ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

khalsa jeeo,

this is all very interesting.

i noticed veer kulbir singh jee wrote the following:

"This I would say is the case of Achintiya Abhedabhed i.e. Ishvar and Jeev being one and two at the same time. This is Achintiya because it cannot be fathomed by us".

please see: [en.wikipedia.org]

even wordly scientists have agreed that light can 'physically' be present in two places at one time. whether this has any relevance re: actual relationship between Ishvar (Paratma) and Jeev (Atma) beats me but it's an interesting fact to consider!

:-)

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

ਦਾਸ,
ਆਤਮਾ ਸਿੰਘ

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Bhai Kulbir Singh jio,

Excellent tat vichaar in accordance to Gurmat. We do not understand why some people wants the Gurmat to be gray not black and white. Why they are so scare from black and white and straight forward Gurmat? Why they wanted to spread gray area all over? Guru Nanak Dev ji's Sikhi is crystal clear and transparent. No place to foggy philosophies here.

Quote "Gurmat is not such that Dastaar vee theek hai te bodi vee theek hai."

That says all.

Guru Mehar Karay

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2008 09:10AM by admin.

Khalsa Ji,

Bhai Gurdas Ji - says:

"ਜਹਾ ਤੇ ਉਪਜਿਆ ਫਿਰਿ ਤਹਾ ਸਮਾਵੈ ॥੪੯॥੧॥ "

Is this therefore black and white also?


""Gurmat is not such that Dastaar vee theek hai te bodi vee theek hai."

Please expand on this, I always thought Gurmat was for the universal benefit of mankind....?

Veer Harcharan Singh jeeo,

Quote:

Bhai Gurdas Ji - says:

"ਜਹਾ ਤੇ ਉਪਜਿਆ ਫਿਰਿ ਤਹਾ ਸਮਾਵੈ ॥੪੯॥੧॥ "

Is this therefore black and white also?

Please read my posts carefully. I have stated before and say this again that merger is there between jeev and Ishvar. I just don't believe this merger annihilates the jeev i.e. takes away his consciousness. The example of Siri Dasmesh jee is perfect in this regard. Please read my previous post for details.

Quote:

""Gurmat is not such that Dastaar vee theek hai te bodi vee theek hai."

Please expand on this, I always thought Gurmat was for the universal benefit of mankind....?

Gurmat is for the whole world and is open to all but this does not mean that Gurmat also agrees with notions of all religions. Keep unshorn hair and maintaining a dastaar on the head is Gurmat. One who wants to adopt Gurmat, will have to adopt this principle also. You can't be one keeping bodi (shikha) and then also want to adopt Gurmat.

Think of it. What is Tatt-Gurmat i.e. the essence of Gurmat? Clearly it is the daat of Naam. What do we need to do before we can get Naam? We need to come in rehit prescribed by Gurmat. Today if one wants to get Gurmat Naam from Punj Pyaare, one has to first come in Rehit i.e. wear all 5 kakaars, wear Gurmukhi baana, promise to stay away from 4 bajjar kurehits. Then only one is admitted into the Amrit Sinchaar Mandal and given Naam. So, even though Naam is the main thing in Gurmat and rehit is a small thing but still this rehit part of Gurmat is indispensible. You can't give it up. Remember Siri Guru jee in Siri Jap jee Sahib makes it clear that bhagti cannot be done without adopting Gurmat Shubh Gunn - ਵਿਣੁ ਗੁਣ ਕੀਤੇ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਇ ॥

Gurmat is for all but this does not mean, Gurmat should be altered to accomodate tobacco smoking faqirs, or beef eating Muslims and Christians. It does not mean that these sins of Faqirs and Beef-eaters are accomodated in Gurmat. If these people want to see the light of Vaheguru, they will have to adopt Gurmat and adopting Gurmat means they will have to give up tobacco smoking and beef eating to begin with. Then the other hukams of Guru Sahib have to be accepted. Then one can hope to get somewhere spiritually.

Kulbir Singh

Identity implies separateness, which is caused by ego. That is the identity sant ji and N30 are discussing. So this identity (ego, "I") is gone, finished. But like in my example given above, the water from the glass continues to exist in the ocean, it is just no longer in a glass (glass being a metaphor for identity). So the jeev is not destroyed, it is just merged with Waheguru. I think all agree on this point, but have misunderstood each other.

kulbir singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This proves that becoming one in Gurmat does not
> equal annihilation of the Jeev as is the case in
> Advaita. In Advaita, they don't really believe in
> Brahman being separate from Jeev.


IF the jeev is one with Parmatama, than how is it possible for it to be destroyed?? The advait Baba ji discussed, which I have explained in my previous post, does not say that the jeev is destroyed. Just like in Gurmat we use the same terminology hindus use for many things in Gurbani, but it is modified for Gurmat uses. Baba ji explains this when he said that Sikhi is prema bhagti marg.


kulbir singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>In Advaita, they don't really believe in
> Brahman being separate from Jeev. Furthermore they
> even believe that Jeev is Brahman and not the
> other way around. This theory is totally against
> Gurmat, in my humble opinion.

We have our own Gurmat version of advait. I have already posted Gurbani showing how this is fully in line with Gurmat. Please show how advait says Jeev is bhraman. Advait does not teach us to worship our own souls rather than worship God, Baba ji makes this clear in response to a question on whether we can put our dhian on our own soul to do simran (he says we can't, b/c we lack the dhristhi to understand atma and parmatma as one). This is in the very last recording.

please also give a brief description of what you feel advait is, b/c reading this I think it's clear that everyone is not on the same page, and that can lead to a lot of debate about something we think someone said, that they did not actually say. Better to be sure that we all have the same understanding of just what advait is. It seems you are attacking a version of advait that is completely different from the one I have explained in previous posts.

kulbir singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Many of our Gursikh veers interpret Nirgun in the
> same way as Advaita interprets i.e. that he is an
> impersonal God without any feelings. This is not
> true.

I assure you, this is not the case. We have a Gurmat version of advait. This is also discussed in Gurbani, where Gurbani states that atma and paramatma are separated by ego thinner than the veil of a buttefly wing. They are already the same, but jeev has ego which prevents jeev from having appropriate dhrishti to see this. That is all that adviat that baba ji is talking about is, imho.

It's unimaginable and false that a scholar renowned in the entire panth for his knowledge who was student of bhramgyani Baba Jawala Singh ji would completely misunderstand even basics of Gurmat such as the Mool Mantar, which teaches about the various qualities of Waheguru.

kulbir singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Now coming to what you have written above and what
> Sant jee said about Vaheguru taking form of
> Mahapurakhs and giving darshan to seekers on
> Earth. Pray, tell me why would Vaheguru jee do
> this, when the Mahapurakh who have become one with
> im are still in existence. If Siri Dasmesh jee
> kept his identity and when time can he was sent to
> Earth, why not the same treatment with other
> Mahapurakhs?

There is no difference between God and Mahapurkh at this stage.
If you go have darshan of Baba Attar Singh ji today, and tomorrow you have darshan of Baba Sham Singh ji, there is no difference. The outward body is different, the behaviour habits may also be different. This is what merger means, to become totally one. Having darshan of Baba Sham Singh ji is the same as having Darshan of Baba Attar Singh ji. i'm not saying it's equal to it, although it is, but that's not what I'm saying; I'm saying it's the exact same thing. If I go meet a pooran bhramgyani today with sharda that I'm talking to Baba Thakar Singh ji bhindrenvaley, than that is essentially who I will be talking too.

Sunsingh jeeo,

Quote:

IF the jeev is one with Parmatama, than how is it possible for it to be destroyed?? The advait Baba ji discussed, which I have explained in my previous post, does not say that the jeev is destroyed. Just like in Gurmat we use the same terminology hindus use for many things in Gurbani, but it is modified for Gurmat uses. Baba ji explains this when he said that Sikhi is prema bhagti marg.

Thanks for the clarification. As long as we don't associate Gurmat with Advaita Vedanta, I am fine with it. Gurmat is unique and nothing in the world comes even near it. To describe Gurmat through the lenses of Vedant or any other worldly philosophy is what I am against. Gurmat can be described through Gurbani, Bhai Gurdaas jee's Baani, Bhai Nandlal jee's baani and by Gursikhs who have lived Gurmat all their lives. Where does Vedant come in picture when talking about Gurmat? The root of Vedant is Vedas and these Vedas have been rejected by Guru Sahib in Gurbani, then what to talk about Vedant?

There no point repeating what I have already wrote in my previous posts. Let informed Gursikhs reading this thread make up their mind after reading posts under this thread.

Kulbir Singh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2008 09:12AM by admin.

Gurfateh Kulbir singh ji,

Quote:

Here I am finding it hard to agree. This is because of my study of Gurbani viyakaran. There is a viyakaran for Gurbani. I have a feeling that you misunderstand the term viyakaran. You can't have a language or a script without viyakaran. Every language has nouns, verbs, pronouns, adjectives etc and Gurbani too contains all these. It's just the way pronouns, verbs, nouns, singular nouns, plural nouns are presented in Gurbani, that is unique. A singular noun will have certain spellings and a plural noun will have it's own rules. These rules of viyakaran have been applied consistently throughout Gurbani. If you could spare some time, I can prove to you how Gurbani has a viyakaran. No one can doubt it.
Having a viyakaran does not mean that Gurbani has been bound in it. This is a wrong way of looking at it. I would say that more perfect a language or a script is, more perfect it's viyakaran would be. Gurbani is the most exalted Katha in the world and its viyakaran too is. Siri Guru jee opened the doors of wisdom (including Sanskrit viyakaran) when they did kirpa on this person who did arth of Srimad Bhagwat Gita. I doubt the jheevar did arths opposite to the viyakaran of Sanskrit.

According to my understanding, vikayaran is a grammar. Gurbani has grammar thats the way gurbani is written so that where noun, verb, adverb, adjective, pronouns could be understood if one follows rules of grammer and understand them. I have never once did khandan of vikayaran itself. I said gurbani is not bound by vikayaran because gurbani is from dhuroo. Vikayaran of gurbani is there to make us understand on a basic level but when bhramgyani interprets gurbani. He/she does not need follow rules of vikayaran since gurbani is agam agad bodh. Bhramgyani interprets gurbani via their anubhav parkash, they do antriv arths. Thats why prof sahib singh translations and sant gurbachan singh ji translations of gurbani varies..one is at basic level and other one is through anubhav parkash. Its not only that but within Bhramgyani's there is huge diversity of interpertation gurbani based on anubhav parkash, bhramgyan is same, but experiences, surti is different.

According to soraj parkash granth written by bhai sahib kavi santokh singh, jheevar did antriv arths of geeta by kirpa of Guru Maharaj which broke ahankar of pandit.

I would never do khandan of vikayaran. It just wouldn't make sense on socio-economic level its just doing khandan of english grammar then we wouldn't be able to convey our message properly.

Nirmale are known for teaching vikayaran of gurbani both in sanskrit and arabic, thats the first thing one is taught when someone learns from nirmala vidya gurudev.

Quote:

I have no qualms over merging into Vaheguru. We all agree that the merger takes place but where we differ is if this merger annihilates the jeev. I have given Gurbani parmaans to prove that jeev is abinaashi. Furthermore, the example of Siri Dasmesh jee is so perfect to prove this point. Siri Guru jee clearly states that he and Vaheguru become one from two but then when the need occurred, Vaheguru jee asked Siri Dasmesh jee to go to world to uphold Dharma. This proves that even though they had become one, still Siri Dasmesh jee kept his consciousness and identity. This proves that becoming one in Gurmat does not equal annihilation of the Jeev as is the case in Advaita. In Advaita, they don't really believe in Brahman being separate from Jeev. Furthermore they even believe that Jeev is Brahman and not the other way around. This theory is totally against Gurmat, in my humble opinion.
Again there is misunderstanding when it comes to Nirgun and Sargun. According to Gurmat, Vaheguru is not Nirgun in the sense that he has no attributes as is the case with Advaita. Nirgun in Gurmat simply means that he does not have attributes of Trai-Guni Maya. But in any case, Nirgun Vaheguru of Sikhs has attributes. He is loving; he is Nirbhau; He is Nirvair; He is Bhagat-vachhul; He is Dukhbhanjan. The word 'Akal Moorat' in Mool Mantra is a very important term. The word Moorat proves that though he is Nirgun but still he has a Moorat that is comprehensible to his Bhagats.

Many of our Gursikh veers interpret Nirgun in the same way as Advaita interprets i.e. that he is an impersonal God without any feelings. This is not true.

Now coming to what you have written above and what Sant jee said about Vaheguru taking form of Mahapurakhs and giving darshan to seekers on Earth. Pray, tell me why would Vaheguru jee do this, when the Mahapurakh who have become one with im are still in existence. If Siri Dasmesh jee kept his identity and when time can he was sent to Earth, why not the same treatment with other Mahapurakhs? Why do we think that they have been annihilated and now Vaheguru has to take on their form to go to Earth? This goes against the philosophy of Gurmat which is proven by Siri Dasmesh jee's incident.

Atma is abhinashi, jiv isnt. Jiv is made of five elements which eventually gets merged into chida akash. Atma is paratma. I have also given many quotes from gurbani which proves this ekta while loosing its existence.


In my previous post, i have bought fwd concept of avtarvad in gurmat which prefectly explains sri guru gobind singh ji maharaj taking vahiguroo sargun avtar as dushat daman and as sri gobind rai.

I really think we are not on the same page when we are talking about advait vedanta. I beleive you might have made few false statements along have some misconceptions when you talked about advait vedanta. I am not sure why you keep making false statements on advait vedanta since you were corrected many times before by avidya in the topic condition of bhagats in vahiguroo darbar.

1. Advait vedant don't really believe in Brahman being separate from Jeev. Furthermore they even believe that Jeev is Brahman and not the other way around. This theory is totally against Gurmat, in my humble opinion.

That statement has false elements.

Advait vedant beleive in bhraman separate from jevan because of this upadhi. Upadhi is keyword, once upadhi ie- antish karan(man, chit, budh, ahankar) is destroyed then there is no difference jiv atma and paratama.

As gurbani says:

Atam Paratama iko Karaie Antar Ki Dubta Antar Maraie ||

Atam Chinish Paratam soi ||

Atam Ras Neh Jannehi Sio Haie Khalas Dev,
Prab Meh Mo Meh Tas Meh Ranchak Naeh Bhaiv ||

2. According to Gurmat, Vaheguru is not Nirgun in the sense that he has no attributes as is the case with Advaita.

Advait vedant beleive vahiguroo is sat, chit, anand svaroop so as gurbani as in jaap sahib- sri guru gobind singh ji said- Sada Sach da Anand Sarabang Parnasi || , Gurmat belives in nirgun is without any trai guns so as advait vedant.

3. Advait beleives vahiguroo is shuniya. That is also false statement.

Advait Vedant beleives in vahiguroo is sada chit anandsaroop. Vahiguroo is not shuniya(nothiness). Shuniya is jarr(dead matter). Paratama is chaitain saroop, gurbani also beleives vahiguroo is sat chit anandsaroop has chaitanta.

4. Advait Vedant is written by adi sancharaya therefore an philosphy something to do with vedas. I think this is very important point, reason i think we are going around the circles is because we both have different meaning/understanding of advait vedant.

Sant jagjit singh ji, gyani gurdev singh and other scholars of the panth beleives advait vedant is theory of atma just like how there is a theory of karma and reincarnation just like that there is theory of atma is called advait vedant. Advait vedant is written by adi sankarcharyan, he only did viakhiya of some of writings based on his interpertation. If you were listen full audio segments of sant jagjit singh ji discussing, he clearly states theory of atma/advait vedant is described by anadi anubhavi mahapursh nothing to do with hinduism.

Vedant means ant of vedas, tat nichor of all the vedas. Advait (non-duality ekta between atma and paratma). Just like theory of karma, reincarnation has nothing to do with any religion in particular, these theories are adapted by eastern religions, just like theory of atma has nothing to do with any religion in particular. Just like karma, reincarnation theory exist in Gurmat, just like theory of atma also exist in Gurmat, you cannot separate it just because you might think vedant has something to do with different religion.


'Advai Alakh Purakh Abgiaamii
Sabh ghat ghat ke antarjaamii'

and further on;

'Bidiaa ke Bichaar ho ki Aduai avtaar ho ki
suptaa ki soorati ho ki supta ki saan ho'

Quote:

So the word 'aduai' or 'advai' (non-duality/monism) is used repeatedly (it also arises in Gyanbodh as well if I remember correctly) in Guru Gobind Singh ji's bani to describe the attributes of Waheguru.

Quote:

All that is written in the above quote is not sanctioned by Gurbani. In essense what you are saying is that first Mahapurakhs merge in Vaheguru and loose vajood. Where does it say in Gurbani that they lose consciousness or vajood. Merging is fine and we all agree with it but Gurbani does not say that they jeev looses consciousness and identity. Quite to the contrary, Siri Dasmesh jee's incident of becoming one with Vaheguru and then being sent to world proves that even after being one with Vaheguru, he retained his identity. This I would say is the case of Achintiya Abhedabhed i.e. Ishvar and Jeev being one and two at the same time. This is Achintiya because it cannot be fathomed by us.

I have to discuss this very carefully since anything which does not fit in your mindset is not gurmat. I have read your posts before you mentioned antish karan of this jev and shuksham sirar of this jev which leads me to think you acknowledge those concepts.

After leaving the body gaining enlightment, jiv merges with vahiguroo which you beleive but maintains that it holds its own vajood? if thats a case that implies atma is not above from antish karan(man, chit) and sukhsam sirar which is not gurmat because gurbani talks about bhramgyan di avastha being turiya(nirvakalp samadhi=nirgun vahiguroo) before and after death, which is beyond three gunas-rajo tamo, sato, three states- jagrath, supan, sukhopat, three layers of body- asthol, sukhsam, karan.

Quote:

We may not know all the rules but I think Gurmat is Achal i.e. same through the ages. If a certain thing is a sin, it's a sin. Period. Naam is good. It's good. Period. In this sense Gurmat is Black and White. The path of spirituality that Gurmat preaches is one and not several. There is only one Vaheguru and one path to Vaheguru. Gurmat does not acknowledge any other path. Please show me through Gurbani where it recognizes any other path, other than Naam maarag of Gurmat. There is only one Satguru and there is only one Vaheguru. Same way there is only one Gurmat Naam that can take one to Vaheguru. This seems quite Black and white to me.
Gurmat is not Rang-Birangi. Gurmat is not such that Dastaar vee theek hai te bodi vee theek hai. Gurmat is not like keeping kesh is okay too and cutting them is okay too. Gurmat is not like not doing 4 bajjar kurehits is okay and doing them is okay too. Where is the flexibility? Gurmat is Black and White. You are either in Gurmat or you are not in it.

I was strictly speaking in context of sachkhand when i mentioned why sikh has to be black and white. Not sure why you bought up other things.

Quote:

don't think Gurbani sanctions both of these ideas. Gurbani does say of merging and does say of being one with Vaheguru but the example of Siri Dasmesh jee proves beyond doubt that being one does not mean annihilation of the jeev.
A friend of mine who is with Rara Sahib samprada narrated to me a very interesting story. He said that Jathedar Baba jee (Baba Mahinder Singh jee) told his close companions that many times Baba jee has gone to Sachkhand but everytime he goes there, 'Vadde Maharaaj' (Sant Ishar Singh Rarewale) orders him to go back as it's not his time to come yet. This proves that according to RaraSahib Samprada too Sachkhand is a dwelling of Bhagats.

Similarly reading Baba Jawala Singh Harkhowal's jeevan, I recall reading about Sachkhand and how bhagat live there.

The very fact that it's Sach-Khand and not Sach-Avastha proves that Sachkhand is a place albiet not like Earth i.e. it's beyond the trai-Guni Maaya.

If you have read ishvar amolak lal written by sant maharaj ji rara sahib himself you will know their take on this subject, its fully advait gurmat , fully beleives after leaving the body, bedah mukht avastha person looses its vajood. i have read that book three times, first i didnt get that much, but second and third time i have got 80% of its contents accept the sahiyara in urdu. I beleive that sakhiya is correct, there is no question about that. However there is difference between baikhunt and sachkhand...as there is a line thinner than thread difference between karam khand and sachkhand.

Quote:

This in my opinion is a very misleading quote. Divine laws are absolute Truth and therefore not subject to change depending on one's avastha or shardha. Worldly laws of maya are objective truth and change according to one's avastha but the divine laws are as divine and truth as their creator Vaheguru. Vaheguru is a personality that does not change according to our perception. Vaheguru is Vaheguru and his nature, his personality is not changeable. Same way his laws are Sach that are not subject to change depending on one's avastha or shardha, unless there is a provision in them for change. If you, N3O jeeo, want the merger that will destroy your vajood, then I can't say anything. It's your choice. Remember one thing. You will get what you want. ਸਾਈ ਵਸਤੁ ਪਰਾਪਤਿ ਹੋਈ ਜਿਸੁ ਸਿਉ ਲਾਇਆ ਹੇਤੁ ॥

Divine laws in context of attaining ik-mik avastha is not bound to black and white notions, is based on individual surti. As you yourself have acknowledged - you will get what you want. I am sure if guru maharaj does kirpa on both of us in this life, our expereinces will be different based on surti, you will see dwelling in bhagats firmly thinkin they have their vajoods whereas my expereince would be opposite. I think sad jeevan is mithiya without loosing our vajood, True sad jeevan isthiti resides in nirgun paratama only, this sargun parsara is only for certain time, drama, leela of nirgun paratma.

Eh Sargun Parbhram Ki Leela ||

Quote:

I speak with all honesty that my intention is not to change anyone's views about the science of being. It was just to bring forth the Gurmat point of view, as I see it. I don't claim to know the absolute truth and what I have written is just based on my understanding of things.

Same here veer, i m not here to convince anyone preconceived views, I replied to your posts because i beleive some of stuff/concepts sant jagjit singh ji talked about were misinterperted. This is my last post on this topic, i tried my best to clarify the other side of the coin so readers can decide for themselves, as they did in other similiar thread- COndtion of bhagats in vahiguroo darbar which could be found in old tapoban archives. I have showed our discussion to gyani gurdev singh ji, he find this to be interesting discussion, he will do katha on your intial 5 points of thread. I will post it up as soon as he records his thoughts.

Bhul Chuk Maph for vad kat vachans.

Gurfateh Ji.

~Puratan MangalCharan ~

Firstly meditating upon Aatam Dev
Nirmal Jot, of Sat Chit Anand Svaroop

Then I bow to the lotus feet of Ishtadev
SatGuru Maharaj, Dasaan Patshahian di Jot

Finally I offer salutations to my Gurdev/Murshid
, under whose guidance.
All efforts blossom forth

Sat Sri Akaal !

just a small correction under point 4 2nd paragraph:

Advait vedant is written by adi sankarcharyan. What i meant was-Advait vedant is not[ written by adi sankarcharya

~Puratan MangalCharan ~

Firstly meditating upon Aatam Dev
Nirmal Jot, of Sat Chit Anand Svaroop

Then I bow to the lotus feet of Ishtadev
SatGuru Maharaj, Dasaan Patshahian di Jot

Finally I offer salutations to my Gurdev/Murshid
, under whose guidance.
All efforts blossom forth

Sat Sri Akaal !

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

N30 S!NGH jio,

Sorry to say we could not completely understand your gray philosophy. The best example of “Dashmesh pita Guru Gobind Singh ji” given by Bhai Kulbir Singh Jee is more than enough to defy any old, new and coming philosophies of so called Advait Vedanta. From your posts Advait Vadant seems clearly against what Guru Sahib explained himself, hence Gurmat. So any learned GurSikh won't look further to what Guru Sahib said. ਹਾਂ ਟਾਈਮ ਪਾਸ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਮਨ ਦੀ ਬੁੱਧੀ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਅਨੇਕ ਫਿਲਾਸਫੀਆਂ ਘੜੀਆਂ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀਆ ਹਨ ਜਿਨਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਆਮ ਬੰਦਾ ਤਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਿਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

Guru Mehar Karay

Waheguru ji ki fateh
WAheguru ji ki fateh

Khalsaspirit,

you, being a wise, learned gursikh, please follow your own advice and don't look further in this thread.

waheguru ji ka khalsa. waheguru ji ki fateh.

N3O Jeeo,

Quote:

According to my understanding, vikayaran is a grammar. Gurbani has grammar thats the way gurbani is written so that where noun, verb, adverb, adjective, pronouns could be understood if one follows rules of grammer and understand them. I have never once did khandan of vikayaran itself. I said gurbani is not bound by vikayaran because gurbani is from dhuroo. Vikayaran of gurbani is there to make us understand on a basic level but when bhramgyani interprets gurbani. He/she does not need follow rules of vikayaran since gurbani is agam agad bodh. Bhramgyani interprets gurbani via their anubhav parkash, they do antriv arths

I find it hard to believe that a Brahmgyani who has realized the ultimate will do such antreev arths of Gurbani that would contradict viyakaran of Gurbani. You say that when a normal person interprets Gurbani he or she uses Viyakaran but a Brahmgyani would not use viyakaran rules. Why is it so? If anything, a Brahmgyani would use superior knowledge of Gurbani Viyakaran to understand Gurbani. Just as Gurbani arths would come naturally to a Brahmgyani same way Gurbani viyakaran would come natural to him or her. Their surtee and Budhi would be tuned it to that of Guru Sahib and thus they would realize not only true meanings but also true Gurbani Viyakaran because when Guru Sahib wrote Gurbani they themselves created the unique Gurbani viyakaran so that Gurbani does not get misinterpreted. I give few examples to bring forth my point:

In Siri Jap jee Sahib, the last two pankitis of 3rd pauri are as follows:

ਹੁਕਮੀ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਚਲਾਏ ਰਾਹੁ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਵਿਗਸੈ ਵੇਪਰਵਾਹੁ ॥3॥

The meaning of the first pankiti above has been misinterpreted by all those who are devoid of Gurbani Grammar and the ones who know grammar have interpreted this correctly. The ones who have done correct meanings according to Viyakran include Bhai Joginder Singh Talwara, Giani Harbans Singh and Professor Sahib Singh. The correct meanings are:

The Hukam of Hukami chalai raah. ਹੁਕਮੀ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਦਾ ਰਾਹ ਚਲਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

All those who don't know Gurbani viyakaran they have interpreted this as Hukami Vaheguru through his hukam chalai raah. None of them in their many many meanings of one pankiti that they do, could come up with this above stated meaning but the ones who know Gurbani Grammar know that you can only derive this one meaning from this pankiti that Hukam of Hukami (Not hukami through his hukam) runs the world (chalai raah). The aunkar at the end of Hukam prevents any other meaning.

The above stated is the simplified meaning. Now the antreevi meanings would involve explaining what it means by Hukam and how it is Hukam and not the Hukami who runs the world. So the antreevi meanings cannot be against Viyakaran.

Let's look at another pankiti that came to my mind just now. A Gursikh bhain once asked me about the following pankiti:

ਮਸਤਕਿ ਭਾਗੁ ਮੈ ਪਿਰੁ ਘਰਿ ਆਇਆ ॥
ਥਿਰੁ ਸੋਹਾਗੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਨ ਪਾਇਆ ॥4॥2॥53॥

About the first pankiti she asked if ਮੈ ਪਿਰ ਦੇ ਘਰ ਵਿਚ ਆਇਆ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਪਿਰ ਮੇਰੇ ਘਰ ਵਿਚ ਆਇਆ ਹੈ। I looked at the pankiti and noticed that the word ਪਿਰੁ had an aunkad in the end. This would prevent any possibility of the meanings of I coming to the house of ਪਿਰੁ . So the correct meaning according to viyakaran can only be that ਪਿਰੁ has come to my house. The word ਮੈ is the padd-naavi visheshan of noun ਘਰਿ . The sihaari of ਘਰਿ is giving the meaning of vich (ਵਿਚ ).

The above are the simplified meanings of this pankiti. As for the antreevi meanings of this pankiti, we need to explain what ghar here means and what pir (husband) here is. The ghar here is referring to the nij-ghar or hirda sej where Pir-Parmatma comes i.e. where jyot parkash occurs. One can go on explaining this more for antreevi meanings but the point I want to make is that the antreevi meanings can never go against Gurbani viyakaran.

Let's look at the third pankiti I just remembered:

ਲੇ ਪਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਿਅ ਝਲਉ ਪਾਏ ॥ ਭਾਗਿ ਗਏ ਪੰਚ ਦੂਤ ਲਾਵੇ ॥2॥

The outwardly meanings of this pankiti are simple. May I take a fan and fan my husband's feet. This is how Shabadaarthis have interpreted it. Professor Sahib Singh has interpreted this as 'May I stand by the feet of my husband and take fan and fan my husband'.

Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh too has stayed within viyakaran while interpreting this pankiti but he knew that Guru Sahib is not talking about fanning the flesh-bone feet of Guru Sahib. It seems silly to fan them. Who fans anyone's feet? The meanings that Bhai Sahib have done are within Viyakaran but they are aatmak and antreevi. He says that paaye here means the dib-lateefi Charan Kamal of Vaheguru that appear in the Naabh Kamal and Hirda area of the jigiyaasoo. May I fan them. How? By doing swaas swaas abhyaas with full surthee, is fanning those charan kamal and more you fan them, bigger and larger they become. This is also called watering and drinking the charan kamal. Now Bhai Sahib has done the meanings as per grammar but has done antreevi and correct meanings of these pankitis.

The point I want to make is that to do antreevi arth of Gurbani one must also stay within Viyakaran of Gurbani. Guru Sahib intended to write Gurbani in Grammar for this reason only that no one misinterprets Gurbani

Quote:

According to soraj parkash granth written by bhai sahib kavi santokh singh, jheevar did antriv arths of geeta by kirpa of Guru Maharaj which broke ahankar of pandit

As I wrote earlier, doing antreevi arth does not mean that one goes against viyakaran. I am cent percent sure that if the jheevar had done meanings against Viyakaran, the pundit would have never been appeased. He got impressed because such great meanings that were perfect in all sense, he had never heard. In Sanskrit just as in Gurbani, viyakaran plays an important role in interpretion.

Quote:

Nirmale are known for teaching vikayaran of gurbani both in sanskrit and arabic, thats the first thing one is taught when someone learns from nirmala vidya gurudev.

I have yet to know of a Nirmala teekakaar (other than Pandit Dakha jee) who knew Gurbani viyakaran. The first Nirmala person or one with Nirmala background to understand Gurbani viyakaran was none other than Mahaan Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha. Whether you read Faridkoti teeka or teeka of Pandit Tara Singh Narotam (Another Nirmala who did steek of Bhagat Baani), you realize that they were very learned but had lost grasp of Gurbani Viyakaran. Gurbani Viyakaran was re-discovered in the 1900s by Gursikhs like Professor Sahib Singh, Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha, Professor Teja Singh and Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee. This vidya had been lost in 200 years of battles of Khalsa with enemies.

Quote:

Atma is abhinashi, jiv isnt. Jiv is made of five elements which eventually gets merged into chida akash. Atma is paratma. I have also given many quotes from gurbani which proves this ekta while loosing its existence.

It is such an absurd thing I have heard that the jeev is made of 5 elements. Who says so? Please ponder upon the following pankiti:

ਹਰਿ, ਜੀਉ ਗੁਫਾ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਰਖਿ ਕੈ, ਵਾਜਾ ਪਵਣੁ ਵਜਾਇਆ ॥

(Hari placed the Jeeo inside the body and started the process of breathing).

This pankiti clearly distinguishes between the jeeo and the body. The jeeo is not made of 5 elements but the body is. So what did Vaheguru do? Place jeev made of 5 elements in the body made of 5 elements? No. The jeev is Abinaashi.

And yes Atma is roop of Paarbraham Vaheguru but not Vaheguru. Please ponder upon the following pankiti:

ਅਚਰਜ ਕਥਾ ਮਹਾ ਅਨੂਪ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਾਤਮਾ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾ ਰੂਪੁ ॥

It clearly states the the praatma i.e. the Aatma is the roop of Paarbraham Vaheguru. This means it is the roop of it and not Paarbraham itself as Advaita Vedanta states. The very fact that Praatma and Parbraham are mentioned separately proves that they are separate, though totally united.

You write that you gave many pankitis that state that the aatma loses existence in ekta with Vaheguru and I responded back giving example of Siri Dasmesh jee that ekta does not mean losing existence. Siri Dasmesh jee was very much existent even after being one with Vaheguru and this is evident from the following pankitis:

ਇਹ ਬਿਧਿ ਕਰਤ ਤਪਿਸਆ ਭਯੋ ॥ ਦ੍ਵੈ ਤੇ ਏਕ ਰੂਪ ਹ੍ਵੈ ਗਯੋ ॥

Siri Guru jee is clearly stating that he became one from two. This means total unity took place. Now inspite of this union, Siri Guru jee's existence continued on. This is something you don't accept.

ਚਿਤ ਨ ਭਯੋ ਹਮਰੋ ਆਵਨ ਕਹਿ ॥ ਚੁਭੀ ਰਹੀ ਸ੍ਰੁਤਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਚਰਨਨ ਮਹਿ ॥
ਜਿਉ ਤਿਉ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਹਮ ਕੋ ਸਮਝਾਯੋ ॥ ਇਮ ਕਿਹ ਕੈ ਇਹ ਲੋਕਿ ਪਠਾਯੋ ॥੫॥

The first two pankitis above make it clear that being one means the surthee of Siri Guru jee was totally in the charan kamal of Guru Sahib. This is exactly what Siri Bhagat Kabir jee has written:

ਕਬੀਰ ਸੁਰਗ ਨਰਕ ਤੇ ਮੈ ਰਹਿਓ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੇ ਪਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
ਚਰਨ ਕਮਲ ਕੀ ਮਉਜ ਮਹਿ ਰਹਉ ਅੰਤਿ ਅਰੁ ਆਦਿ ॥120॥

Now it has been established beyond doubt that being one means to be absorbed in the Charan Kamal of Vaheguru forever and ever. It definitely does not mean annihilation of the jeev because as Siri Dasmesh jee has pointed out that the surthee (one of the components of Antishkaran) stay on even after merger. Mann too stays on because in Gurbani it is written that even Vaheguru has a mann. All this talk about antashkaran being of 5 elements is Advaita trash. According to Gurmat, in the 3rd Khand - Sharam Khand, the antishkaran of the jeev is reequipped or tuned for Sach Khand. Please ponder upon the following Pankiti for this:

ਤਿਥੈ ਘੜੀਐ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਮਤਿ ਮਨਿ ਬੁਧਿ ॥ ਤਿਥੈ ਘੜੀਐ ਸੁਰਾ ਸਿਧਾ ਕੀ ਸੁਧਿ ॥36॥

There in Sharam Khand the antashkaran (surat, mann, budh etc) get re-carved or tuned for Sachkhand.

Quote:

In my previous post, i have bought fwd concept of avtarvad in gurmat which prefectly explains sri guru gobind singh ji maharaj taking vahiguroo sargun avtar as dushat daman and as sri gobind rai.

Siri Guru jee in his own Gurbani (quoted earlier in this post) makes it clear that Vaheguru jee sent Guru Sahib and before coming a long dialogue took place between the two. So your concept of Vaheguru coming as Avatar does not stand in front of Guru Sahib's own testimony of how they came to Earth. Was Vaheguru talking to himself or was he talking to his Bhagat Siri Dasmesh jee, who was totally united in him, but keeping his identity?

Quote:

1. Advait vedant don't really believe in Brahman being separate from Jeev. Furthermore they even believe that Jeev is Brahman and not the other way around. This theory is totally against Gurmat, in my humble opinion.

That statement has false elements.

Advait vedant beleive in bhraman separate from jevan because of this upadhi. Upadhi is keyword, once upadhi ie- antish karan(man, chit, budh, ahankar) is destroyed then there is no difference jiv atma and paratama.

As gurbani says:

Atam Paratama iko Karaie Antar Ki Dubta Antar Maraie ||

Atam Chinish Paratam soi ||

Atam Ras Neh Jannehi Sio Haie Khalas Dev,
Prab Meh Mo Meh Tas Meh Ranchak Naeh Bhaiv ||

This is what I am saying too. They believe that after the antashkaran is destroyed, there is only Brahm but Gurbani does not support this. First of all, the mann and Surtee etc. don't die as I stated before. Secondly after falling of Aham (false ego, KuRai paal) the jeev and Vaheguru become one. Becoming one does not mean annihilation of the jeev as you state. Advaita really states that jeev realizes that he is the Brahm. This is why they call out Aham Brahmasiya. This is totally against Gurmat. Gurmat does not support this in any way.

None of the pankitis you have quoted fulfill your cause. All the pankitis you quoted call for ekta of jeev and Parmatma but none says that the jeev is annihilated. The example of Siri Dasmesh jee clearly proves that being one means to get one's surtee absorbed in the Charan Kamal of Vaheguru.

Quote:

2. According to Gurmat, Vaheguru is not Nirgun in the sense that he has no attributes as is the case with Advaita.

Advait vedant beleive vahiguroo is sat, chit, anand svaroop so as gurbani as in jaap sahib- sri guru gobind singh ji said- Sada Sach da Anand Sarabang Parnasi || , Gurmat belives in nirgun is without any trai guns so as advait vedant.

I think you know what I am trying to say. Advaita does not believe in a Vaheguru who feels for bhagats and loves them, cares for them etc. According to Advaita he is Sat chit Anand in the sense that he is carefree of the world. Correct me on this. It also states that the world has been created out of ignorance but according to Gurbani, the world including the maya has been created by Vaheguru consciously and not as a result of some illusion or ignorance as Advaita states. This is why Vaheguru cares for this world. About his creation - he is - Vekhai Vigsai kar Vichaar|| Is this how the Brahm of Advaita too does i.e. look at his creation and be satisfied? No. The Brahm of Advaita did not even create this world. The world according to that Brahm of Advaita Vedanta is a result of illusion and not his conscious creation.

Tell me with honesty, does the Brahm of Advaita have the following attributes:


Santan Dukh paaye te dukhi|| Dukh paaye Saadhan ke sukhi||

Never. Impossible. That Brahm is Sada Chit Anand in his own saroop and feels not for his Bhagats. Look at the Brahm of Gurmat who feels dukh when his Bhagats feel Dukh and feels sukh when Saadhu Jan feel sukh. Is the Advaita Vedanta Brahm like this? No!

Quote:

3. Advait beleives vahiguroo is shuniya. That is also false statement.

Advait Vedant beleives in vahiguroo is sada chit anandsaroop. Vahiguroo is not shuniya(nothiness). Shuniya is jarr(dead matter). Paratama is chaitain saroop, gurbani also beleives vahiguroo is sat chit anandsaroop has chaitanta.

Even though I did not call the Advaita Brahm Shuniya recently but when I did quote this couple of years ago, there was a reason. The Shankracharya's interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was to counter the Buddhist concept of Shunya. But he overdid it. He is criticized for making the Brahm so out-of-world, so impersonal that he is almost like the Shunya Avastha of Buddhist. A Brahm who feels not for the world, and the world is not created by him is shunya for the bhagats. What use is there of such Brahm who is not helpful and cares not for his bhagats? So I called him similar to the Shunya avastha of Buddhists. Factually you are correct in correcting me but I have explained above why I called him Shunya.

Quote:

4. Advait Vedant is written by adi sancharaya therefore an philosphy something to do with vedas. I think this is very important point, reason i think we are going around the circles is because we both have different meaning/understanding of advait vedant.

Sant jagjit singh ji, gyani gurdev singh and other scholars of the panth beleives advait vedant is theory of atma just like how there is a theory of karma and reincarnation just like that there is theory of atma is called advait vedant. Advait vedant is written by adi sankarcharyan, he only did viakhiya of some of writings based on his interpertation.

This theory has its roots in Vedas. Vedas have been rejected by Guru Sahib. The what is the standing of Vedas produced Advaita or the Vedas concept of Karma and reincarnation. Gurmat Karam Philosphy is different from that of Buddhist Karma and Vedas Karma. I don't know why you are under the impression that Gurmat has adopted the Karma philosophy of Hindus or Buddhists. I think you should read Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee's monumental book on Gurmat Karam Philosophy. The Napunsak (impotent) Karam philosophy of Buddhism and Vedas has been rejected by Gurmat. I don't want open a new front on Karam philosophy here, so I will stick to the topic on hand.

Quote:

If you were listen full audio segments of sant jagjit singh ji discussing, he clearly states theory of atma/advait vedant is described by anadi anubhavi mahapursh nothing to do with hinduism.

What Anadi Anubhavi Mahapurash are you referring to? No one has been Anadi Anubhavi Mahapurash without the kirpa of Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee. Those Anaadi Mahapurash who are considered to be Pitamahs of Vedant are slaves of Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee. Please refer to the following pankitis for proof on this:

ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਪਾਯਾਲਿ ਭਗਤ ਨਾਗਾਦਿ ਭੁਯੰਗਮ ॥
ਮਹਾਦੇਉ ਗੁਣ ਰਵੈ ਸਦਾ ਜੋਗੀ ਜਤਿ ਜੰਗਮ ॥
ਗੁਣ ਗਾਵੈ ਮੁਨਿ ਬ੍ਹਾਸੁ ਜਿਨਿ ਬੇਦ ਬ੍ਹਾਕਰਣ ਬੀਚਾਰਿਅ ॥
ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਗੁਣ ਉਚਰੈ ਜਿਨਿ ਹੁਕਮਿ ਸਭ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸਵਾਰੀਅ ॥

Who's greater in Hindus than Brahma the doer of Vedas? Who's greater sage in Hindu Dharam than Ved Vyaas who did the viyakaran of Vedas and divided them into 4 parts? Who is greater than Mahadev Shiv jee, who knows ultimate dhyaan and is the master of Yoga? Well, as per the above quote from Savaiyye Mahalle Pehle ke, they all are singing praises of Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee. Looks like in due time they realized the true Guru - Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee.

Quote:

Vedant means ant of vedas, tat nichor of all the vedas. Advait (non-duality ekta between atma and paratma). Just like theory of karma, reincarnation has nothing to do with any religion in particular, these theories are adapted by eastern religions, just like theory of atma has nothing to do with any religion in particular. Just like karma, reincarnation theory exist in Gurmat, just like theory of atma also exist in Gurmat, you cannot separate it just because you might think vedant has something to do with different religion.

I have explained earlier that Karma, Vedant etc as explained in Hindu or Buddhist way has no place in Gurmat. According to the propenents of Advaita what did Gurmat bring to this world? It borrowed Vedant from Hindus and Karma from them as well. What is Gurmat offering to the world then? You guys are making Gurmat part of the Sanatan Dharma, for heaven's sake. While I don't have a phobia about Hindu religion like the extemists like Kala Afghana do, and I have respect and regard for these philosophies, and I think of them as most exalted thoughts after Gurmat but at the same time, I do believe that Gurmat is unique and not part of any old tradition. Gurmat of Guru Nanak Dev jee introduced to this world the true Nirgun-ism and it is the preacher of Gurmat Naam, without which no one can reach Vaheguru. Gurmat has not borrowed any concept from anyone. Gurmat is the source not borrower of knowledge. Gurmat is Vaheguru's own Dharma as per Bachiter Natak of Siri Guru Gobind Singh jee.

Quote:

I have to discuss this very carefully since anything which does not fit in your mindset is not gurmat. I have read your posts before you mentioned antish karan of this jev and shuksham sirar of this jev which leads me to think you acknowledge those concepts.

I acknowledge these concepts but not through the lens of Advaita Vedanta.

Quote:

After leaving the body gaining enlightment, jiv merges with vahiguroo which you beleive but maintains that it holds its own vajood? if thats a case that implies atma is not above from antish karan(man, chit) and sukhsam sirar which is not gurmat because gurbani talks about bhramgyan di avastha being turiya(nirvakalp samadhi=nirgun vahiguroo) before and after death, which is beyond three gunas-rajo tamo, sato, three states- jagrath, supan, sukhopat, three layers of body- asthol, sukhsam, karan.

I have already explained above that the jeev gets new or refined antashkaran in the Sharam Khand. I don't know all this talk about Kaaran Sareer or whatever. This all is not written in Gurbani. I have read about it in Hindu books and it seems like Sikhs have just copied it from there. Gurbani makes it clear that Mann is jyot saroop. Please look at the following pankiti:

ਮਨ ਤੂੰ ਜੋਤਿ ਸਰੂਪੁ ਹੈ ਆਪਣਾ ਮੂਲੁ ਪਛਾਣੁ ॥
ਮਨ ਹਰਿ ਜੀ ਤੇਰੈ ਨਾਲਿ ਹੈ ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਰੰਗੁ ਮਾਣੁ ॥

First of, please tell me how and why the impersonal, carefree Brahm of Advaita Vedanta would be with the mann of the jeev, as stated in Gurbani pankiti above? Secondly, mann has been called jyot saroop. Then how can this mann not be with the jeev and Aatma when it's one with Vaheguru. Please ponder upon the following pankiti that clearly proves that Vaheguru too has Mann:

ਸੇਵਕ ਸੇਵਿ ਰਹੇ ਸਚਿ ਰਾਤੇ ਜੋ ਤੇਰੈ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਣੇ ॥

ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਸੋਈ ਗਾਵੈ ॥ ਜੋ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਤੇਰੈ ਮਨਿ ਭਾਵੈ ॥
ਤੂੰ ਸੰਤਨ ਕਾ ਸੰਤ ਤੁਮਾਰੇ ਸੰਤ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨਾ ਜੀਉ ॥2॥

It's clear from the above stated pankitis that Vaheguru too has mann but Advaita Vedanta states to the contrary and you too mentioned that jeev too is of 5 elements. Mann is part of the jeev and is jyot saroop as stated above. As you can see, Gurmat philosophy of being is quite contrary to the one being preached by Sants through the lens of Advaita Vedanta.

Quote:

Divine laws in context of attaining ik-mik avastha is not bound to black and white notions, is based on individual surti. As you yourself have acknowledged - you will get what you want. I am sure if guru maharaj does kirpa on both of us in this life, our expereinces will be different based on surti, you will see dwelling in bhagats firmly thinkin they have their vajoods whereas my expereince would be opposite. I think sad jeevan is mithiya without loosing our vajood, True sad jeevan isthiti resides in nirgun paratama only, this sargun parsara is only for certain time, drama, leela of nirgun paratma.

Eh Sargun Parbhram Ki Leela ||

I think what you mean above was Eh Parpanch (not Sargun) Parbrahm kee Leela||


Bhul chuk dee maafi.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਤੁਮ੍ ਕਉ ਹੋਇ ਦਇਆਲਾ ਸੰਤਸੰਗਿ ਤੇਰੀ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ॥
ਕਾਪੜੁ ਪਤਿ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਰਾਖੀ ਭੋਜਨੁ ਕੀਰਤਨੁ ਨੀਤਿ ॥2॥

Daas,
Kulbir Singh



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2008 09:21AM by admin.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa!
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Gurbani is all poetry, and like all poetry the true meaning lies deeper than mere grammar. Grammar is what children are taught when they first learn a language. Later, once they understand the language, they are taught 'literature' and how to interpret what they read intelligently.

In Jaap Sahib, Guru Gobind Singh Ji states that Akaal Purkh is 'Anubhav Parkash' hence Gurbani, being Akaal Purkh's roop is also Anubhav Parkash. One reason for doing Abhiyaas is to become 'Anubhavi' so we can understand the deeper messages of Guru Ji's awesome poetry - 'Brahm Vichar', not a normal book.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa!
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Normal worldly poetry cannot always be understood using grammer rules. How than can the deepest mysticism expressed through poetry be fully comprehended through mere grammer rules?

If you guys are so against viyakaran and believe that deeper meanings are free from viyakaran rules then give some examples and post the meanings. I have read some deeper meanings by Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji but they do not go against viyakaran. Instead, they are best explained using viyakaran. Only after studying it one understand its true essence.

Veer Kulbir Singh Ji,

"Gurbani Viyakaran was re-discovered in the 1900s by Gursikhs like Professor Sahib Singh, Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha, Professor Teja Singh and Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee. This vidya had been lost in 200 years of battles of Khalsa with enemies."

Please could provide more history/info on this, I have not come across this re-discovery story before.

SOURCE: [www.panthic.org]
(written by Anoop Singh)


Section 4 - Linguistic Studies
A - Gurbani Grammars

Introduction

From a linguistic perspective, Sri Guru Granth Sahib is an ocean of medieval Punjabi and Hindi dialect forms, and loanwords from Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit languages, as tadbhav (localized forms) and tatsam (original) terms. For a linguist who studies the history and origin of the Punjabi language, Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the primary resource. Meanwhile, our intentions are somewhat different. Being students of Gurbani, our main purpose of understanding the language is to comprehend, or at least try to comprehend Guru's Words and Teachings in a proper way.

In this part of the Bibliography, we will present works dealing with the language of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. In the past century, a great number of writings on the 'Sikh Sacred Language' have been prepared; however, as still is the situation, the Sikhs at large lack the understanding of this language.

Studies

Before we take a look at the serious studies in the field, we may mention the two special works written by Western scholars. Dr Ernest Trumpp, a German linguist who studied Indian languages and literature, tried to translate Sri Guru Granth Sahib, publishing the incomplete translation in 1877. According to Dr Harnam Singh Shan, the author of 'Guru Granth Sahib di Koshkari', Trumpp had prepared a grammar of the Gurbani before he started on the translation. However, no such work has yet been published and if the book does exist then it is the first attempt by any writer to construct a grammar of the 'Sikh Sacred Language'. Dr Shan located a manuscript titled 'Grammar to the Adi Granth', Dr Ernest Trumpp, 1873 at the State Library Munich, stored under the reference MSS.NO.Cod.Panj.3.

The second Western scholar who has written a work on what he calls the 'Sacred Language of the Sikhs' is Christopher Shackle, at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. His books is more like the modern language learning books and gives the reader tutorials and exercises in the Gurmukhi script, besides the grammar and includes selected readings. Along with 'A Guru Nanak glossary' (1981), Shackle's books are prescribed to western students of Sikhism, who have no initial knowledge of the Punjabi language and script. The book will also be helpful for some of our readers who do not understand the difficult Punjabi used in Punjabi Vyakarans, and in many ways this is the only alternative for understanding Gurbani language, without actually learning the special terminology of the Punjabi grammarians.

Among the Sikh scholars, Principal Teja Singh (1922) and Prof. Sahib Singh (1932) pioneered the field of Gurbani linguistics. The core of Principal Teja Singh's 'Shabadãtar Lagã-Matrã de Gujje Bhed' is that the importance of Gurmukhi vowels (sehari, behari, aunkar, etc) is as the tools for interpreting the Shabad-vaak. The work had immense popularity among Panthic scholars and had a great affect on the standardized printing of Sri Guru Granth Sahib by the SGPC, as the Shabadarth was normalized according to the rules found in this book. Thirty years after Teja Singh Ji, Bhai Randhir Singh Ji wrote a similar work that supported the view that vowels are in fact interpretive tools. However, there is a differentiation of thought between Bhai Randhir Singh and Principal Teja Singh. In the foreword of 'Gurbani dian Lagã-Matrã di Vilakhanta', the publisher, Giani Nahar Singh says: "The main purpose of this book is [to highlight] that Gurbani Shabads can have only one meaning. The functional placing of Lagã-Matrãs makes this clear."

Meanwhile, Prof. Sahib Singh went on to produce a full-fledged grammar of Gurbani, published in 1932. Initially, sections of the Panth did not accept the Gurbani Vyakaran as an authentic grammar; however as linguistics and modern scholars saw the value of this work, Prof Sahib Singh started to be called the 'Panini of the Sikhs' (Panini being the first person to construct a Sanskrit grammar). It should be noted that the grammarians Sahib Singh and Teja Singh, and Bhai Randhir Singh agreed upon the 'one-meaning' interpretation of Gurbani. This front consisting of modern linguists and Panthic scholars stood against the traditional views that Gurbani was not written according to any grammatical rules, and that there were endless meanings that must remain oral and not be published as written commentaries.

Another work from this era is 'Sri Guru Vyakaran Panchain' by Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha, published in 1945. The book is no longer published, and old copies are only available at specific Sikh Sahit libraries.

The next period starts from after 1975, when new debates arise in the Panth, specially related to the correct pronunciation of Gurbani and the logical justification of the practise through the authentic grammar. The works produced in the debate would be presented in the next part of this Bibliography; however we must mention some authors who have given us new linguistic insights of Gurbani.

Dr Harkeerat Singh, a famous Punjabi linguist and student of Prof. Sahib Singh prepared a work titled 'Gurbani di Bhasha te Vyakaran', published by Punjabi University, Patiala in 1997. The author says that this book is meant as a supplement to the grammar written by Prof. Sahib Singh. New linguistic discoveries had appeared in the past forty-fifty years, and some of the assumptions made by the first grammarians of Gurbani were no longer relevant. Thus, Dr Harkeerat Singh presents us a highly linguistic view on the evolution of the Gurbani language from its roots in the Prakrit, to the development of Apabhrãsha. The main focus of the book is on the sound and pronunciation, and the discussion around the specimens of Punjabi dialects and tadbhav-tatsam forms. He has also given a linguistic understanding of the Gurmukhi vowels and moved away from the views of former grammarians that vowels only appear as interpretive tools. The evolutionary theory presented says that the existence of every vowel or sign in Gurbani is reasoned in the linguistic development in the Punjab.

Other scholars, such as Giani Harbans Singh 'Nirnaykar' still hold on to the grammarian thoughts of Prof. Sahib Singh, Teja Singh and Principal Harbhajan Singh, Sikh Missionary College, Amritsar. In his book 'Navin Gurbani Vyakaran' (2000), Giani Harbans Singh criticizes Harkeerat Singh, especially on his views regarding Gurbani pronunciation.

A short booklet titled 'Gurbani Vyakaran de Saral Nem', published by Sikh Missionary College (Ludhiana), presents an outline of various grammatical forms found in Gurbani.

Meanwhile, the greatest effort in the field of Gurbani grammar in recent years has been made by Bhai Joginder Singh Ji 'Talwara'. His 'Gurbani da Saral Vyakaran-Bodh' (two parts), published posthumously in April 2004 as volume three of 'Shri Guru Granth Sahib Bodh' forms more than 800 pages. The extensive study done by Bhai Sahib is nothing less than an encyclopedia of Gurbani language. Every thinkable aspect of the 'Sikh Sacred Language' has been commented. Gurbani language, script, sounds, morphology (as word formation), and other aspects of the grammar have been dealt with.

Bhai Joginder Singh Ji says that he is not a linguist, nor a grammarian, only a devoted student of Gurbani. However, this is also the strength of his work. Keeping in mind that his readers would be normal students of Gurbani who may not know grammatical and linguist terms, he gives clear definitions and formulations before the start of every new section of the book. Interestingly, the first part of the volume has three appendixes, where the first includes a list of 465 combined-terms found in Gurbani that scholars have not yet been able to separate. The author has given the Pad-Ched of such terms according to the grammar, with meanings of each related Shabad in one column. Another appendix has a glossary of Arabic and Persian terms found in Gurbani. All this makes Bhai Joginder Singh Ji's work the nearly perfect reference grammar of Gurbani. Its easy, yet beautiful and equally systematic design and layout brings out the best in Gurmukhi and Punjabi printing.

Works Cited

Gurbani Vyakaran de Saral Nem. Ludhiana: Sikh Missionary College.


Harbans Singh 'Nirnaykar', Giani. Navin Gurbani Vyakaran. Chandigarh: Gurmat Nirnay Bhavan, 2000.


Harkeerat Singh, Dr. Gurbani di Bhasha te Vyakaran. Patiala: Punjabi University, 1997.


Joginder Singh Talwara, Giani. Gurbani da Saral Vyakaran-Bodh. (2 vols). Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 2004.


Kartar Singh Dakha, Pandit. Sri Guru Vyakaran Panchain. Pub. author, 1945.


Randhir Singh, Bhai Sahib. Gurbani dian Lagã-Matrã di Vilakhanta. 3rd ed. Ludhiana: Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Trust, 2003.


Sahib Singh, Prof. Gurbani Vyakaran. Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 1932.


Shackle, Christopher. An introduction to the sacred language of the Sikhs. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1983.


Teja Singh, Principal. Shabadãtar Lagã-Matrã de Gujje Bhed. Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandak Committee, 1922.


Trumpp, Dr Ernest. "Grammar to the Adi Granth" 1873. Manuscript located by Dr Harnam Singh Shan at State University Munich under reference number MSS.NO.Cod.Panj.3.

Sun Singh jeeo,

Quote:

Normal worldly poetry cannot always be understood using grammer rules. How than can the deepest mysticism expressed through poetry be fully comprehended through mere grammer rules?

We are not talking about worldly poetry but heavenly divine poetry - Gurbani. I agree that grammar is not the only tool that should be used to understand Gurbani but grammar is the vital tool though. You have to see the context, different meanings of the words used, and anubhav (Tazarba, personal spiritual experience) along with grammar to interpret Gurbani. All components are important and you can't violate any of them.

Please tell me where did I say that you use 'mere grammar rules' only to 'fully comprehend' Gurbani? All I said was that you cannot ignore viyakaran when interpreting Gurbani. If some meanings are ignoring viyakaran and are not in agreement with viyakaran rules, then those meanings are incorrect.



Matheen jeeo,

Quote:

Gurbani is all poetry, and like all poetry the true meaning lies deeper than mere grammar. Grammar is what children are taught when they first learn a language. Later, once they understand the language, they are taught 'literature' and how to interpret what they read intelligently.

Let us look at the analogy that you have used of teaching grammar to children and once they learn grammar they are taught to interpret intelligently. Pray tell us, when they are taught literature and when they interpret intelligently, do they ignore viyakaran rules? No. Actually what happens is that viyakaran becomes part of the being so much so that they don't have to think about viyakaran separately and they naturally and effortlessly consider viyakaran when they interpret literature. Same way, a Brahmgyani, would naturally and effortlessly employ viyakaran when interpreting Gurbani in the light of their Anubhav (spiritual experience).

Please don't condemn the Gurmat principle of viyakaran to hide the weakness of your mahapurakhs. If certain Mahapurakhs did not know viyakaran, this does not mean that viyakaran should be belittled. Haath Kangan ko aarsi kya. Just study viyakaran yourself and you will know it's importance.

Kulbir Singh

Dhanvaad Veer Atma Singh Ji, that is an informative article.

But it still doesn't shed any light on Kulbir Singh Ji's quote below - I would like to see some evidence to support this claim i.e. re-discovery.

""Gurbani Viyakaran was re-discovered in the 1900s by Gursikhs like Professor Sahib Singh, Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha, Professor Teja Singh and Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee. This vidya had been lost in 200 years of battles of Khalsa with enemies."

I think that Kulbir Singh Jee has explained everything so perfectly. Personally I find it very disturbing that one's vajood gets finished after merging with Vaheguru. Everything we read about in Gurbani talks of great everlasting Anand, but how can one experience Anand when your Vajood no longer exists? You have to be in existence to experience Anand. The testimony of Guru Gobind Singh jee in Bachitar Naatak proves beyong doubt that one does not lose Vajood after merging with Vaheguru as Advait says.

Veer Harcharan Singh jeeo,

Gurbani viyakaran vidya had been lost in 200 years of jung-yudh that Khalsa had to go through. At the time of Guru Sahibaan, this vidya came about naturally to informed Gursikhs because they have used the same rules in their own baani e.g. Bhai Gurdaas jee. Later on it seems that Gurbani viyakaran vidya especially the use of Lag-maatra to differentiate between different words was lost. If we read Faridkoti teeka, Pandit Tara Singh Narotam's Bhagat Baani Steek or other Sampradayak teekaas, we see that while these great Gursikhs and scholars did some excellent vichaars on Gurbani and did the best based on the knowledge they had but in many cases Gurbani Viyakaran was not employed. For quite some time they continued to insist that there is no such thing as Gurbani Viyakaran and that Gurbani cannot be bound in Viyakaran but these arguments cannot stand in face of reality. When you give them few examples to prove the efficacy of Gurbani Viyakaran, they then understand. Without knowing Gurbani Viyakaran, without understanding and studying Gurbani Viyakaran, how can someone come out and say that there is no such thing as Gurbani Viyakaran or that Gurbani is not bound by it. Gurbani is not bound by some external Viyakaran but it is bound by it's own divine, unique viyakaran.

Around the 1920, Gursikhs not having contact with each other discovered the simple rules of Gurbani Viyakaran. Professor Teja Singh was the first one to publish the rules of how laga-maatra change according to Gurbani Viyakaran. Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee too, while he was in jail, and not aware that other Gursikhs too are being revealed Gurbani Grammar by Satguru jee, around 1920 or so, got stuck when he saw the following du-pankiti:

ਮ: 5 ॥ ਆਹਰ ਸਭਿ ਕਰਦਾ ਫਿਰੈ ਆਹਰੁ ਇਕੁ ਨ ਹੋਇ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਤੁ ਆਹਰਿ ਜਗੁ ਉਧਰੈ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਬੂਝੈ ਕੋਇ ॥2॥

In this salok, the word aahar comes three times but the spellings are different. Bhai Sahib and his companion Bhai Kartar Singh Canadian started pondering upon this and they came up with some Grammar rules. They found out that the word Aahar in all 3 instances above had different meanings. They then started doing khoj of Gurbani based on these newly learned Gurbani principles and this way discovered Gurbani Viyakaran.

Professor Teja Singh jee published an excellent pamphlet on Gurbani Viyakaran. Professor Sahib Singh, I believe too did sangat of Professor Teja Singh and learned some rules from him. In those days, SGPC declared a prize of Rupees 1000 for anyone who would come up with the best and most up to date description and explanation of Gurbani Viyakaran. Professor Sahib Singh published his book in the early 1930s and also won the prize that SGPC had offered. What a great book he published. Many wrote books after this book but this book remained unique and one of the best.

In the meantime, Bhai Sahib came out of jail but all the rules that they had written were lost with Akal Chalaana of Bhai Canadian jee. Then Bhai Sahib re-wrote everything from his memory and by doing more research and this book was published too. Around this time a book by Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha was published. Pandit jee was the most learned scholar of his time but unfortunately, his books are not now readily available. I have heard that this book by Pandit Dakha jee is just great. Later on many scholars published their books but the best one to date, after Professor Sahib Singh jee's monumental book is Talwara jee's Viyakaran book published recently.

Kulbir Singh