Jump to content

Become God in Sachkhand- Shankara non-dualistic theory aling


Recommended Posts

Become God in Sachkhand- Shankara non-dualistic theory aling with Gurmat?

quote from javanmard:

'do parikrama the Hindu way, love vegetarianism and the cheap Shankara non-dualistic idea that you can become God in Sach Khand'

what a pile of s-h-i-t (admin cut my ass). How offensive. Two months a go you were pompously waving your Nirmala parampra to some how qualify everything you're saying and now your castigating nearly every nirmala and sevapanthi to being 'cheap non dualists'. I'm in the midst of translating the words of Bhai Adhan Shah himself from 1748 and he is talking 100% of your 'cheap non dualism'. I can't believe you can write off most of the intellectuals and sants of the panth so readily while still holding to belonging to their own tradition! Exactly WHAT of their tradition do you hold to apart from the name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Calm down TSingh there are different types of non-dualism and what I am against is Shankara's kevaladvaita. Not all Nirmalas and Sevapanthis abide by this sort of cheap non-dualism. Tara Singh Narotam for example uses achintyabheabhedavada which is close to gurmat but still holds some methodological problems. To be a Nirmala doesn't mean I follow what other Nirmalas do. For me it means being a scholar at the service of Guru Gobind Singh and if that means being consequent with my research and having other Nirmalas on my back then so be it. Shankara's doctrines are offensive, insulting and blasphematory to the highest point. Gurmat represents a different type of monistic monotheism that is complete and beautiful. If there is a trend among Nirmalas and Sevapanthis to admire Shankara then that trend needs to be eradicated. Regarding vegetarianism you know my position: if it is a personal option I have nothing against it but if it's imposed as being an essential part of Sikhi then I oppose it as pure heresy. As to the parikrama done the brahmanical way I'll just say that there are limits to inculturation and that a missionary order should realise that.There are good reasons why the Khalsa does it the opposite way and this should be respected. As for the personal critique about me being pompous for waving my parampara, fine I won't wave it anymore. And as for being called a "fascist" by you for calling for the eradication of Sunnism I actually take it as a compliment. The best Italian literature of the 20th century was written by fascists: d'Annunzio, Pirandello and of course Gentile. They weren't Mussolini fascist though as they were opposed to racism but they were still fascists and they believed in the unity of existence (yes real non-dualists). Though I wouldn't consider myself close to any political ideology I don't take the word fascist necesserily as an insult. Plus being Portuguese and 150 percent Shi'a I love black shirts just like fascists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not angry, just calling a spade a spade, as they say up north. The only reason I take it so badly is that everytime I read this stuff my thoughts go to a quiet man sat in his room saying 'am I correct?'. I’m still curious, in your opinion is there anything that can be pinned down as ‘Nirmala tradition’ apart from the namesake? The 'being a scholar at the behest of Guru Gobind Singh includes Pandit Raghunath who is held to be the reason for their creation/formalisation.

Dr. Vir Singh’s dad knew Sanskrit and was devoted to Guru Maharaj, was he as good as Nirmala? So was Sardar Kapur Singh, a Nirmala? Sincerely what is it then? Is there anything in your opinion that constitutes a valid tradition?

No, Pandit Tara Singh Narotam is the exception to the rule as you should know. The existence of strictly Advaita literature has been read and translated from the very beginning among Nirmalay (Advaitsiddhi, Naishkarmyasidhi, Vedant Paribhasha, Adhyatam Prakash, etc) and CATEGORICALLY none has been translated from the other forms of Vedanta current at that time. Sevapanthis had Yog Vasishta from very early on. Neither necessarily adhere to 100% of it. They play down the upaadhi and the adyaropa stuff, but take the panch kosh, the dosh, the antahkaranvritti, the total advait goal, etc. You call the non dual goal of oneness with God in sachkhand cheap and blasphemous, but EVERY nirmala and sevapanthi I’ve met or read hold to that view!!!!

As for ‘blasphemous’ I’ve never even read the word in braj. Surely if Shankara is considered blasphemous, the pratyabhijna traika stuff you like, along with Yog Vasishta position’s got to be taking it to a whole new level within the Shia/semitic metaphysical model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

1. Being a scholar is not of course you need the parampara too.

2. "You call the non dual goal of oneness with God in sachkhand cheap and blasphemous, but EVERY nirmala and sevapanthi I’ve met or read hold to that view!!!!" Like Shankara said in his Vivekachudamani, just because elders hold a certain view doesn't make it right. I have discussed the reasons as to why the idea of reaching Sach Khand is theologically and scripturally untenable.

3."As for ‘blasphemous’ I’ve never even read the word in braj. Surely if Shankara is considered blasphemous, the pratyabhijna traika stuff you like, along with Yog Vasishta position’s got to be taking it to a whole new level within the Shia/semitic metaphysical model." The closest in terms of Indic philosophy to gurmat is indeed Kashmiri Shaivism BUT it lacks the most important element that makes gurmat what it is: the Divine Guide. Sure all these other systems consider the guru to be an important notion but in Sikhi it has a totally different status, a status only found in the Ginans and in Shi'a literature. As for the semitic-Shi'a metaphysical model and its relation to Indic thought there have been many Shi'a orafa who have greatly appreciated Indic religious thinking and commented on it in very distinguished ways such Agha Tabatabai or the old scholars of the Shirazi school and the Ishraqiyun. I don't remember Indian brahmins doing the same effort and even less so Nirmalas even though at least one fourth of Sarabloh Guru Granth Sahib is in Persian let alone Bhai Nand Lal's writings which demand a good knowledge of irfan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

1. Being a scholar alone is not enough of course you need the parampara too.

2. "You call the non dual goal of oneness with God in sachkhand cheap and blasphemous, but EVERY nirmala and sevapanthi I’ve met or read hold to that view!!!!" Like Shankara said in his Vivekachudamani, just because elders hold a certain view doesn't make it right. I have discussed the reasons as to why the idea of reaching Sach Khand is theologically and scripturally untenable.

3."As for ‘blasphemous’ I’ve never even read the word in braj. Surely if Shankara is considered blasphemous, the pratyabhijna traika stuff you like, along with Yog Vasishta position’s got to be taking it to a whole new level within the Shia/semitic metaphysical model." The closest in terms of Indic philosophy to gurmat is indeed Kashmiri Shaivism BUT it lacks the most important element that makes gurmat what it is: the Divine Guide. Sure all these other systems consider the guru to be an important notion but in Sikhi it has a totally different status, a status only found in the Ginans and in Shi'a literature. As for the semitic-Shi'a metaphysical model and its relation to Indic thought there have been many Shi'a orafa who have greatly appreciated Indic religious thinking and commented on it in very distinguished ways such Agha Tabatabai or the old scholars of the Shirazi school and the Ishraqiyun. I don't remember Indian brahmins doing the same effort and even less so Nirmalas even though at least one fourth of Sarabloh Guru Granth Sahib is in Persian let alone Bhai Nand Lal's writings which demand a good knowledge of irfan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tara Singh Narotam for example uses achintyabheabhedavada which is close to gurmat but still holds some methodological problems

Whereas gurmat doesn't hold any methodological problems?

I think Jacques Derrida would disagree, and I'm pretty sure you have acquainted yourself with Deconstruction and differance. In the words of Derrida:

‘Negative theologies are always just detours on the way to even higher, more sublime affirmations. They are ways of saying in even stronger terms that an entity, namely God, exists: he exists so deeply, so thoroughly, so purely, so perfectly, that we even have to take the word ‘is’ back if and when we say it. Negative theologies are modified onto-theo-logies, variations on the philosophy of presence which always turn out to be philosophies of super presence.

And so if we find ourselves saying that differance is neither a word nor a concept, that there is no name for what we mean to say when we say differance, that is not because we have stumbled upon, or been overtaken by, a being of such super-eminence that words fail us. It is because we have in mind the conditions under which words are formed in the first place, and the ‘word’ for that is a kind of non-word, anterior to words, the general condition or rule of formation for words.’

I don't think guru Nanak Devji was concerned with what is 'methodologically correct'. If you don't understand what I mean, I suggest you read Timothy Freake on mystic traditions.

Admin, I realise we've gone off-topic - you might want to start a new thread for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Dear Vayputra by "methodological problems" I imply here Tara Singh Narotam's application of Bengali Vaishnava concepts such as the different types of avataras when in gurbani itself such distinctions are not made. This is what I meant.

I agree with Derrida's quote but I am afraid you are limiting gurmat to an exclusively apophatic vision of things whereas things are just much more complex. Sure Sikhi contains very strong apophatic passages but it also explicitly proclaims the necessary existence of the divine guide. Apophatic theologies do away with such notion as is the case with Shankara's system and Buddhism. The sihari of gurprasadi is what gives a limit to your argument.

In the future if you quote Derrida do also give the original French as I hate to read French philosophers in translation.

Thanks

TSingh if you wish to claim that there is no veil between you and the unknowable essence then feel free to proclaim your Guruship. What makes Guru Nanak who He is, is precisely the fact that being the Face of God He knows the Secret of Secrets. Nirankar is the esoteric of God, Maharaj is His exoteric. You TSingh can only perceive Nirankar through Guru Nanak whilst He Himself can talk about it because there is no veil between Him and Nirankar just like there is none between ik and omkar.

If you people think that you can go beyond His grace, beyond karam khand, good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would that end up being 'me' exactly commiting such 'blasphemy'???? And how is Guru not God? Why does Guru tell us with the right experience we can talk of the agam agochar? Why does he say we can speak that which is as eating iron (as he says of sachkhand)? Why does Bhai Gurdas describe the Guru's gyan bringing the end of the vedantic tripati of seen, seer and seeing? Your veil theory doesn't. As Bhai Adhan Shah states the Guru's Gyan gives you the target, Parmatma will grant you hitting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malwa da Sher veer,

Its our shuksham sareer(made of 17 elements) and off course sri atam dev(our atma) which give parkash, nourishment to our physical body, shuksham sareer.

And are the khands a permanent state of existence?

Excellent question,

According to Nanaksar*/Damdami Taksal along with akj school of thought, they beleive sachkhand is a meta physical realm. Other spiritual school of thoughts like rara sahib, harkhowale, hoti mardan they beleive sachkhand is more like avastha- nirvakalap smaadhi/turiya avastha/vedeh mukht.

*There are many sakhiya of nanaksar sants - baba nand singh ji, baba isher singh ji nanaksarwale, where premis have asked them what is sachkhand? how does it look like?. They were given description of sachkhand being an meta physical realm much resembling the sri sachkhand darbar of nanaksar jagroan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, I don't know about Javanmard Ji, but since we know from the above each others stances whats the point in wrangling.

One last thing though for Javanmard ji, never mistake the critique of a viewpoint (no matter how rude on my part) with a critique of personality...please note that I never called you a 'fascist', I called your earlier statement 'fascistic and irresponsible'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Tsingh wrote:

"How would that end up being 'me' exactly commiting such 'blasphemy'???? And how is Guru not God? Why does Guru tell us with the right experience we can talk of the agam agochar? Why does he say we can speak that which is as eating iron (as he says of sachkhand)? Why does Bhai Gurdas describe the Guru's gyan bringing the end of the vedantic tripati of seen, seer and seeing? Your veil theory doesn't. As Bhai Adhan Shah states the Guru's Gyan gives you the target, Parmatma will grant you hitting it."

All of this is done through gurprasadi, it is through the Guru that we perceive agam agochar and that we can speak of that which is like eating iron. To make the essence of God a knowable object means that you take away its quality of being the Absolute. Mulmantar clearly specifies that any knowledge we can have of God can ONLY be IN and THROUGH the Guru. The tripati only ends as a separateness whilst the enlightened sage realises the unity of the three whilst they still continue existing otherwise the attribute of Karta Purakh would make no sense in Mulmantar. If you have a Karta Purakh (creative being-creator) you must have a creation and created beings. At no point in gurbani does it state that Karta Purakh is an illusory manifestation of Brahman like it is mentioned in Shankara. The Karta Purakh remains because the divine essence (ik) by its very nature expresses itself (omkar) in an eternal moment. Hence whilst there is an underlying unity between creator and created those differences still remain . To actually say that they are completely uplifted implies that:

-Karta Purakh is only a temporary and illusory attribute

-that the Guru does not need to exist

-that creation has no purpose of expressing the divine attributes if in the end its all about re-entering some kind of nothingness.

As for the "fascistic and irresponsible" comment:

I don't understand what is "fascistic" about calling for the end of an ideology (Sunnism) that has profoundly deformed the teachings of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and relies on the authority of people who have actively persecuted, massacred and tortured the very family of Mohammad (pbuh). It would rather be irresponsible to let such an ideology and its leaders spread their poison even further.

For these reasons it is impossible on scriptural grounds to accept Shankara's theories as being completely incompatible with gurmat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Guru teaches, and you should learn. Once you learn and understand, then you put into practice what you have learnt. It is then that comes self enquiry. Without self enquiry you will not come to know your Creator (Dreamer?). That is why Gurbani states that Hari resides within your being.

Your minds beliefs will hold you back, only gyan from direct experience will blow wind in your sails. There is no greater Shakti than reality. Not the reality that your mind has made up all these years of your life, but "That Which Is" - that which happens. Once all your perceptions are stripped away then, well...good luck. Though I don't really believe in "luck".

Nobody becomes Parmatma. There is only One Atma. That One Atma does not practice any sort of discrimination. Think on that last sentence I have just typed. Paramatma does not reward nor punish.

Nobody is Paramatma's favourite. Self enquiry is the way, not talking about Parbrahm about which you know nothing about (including nirgun/sargun talk). Because in reality there is no nirgun sargun. So instead of talking, please do, it requires in reality no effort.

You can lift a ten ton weight in your mind, so why can't you enquire about your self? Why you are the way you are. Who are you? When were you born? Were you born today, when you woke up? When did you die? Who died? Who was born? Who was that in your dreams, was it you? You will get nowhere by blah blah blah.

Little tip: Dreams are great for starting off the psychological momentum of self enquiry. That's what I've found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Thanks for trying to give me guidance but on that front I already have someone helping me. I am sure Deepak Chopra would be impressed by you. I have heard all this Midlands Bruce Lee "Don't think! Act" non-sense a thousand times. I actually prefer to listen to my Satguru rather than to some neo-vedantic Steven Seagal guidance stuff. No offense. The discussion was about Sachkhand not self-enquiry. It is true that by "knowing thy self you'll know your Lord" but that doesn't by far imply any of the neo-vedantic cheap non-dualism implied in the rest of your post. As much as Maharaj does indeed criticise empty theoretical discussions He does also ordain us to do khoj of gurbani which is exactly what Tsingh and I are doing. If you don't like it you can still end your posts by your usual "anyways I am going because I have better things to do than sitting here writing on this forum like a loser".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'At no point in gurbani does it state that Karta Purakh is an illusory manifestation of Brahman'

It is a sargun qualification for those within the the three states of consciousness Guru Nanak describes in Sidh Gosht. Gurbani does says this;

'Advai Abinaasee param prkaasee tej suraasee akrit kritang' in Akal Ustat...'akrit kritang' being creator of the uncreated, and Advai being non-dual, and param praakashi total illumination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

I only spoke against Shankaryan non-dualism that defines he sagina aspect of God as just another illusion, a corruption of Brahman with Maya (for which btw he doesn't have any explanation about its origins).

As far as "akrit kritang" it makes more sense to translate it as "uncreated creator" as opposed to "creator of the uncreated". I don't think Maharaj would go against elementary logic and teach us a theological absurdity.

The fact the Akal Purakh is advait does by no means mean that

1. the world is pure illusion

2. that it is the pure product of Maya as Shankara suggests

Shankara's acosmist theopanism precisely differs with Sikhism's cosmist theopanism. There are worlds separating both. It is fine to translate shankarian works but it's another thing to say Sikh agrees totally with it. There is no place for Karta Purakh, Akal Murati or Gurprasadi in Shankara's system apart from being illusions. And let's not even mention hukam and razai which have nothing to do with Shankara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I never said that Sankara is Sikhi, I said it wasn't and that there are differences. I came back to the nature of the experience of God as my beef.

Oops, that quote's from Gyan Prabodh and that is how I have had the meaning explained to me.

The fact is that the ontological model of consciousness, psychological faculties and relationship to Braham are directly based upon Vedanta - whether it be the fact that Guru Nanak explicitly states the mind arising from the sattvagun element of the five bhoots, or describing the four states of consicousness, or the four components of the antahkaran, or the dual existence of man and budhi playing off each other (something that doesn't fit in with Yog Vasishta or supposedly Pratyabhijnna since it is only one at a time), or the resolve of the tripati in 'adarash' non-seeing unity etc, etc, etc. the bits that are different in my opinion are the means to that state, the fact that creation is relatively real, the nature of hukam and razai as you state and the nature of the state of jivan mukat...plus the most important thing I feel is that I do not hold, as other samprday types do not, that the model of Sikhi described is as static as you posit it. There is both depth and analogy...but I'll save that for another time.

interesting discussion though, my hat's off to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Tsingh wrote:

"Oops, that quote's from Gyan Prabodh and that is how I have had the meaning explained to me. "

I don't know who explained it to you but the word akrita is NOT a noun. It's in fact a verbal adjective. The person who explained it to you mistook it for a noun which it isn't.

If you take akrita as a noun you get:"creator of the uncreated" logically untenable and grammatically wrong.

If you take akrita for what it is, a verbal adjective, you get:"uncreated creator" which not only makes sense but is also grammatically correct.

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...