What/Who is a Guru

[Harbhajan]

SOURCE: http://www.sikh.net/SIKHISM/GURUS/index.htm

The word Guru is so popular in India that in order to understand the fundamental concept of 'guru' in Sikhism, one must first completely drive out of one's mind the prevalent popular notion of a guru. The popular term 'guru' often used for a Brahman, a yogic teacher or a guide or even a school teacher, has made the Guruship so cheap that a scholar describes these gurus as 'wicks which smell foul after the lamps are extinguished.'

The term 'Guru' in Sikhism is not used for a teacher or a guide or an expert or even a human body. The word Guru is composed of two terms-

GU- means darkness and

RU- means Light.

In Sikhism the word 'Guru' is, thus, defined as the Light that dispels all darkness, and that is called JOT (Divine Light). Guru Nanak was, therefore, the EMBODIMENT of Divine Light:

'Gur Nanak Dev Govind roop.'

(Basant Mohalla 5, p-1192, Guru Granth Sahib)

'Guru Nanak is embodiment of the Light of God.' (Translation of the above)

The Guru in Sikhism is a perfect Prophet or Messenger of God in whom the Light of God shines fully, visibly and completely. Guru is in union with Divine. Thus he ushers the devotees, the seekers of Truth into a spiritual birth. Through him the Glory of the Lord is transmitted to humanity. On account of his Divine prerogatives, the Guru, though human in form, is Divine in Spirit.

Literally Guru Nanak's body was a platform from which God Himself spoke and delivered His message- Gurbani (Divine Word). God manifested Himself through Guru Nanak:

'Gur meh aap samoai sabad vartaya.'

(Var Malar ki Mohalla 1, p-1279)

'In the true Guru (Nanak) He installed His Own Spirit Through him, God speaketh Himself.' (Translation of the above)

In another place in Gurbani it is said

'Gur meh aap rakhaya kartare.'

(Maru Mohalla 1(15), p-1024)

'In the body of Guru (Nanak) God revealeth Himself.' (Translation of the above)

God is in the Guru and Guru is in God. Though God is everywhere and in everybody but His traits are illuminated through the Guru. The Jot (Divine Light) that enshrined Guru Nanak's body and the Primal Jot of God are, therefore, one and the same:

'Gur Nanak Nanak har soai.'

(Gaund Mohalla 5, p-865)

'O Nanak, Jot of Nanak and God are one.' (Translation of the above)

Again the Janamsakhis (biographies) reveal that God spoke to Guru Nanak and said:

'Mei aad parmeshar aur tu gur parmeshar.'

'I am the Primal God and thou art Guru God.' (Translation of the above)

Guru Nanak never claimed that only his disciples or devotees could get salvation or go to heaven. Since he was the embodiment of Divine Light, and as the Divine Light does not belong to any particular sect or religion, so he stood guarantee for the entire humanity, and said, "Whosoever meditates upon One God, the Formless, will get salvation."

'Jo jo japai so hoi punit Bhagat bhai lavai man hit.'

(Gauri Sukhmani Mohalla 5, p-290)

'He shall become pure whosoever repeateth His Name With devotion, affection and heartfelt love.' (Translation of the above)

When Guru Nanak conferred Guruship on Bhai Lehna (later called Guru Angad), the JOT was passed on and Guru Angad too became the embodiment of Divine Light. In the same way all the nine Gurus were the embodiments of Gur Nanak Jot. The tenth Master, Guru Gobind Singh then conferred the Guruship on Guru Granth Sahib (Holy Scripture), which too became the embodiment of Divine Light. Gur Nanak JOT is, therefore, enshrined and preserved in Guru Granth Sahib (it is no longer the Adi Granth, but only the Guru Granth), and it is the Living Guru for ever. For the Sikhs, the Guru Granth is the manifestation of the Guru's Spirit and through it, Guru Nanak lives on in the Sikh Faith.

Sikhism endeavors to uplift the human soul from the shackles of Maya (materialism). It aims at a virtuous life which leads to the ultimate realization of a state of Eternal Bliss. The objective of Guru Nanak's Guruship was to give instructions in the True Name, to save humanity from immersing in the ocean of distress and misery arising out of worldly life, and to blend the human souls with their Creator, thus, emancipating them from the cycle of transmigration breaking all barriers and bonds of sufferings. This is the essential character of Sikh faith.

The law of Karma or fatalism is repugnant to Sikh Religion as it does not reconcile with the merciful trait of the Almighty Lord. There is no such thing in Sikhism as eternal damnation or an everlasting pit of fire created by the revengeful God. Guru's grace erases the blot of thousands of evil deeds of the past and the present. It is also the savior of the future. Meditation on Nam burns countless sins. Singing the glory of the Lord through the Divine Word, can redeem a repentant sinner and, thus, doctrine of Karma ceases to operate. Such is the splendor of Guru Nanak's doctrine of God's Grace and Compassion.

[harpreet]

SOURCE: http://www.sikh.net/SIKHISM/GURUS/index.htm

The law of Karma or fatalism is repugnant to Sikh Religion as it does not reconcile with the merciful trait of the Almighty Lord. There is no such thing in Sikhism as eternal damnation or an everlasting pit of fire created by the revengeful God. Guru's grace erases the blot of thousands of evil deeds of the past and the present. It is also the savior of the future. Meditation on Nam burns countless sins. Singing the glory of the Lord through the Divine Word, can redeem a repentant sinner and, thus, doctrine of Karma ceases to operate. Such is the splendor of Guru Nanak's doctrine of God's Grace and Compassion.

Thanks for a nice article.

Law Of Karma is well integrated in the philosphy Of Sikhism. Infact ,it is one Of the similarity with the Hindu Religion. This is a derivative product.

Aapey beej aapey he Khao.

[ I am quoting incomplete but I am sure you can make out as to that is stated.]

Secondly meditation Of naam is also part and parcel Of Hindus who meditate upon 'om'. It is like 'Oangkar' for the sikhs.

[Xylitol]

Right, but Om is fundamentally different from Ik Oangkar b/c Ik Oangkar refers to one god alone, whereas Om refers to the trinuty of Gods Bhrama, Vishnu, Shiva.

And as for karma, a Gursikh is not 100% subject to karma like a non-sikh is. By our Guru's grace, we're saved from some of it.

[das]

Whether a person is Sikh/Hindu/Muslim/Christan/or belongs to any other religion, every human-being is subject to his/her karma 100%.

BUT yes, karma CAN be cancelled or destroyed by true Guru's grace and True Guru is NOT the property of only Sikhs and even true Guru is not met without previous good deeds. Whosoever (any religion), comes in true Guru's feet can be saved from his karma.

--------------------------------

ਕਰਮ ਧਰਤੀ ਸਰੀਰੁ ਜੁਗ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਜੋ ਬੋਵੈ ਸੋ ਖਾਤਿ ॥

The body is the field of karma in this age; whatever you plant, you shall harvest.

--------------------------------

ਕਰਮੀ ਆਵੈ ਕਪੜਾ ਨਦਰੀ ਮੋਖੁ ਦੁਆਰੁ ॥

By the karma of past actions, the robe of this physical body is obtained. By His Grace, the Gate of Liberation is found.

--------------------------------

ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਕਰਮ ਨ ਛੁਟਸੀ ਕਹਿ ਸੁਣਿ ਆਖਿ ਵਖਾਣੁ ॥੭॥

Without the Guru, they are not released from their karma, although they speak and listen and preach and explain.

--------------------------------

ਜਿਨ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਸੇ ਵਡਭਾਗੀ ਪੂਰੈ ਕਰਮਿ ਮਿਲਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੩॥

Those who meet the True Guru are very fortunate and blessed; through perfect karma, He is met.

---------------------------------

ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਬਚਨਿ ਜਾਗਿਆ ਮੇਰਾ ਕਰਮੁ ॥

Through the Guru's Word, my good karma has been awakened.

---------------------------------

bhul chuk de maffi

das

[fatehsingh]

The law of Karma or fatalism is repugnant to Sikh Religion as it does not reconcile with the merciful trait of the Almighty Lord.

:lol: wow! that's rich! :lol:

[harpreet]

Right, but Om is fundamentally different from Ik Oangkar b/c Ik Oangkar refers to one god alone, whereas Om refers to the trinuty of Gods Bhrama, Vishnu, Shiva.

And as for karma, a Gursikh is not 100% subject to karma like a non-sikh is. By our Guru's grace, we're saved from some of it.

You are right as above but I make an addition here.

'Om' is the primal /first sound for hindus.Sikhs consider this to be 'Oangkar'. This is the similarity/difference between the two.

[harpreet]

ਜਿਨ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਸੇ ਵਡਭਾਗੀ ਪੂਰੈ ਕਰਮਿ ਮਿਲਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੩॥

Those who meet the True Guru are very fortunate and blessed; through perfect karma, He is met.

But dear sir ,

who is Tru Guru as per the line that you have quoted.Is it the God him self or it would be SGGS ji.

kindly clarify.

thanks.

[tSingh]

A small correction. It is incorrect to state that Ik Ongkar is different from Om because it is not 'fractured into three'. The trehmurti is only one of many many interpretations of Om. There are as many interpretations as there are models of sidhant, i.e. a lot. Even Buddhist and Jain sutras open with Om. Take for example, Faridkotwale Tika. Their explanation of Ik Ongkar is EXACTLY how an Advait vedantist would interpret it based on Mandukyaupanishad. With the greatest repsect, there is more vichaar in the world other than Gyani Thakur Singh on such topics.

[Xylitol]

Posted: Yesterday at 5:26 pm Post subject: (No subject)

??? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ???

Those who meet the True Guru are very fortunate and blessed; through perfect karma, He is met.

Both. True Guru is god himself, in sargun form. Like wearing clothes, God takes on the form of the Gurus.

[harpreet]

Xylitol ji,

It would mean that we can meet any living person and accept HIM as our Guru for advancement in spritual path. KIndly confirm jeo.

[drawrof]

AMRIT PEEE0-VAH, WAHEGURU...WAHEGURU, WAHEGURU, WAHEGURU...GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU....WAHEGURU!

[Xylitol]

Harpreet ji, our Guru is all around us, a presence that is unseen b/c we do not yet have the eyes to see. We get this Guru via the Amrit Sanchaar, and the guru appears to us then in the form of the Guru Granth Sahib ji and the punj pyare.

WE do not need to take on a living person as a guru.

When the Guru is satisfied with our efforts, we see Him in front of us in his body, this is called partakh darshan and takes lifetimes to achieve.

However, we should take help from mahapurshes if they are willing, as it greatly aids us in the path. And if we are lucky enough to meet a bhramgyani, than definitely we should see that one as being the same as the Guru. This all depends on our karma.

[drawrof]

The problem here is reducing everything down to processes...this is a negative approach towards religion. If we can agree that guru nanak was the avtar in kalyug, then guru nanak is the full manifestation of what we can possibly perceive...meaning that 'yes' mahapurash are there, but there purpose is to exemplify that the one within and the one without are actually one....and their presence is enough of a witness to the fact. What happens too much these days is that we try to enforce what we want our guru to be instead of letting it unravel itself....I mean if it were in our control, wouldn't the 'grace' element be irrelevant?

Now, in terms of what Tsingh said above with the definition of OM, I am going to give a thinkset that I believe pervades most of our parchar. We are encouraged to respect mahapurash. In this case gyani takur singh, who is a great kathavaachik, purports a view that has a specific aim....that means that the plethora of info that gyani sundar singh ji:Gyani gurbachan singh ji: would be channeled down in a way to address a particular point. This point does have other perspectives...they could have been explained at other points in time, but my point here boils down to the fact that many people spent their lives reconciling their personal spiritual growth with the current trends of spiritual scholarship at the time...and each would come to their own conclusion as to how they'd interpret their respective revelation and that revelation in itself would not be the gospel truth...we need to be mindful to not look at thigns that way. The reason why mahapurash of the past were so wise was because many WERE vidhvaans and they would do their equivalentn of comparatiive study to understand and later preach a view.

Let me give an example here. 'es dehi ko simrai dev'....one view point is that 'even devtay are yearning for this body'....another viewpoint is that 'devtay are above humans in their development of life form and this could be a metaphor for their desire to become one with the one'....

[tSingh]

Indeed, and I think this is the fundamental reason why older katha gave a plethora of interpretations, something I noticed tapoban forum types found offensive (there is only one truth, etc, etc). Different interpretations for different spiritual capacities and predicaments (much like how the guru recognises the inner capacity of each individual and adjusts things accordingly).

In a sense this goes back to something very interesting alluded to in Vedantsara in which the author says that such things are models to get you from a to b. They can never encompass everything, but serve a function. Look at Yog Vasistha also, it is primarily written from experience and demonstrates theoretical contradictions..but to a jnani, thats not imoprtant at all and to get caught on that totally misses the point. Its not metaphorical, and its not material turth either. It is the mystical experience which is the a priori truth on which everything else is contingent. In this sense the idea of shabad pramaan (or spoken/sound/revealed proof) being the only reliable source of information is rooted to a context not on whether cars are made out of metal, but about the means and characteristics of the mystical truth.

Having said this! If a teaching that was designed to convey something is misconstrued by another into 'this means this'...you can end up with comments like the above about 'Om', which are in fact not only based on ignorance but also being used in a new form in which, rather than helping you get from a to b, they are now used to serve some petty identity issue. Recontextualising information is always a dangerous issue, a bit like this Shia thing taking a saakhi from Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi (perhaps one of the last 'janamsakhi' written historically) and turning it into a 'historical fact' to be evaluated in its material historical context of 'Safavid rule in Baghdad', despite the reality that there are countless other janamsakhis written earlier without such a reference.

I presume all this is like GCSE Hermeneutics, but its still interesting stuff.

[Guest]

wow one deep post tsingh, i have to read it many times in order to get sink that in my brain.