (Please correct me if i m wrong)

Argument/Focus of debate:

- Sachkhand is not state of mind but an realm where god resides so we are not told to destroy ourselves completely being in sachkhand.

- When soul gets merge with Nirankar after leaving the phsyical body. It's not destroyed. It still has consciousness ...even though soul gets merge with nirankar..soul has it own indentity. Soul does not get destroyed.

If yes, in the past there were point raised to counter that argument:

Soul merges with Nirankar and become one with Nirankar. No diffference between nirankar and that soul...just like drop merges with the ocean and no one can tell difference. Soul loses it's consciousness (antish karam/man chit budd) and surat and after merging with nirankar...reason why there is mention of terms "parmanand" "anand" in the gurbani is because nirankar itself is in parmanand, anand ..once soul merges with nirankar (according to different interperation used in argument) ..it's ok to say - it's is anand and parmanand and this does not mean soul have consciousness because nirankar itself parmanand, anand...soul does not get destroyed but get merged with Nirankar...example used- ray belongs to sun..source and destination of that ray is sun after all !!!!!!!!!!!!

And followed by tsingh post:

One is a modified non-dualism; akin to the toenail and the person - the toenail is a part of you, but not your entirety...but then this leads to the suggestion that there are lesser essential parts of Brhman. The toenail on being reunited to the foot abides at the feet in bliss..this is a dualistic-non-dualism.

The other is that nothing gets destroyed because the concept of an individual soul is illusory in the first place! That sat chit anand is you, therefore you are ever abiding in bliss, ever conscious, ever truth (brahmgyani aap nirankar). This would make gurbani at times as didactic as 'tat tvam asi' (you are that) - as it is virtually impossible to discuss non-dualism without using dualist language.

These are simply positions to be held by people. For example, most Nirmalay such as Baba Isher Singh Rarewale, Kavi Santokh Singh hold firmly to the latter view. Yet others hold to the first.

I would argue that the strictest advait of Adi Sankaracharya is not akin to gurmat, and if anything it is the modified forms such as Ramanuj's and Vallabacharya which show the closest similarity. Vallabhacharya holds that Adi Sankaracharya has misunderstood and created a further dualism between vidya (truth) and maya (although he is not thought to have used the words in the texts most likely written by him), as maya although being unreal in its nature, exists in one level of understanding (ours). Therefore, Vallabhacharya states that actually everything is brham and if brham wills it (akin to nadari) then we shall be awoken to our true nature, hence accepting both bhagti marg and jnanmarg.

It is at the end of the day a useless debate to a degree as they are positions to be held by individuals based on their own understanding. I have heard and accepted arguments with quotes for the Advait view, and heard and accepted arguement for the qualified view.

sowwie if i am still not getting it :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are in the course of exploring different school of thoughts and alinging the best suited ones to the gurmat. We must also explore gurbani to find out - What Guru Maharaj is trying to tell us-

Here are few quotes:

Soraj Kiran Milli Jal Ka Hoya Ram

Joti Jot Rali Sampuran Thiya Ram||

The ray blouds with sun, the water merges with water, so merges the human light with the Supreme and achieves perfection.

ji-o jal meh jal aa-ay khataanaa.

As water comes to blend with water,

ti-o jotee sang jot samaanaa.

his light blends into the Light.

mit ga-ay gavan paa-ay bisraam.

Reincarnation is ended, and eternal peace is found.

naanak parabh kai sad kurbaan. ||8||11||

Kabir, Jis Maran Jagat Darie Mera Mann Anand

Maranaie Hii paie Poora paramanand ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are differences of opinion that I accept. However, my research doesn't support Bahadur's conclusions;

That this vedant-isation with celibate-satoguni maryada is a 20th Nirmala thing is incorrect. Look to the earliest fruits of the Nirmala samprda from the 18th century by Pandit Gulab Singh, we have bhavrasamrit a treatise on the nature of renunciation clearly stating there is the path of renunciation and the path of the warrior. In Adhayatam Ramayan he repeats that the Khalsa itself is made of those of the sword and those of the pen. Prabodhchandrodayanatak and Adhayatam Ramayan two texts he translated both are classics of abridging advait vedantist notions with visnu bhakti, more akin to Nimbarka and Vallabhacharya. Pandit Nihal Singh in the mid 1800s draws a clear comparison between gurbani and the mahavakyas (which of course are interpreted differently by different types of vedant but are statements supporting vedant). Pandit Sudaa Singh in 1767 writes a tika on Advaitsiddhi a complex sanskrit work on advait metaphysics. A number of 19th century Nirmalay chose to write tikas on Paitis Akhri, a strongly advaitist composition attributed to Guru Nanak Dev. So this tradition is not new. The path of celibacy is common to sewapanthi and nirmalay and from the evidence within Pandit Gulab Singh was pretty much there from the beginning, as his respect for his vidyaguru Pandit Maan Singh, a hazoori Singh, is so very strong...this path is for some Nirmalay not all, as Bahadur will show with examples of rajoguni nirmalay. Later additions to rehitnamay such as Bhai Daya Singh's denote one for Akaalis and another for Nirmalay or Bihangams. One is meat, martial lifestyle, the other meditative and renunciate. John Malcolm also in 1805 describes the differences in character. I would hardly attribute this difference in maryada as a 20th century attempt to pacify Sikhi, that is far too simplistic.

Now, if you look to Nirmalay like Baba Isher Singh Rarewale, he is clearly talking advait vedant concepts, yet he maintains bhakti all through. That is very important. Even a granth like Vichar Sagar states that bhakti is a means to an end, but I have not come across a Nirmala who holds the same position, but instead holds bhakti paramount till the end. They use advait terms and notions to describe the final stage of bhakti, and to adopt some of the means into practice, but I have yet to come across a text that rejects bhakti for jnaan akin to pure advait works. Judging on whether this circle fits into a triangle, from what I see of Baba Isher Singh ji, he had no problems! Advait as described by Sankaracharya is not gurmat in its essential metaphysical position, but those vedantic reconciliations with bhakti which held influence through figures like Ramanand (who was a key figure in the propogation of Ramanuj's vasistadvait and within the bhakti movement) on the whole are much closer. Furthermore, when one talks to 'orthodox' practicing advaitists there is a diversity of opinion within traditional advait traditions on how absolutist an interpretation should be, some reject reality completely, some accept that it is only relatively real. Among the modified forms of vedant such as vallabhacaryas one finds reality to be accepted as nothing but Brhman's leela, of his creation and hence also a part of brahman, not something other than, with no independent force of maya. Equally Vallabhacharya accepts that both the path of jnaan and bhakti are close, and that Brhman will grace us with mukti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from a scholarly perspective,

I have a question regarding the philosophy/belief of nirankar as given by the sant nirankari's. Their guru supposedly gives god realisation and shows you nirankar.

Has there been any talk or debate of that in the nirmalla circles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keep saying waheguru, it then gets absorbed in your soul. There are layers... the more person does bhagti more it gets absorbed in your soul. Then there be a time.... u will not feel pain..... u will have dharshan of your gurus..... you will be anterjammi... what ever u say will happen..... god listens to his beloved ones.... like parents listen to their children.... then these bhagat souls some becom mukt some not... so then their spirts wonder until they can find a good family to born into. But its very hard kal jug.... these bagats not want to take birth in kaljug maa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Just like to request javanmard to edit back his post with orginal post, if back up of what he wrote it's avaible on his computer.

This is also probably one of the best threads ever on this forum, quite deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Sorry I don'y have those posts on my computer but we could re-start the thread provided we all stay focussed on the question of sachkhand and do not diverge in other directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

While I think #1 is mostly correct, I don't believe in self-annhilition. The being remains, but the ego, the sense of separateness from God, disappears. Also, I've heard in Baba Kartar Singh ji's katha that when a singh gets Shaheedi, the Singh is given the option of going to Sachkhand or of continuing to do seva in Maharaj's shaheed fauj. Baba ji met with some shaheeds in Karm khand who explained this to him.

Sorry, i forget which katha this is from.

As for other dharms, what i believe and have come to understand from reading bani is that, for the most part, they get what they aim for. Buddhists aim for mukti and nirvana, annhilation of the self, a state of no-being-ness, which is outside chaurassi lakh joon. There are also numerous buddhist and 'hindu' heavens. people live and die and get reincarnated from and into the heavens and hells, imu.

All of these stages are below Sach Khand, and when Waheguru wraps up the creation, all these things, including nirvana, will be destroyed, only sach khand will remain.

I asked Baba Takhur Singh ji Bhindren, when the journey of the soul ends, at what stage is the game finished? He replied that it never ends, which is why I believe that our being is not finished in Sach Khand and that our spiritual growth just keeps on going and going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...