bhain jee harjas kaur jee,

you wrote:

"Why would the Oneness of the All-pervading be limited to only these three categories, Vaheguroo, Guroo and Gurmukhs-bhagats?"

it is not limited to these three - i simply believe that after dissolution of the Universe, the All-Pervading Singular Vaheguroo will be expressed through these three alone. there will be no material creation.

i accept that Vaheguroo/Naam is all pervasive - one of the Gur-shabads you quoted throws more light upon your own question:


ਉਲਟਿਓ ਕਮਲੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰਿ ||
oulattiou kamal breham beechaar ||
The inverted heart-lotus has been turned upright, through reflective meditation on God.

ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਧਾਰ ਗਗਨਿ ਦਸ ਦੁਆਰਿ ||
anmrith dhhaar gagan dhas dhuaar ||
From the Sky of the Tenth Gate, the Ambrosial Nectar trickles down.

ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਬੇਧਿਆ ਆਪਿ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ ॥੧॥
thribhavan baedhhiaa aap muraar ||1||
The Lord Himself is pervading the three worlds. ||1||
~SGGS Ji p. 153


only the Gurmukh-Bhagats via Gurmukh-Vaheguroo/Guroo/Naam have the tools needed to experience Vaheguroo face-to-face in the most quintessential sense - they have the human body and they are blessed directly by Vaheguroo.

no-one denies that Vaheguroo has acted through all things, all people at all times - GurbaaNee confirms this over and over again. many of the Gur-Shabads you have blessed upon us reiterate this.

however, please bear in mind that Bhagats such as Brahma never realised Vaheguroo. Brahmas and millions of others must approach Siree Guroo Sahib Jee in manifest form to receive Amrit Naam. whether this can occur through the Spiritual Sareer of Maharaaj Jee or whether they must be reborn as humans to be given Amrit Naam, i personally don't know either way.

also, when some people worship Shiva or Krishna, even if they do not realise it, they are worshipping Vaheguroo to some extent because Vaheguroo is the power behind all of these Dev/Devteeaa(n).

On the other hand, those who worship Vaheguroo and call Him via Kirtam Naam (Brahma, Krishna, Allah etc.) are simply singing the praises of Vaheguroo, knowing full well that they are addressing Vaheguroo who has expressed Their Great Glory through all forms...yet is not limited to any.

for example, you blessed us with the following Gur-Pankteeaa(n):


ਕਿਰਪਾ ਕਰਿ ਕੈ ਆਪਣੀ ਆਪੇ ਲਏ ਸਮਾਇ ਜੀਉ ॥੨੧॥
kirapaa kar kai aapanee aapae leae samaae jeeo ||21||
Showering His Mercy, He has blended me into Himself. ||21||

ਗੋਪੀ ਨੈ ਗੋਆਲੀਆ ॥
gopee nai goaaleeaa ||
You are the Gopis, the milk-maids of Krishna; You are the sacred river Jamunaa; You are Krishna, the herdsman.

ਤੁਧੁ ਆਪੇ ਗੋਇ ਉਠਾਲੀਆ ॥
thudhh aapae goe outhaaleeaa ||
You Yourself support the world.

here, Vaheguroo is being described as every beautiful form, the One who is served as well as the One who serves. this reminds me of the following Panktee from Rehraas Sahib: "har aaape thakur , har aapae sevak jee ; kiaa nanak jant vichara"

Vaheguroo works through all things/all entities at all times.

again, you presented the following:


ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਬਲੁ ਆਪਿ ਹੈ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਬਲੁ ਭੰਨੈ ਮੂਰਖ ਮੁਗਧਾਹਾ ॥੩॥
aapae hee bal aap hai piaaraa bal bhannai moorakh mugadhhaahaa ||3||
The Beloved Himself, by Himself, is the embodiment of power; He shatters the power of the fools and idiots. ||3||

ਸਭੁ ਆਪੇ ਜਗਤੁ ਉਪਾਇਦਾ ਪਿਆਰਾ ਵਸਿ ਆਪੇ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਹਥਾਹਾ ॥
sabh aapae jagath oupaaeidhaa piaaraa vas aapae jugath hathhaahaa ||
The Beloved Himself created the whole world. In His hands He holds the power of the ages.


the ਵਸਿ belongs to Vaheguroo and is exercised by Vaheguroo. the three qualities, Rajo, Tamo and Sato pervades the whole creation which includes all Devtae and Devteeaa(n). beieve it or not, many of them were affected by lust and other 'human-frailties' - GurbaaNee attests to this.

the truth is that the frailties are not human in origin; they are the product of ego, which is caused by a lack of understanding re: Maya which then overpowers us through the 5 Chor.

if we do further Khoj of this Shabad, we will realise that attention is being focused upon Nirankaar Vaheguroo which is alone worthy of worship.

Brahmas, Shivas etc. were established/created by Vaheguroo, as were all others. you quoted:


ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਵੇਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਈ ||
ਗੁਰੁ ਈਸਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਰਖੁ ਬਰਮਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਰਬਤੀ ਮਾਈ ||


let's go further and quote more:


ਜੇ ਹਉ ਜਾਣਾ ਆਖਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਕਹਣਾ ਕਥਨੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥
ਗੁਰਾ ਇਕ ਦੇਹਿ ਬੁਝਾਈ ॥
ਸਭਨਾ ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਇਕੁ ਦਾਤਾ ਸੋ ਮੈ ਵਿਸਰਿ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥੫॥

Even knowing God, I CANNOT DESCRIBE HIM; He cannot be described in words.
The Guru has given me this one understanding:
there is ONLY THE ONE, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him! ||5||


There is One Nirankaar who has embodied Himself via Sargun form through all of creation. This Sargun Form will one day be destroyed as GurbaaNee highlights. Then there will be Nirgun Nirankaar Roop Vaheguroo alone.

Brahma etc. can all be described as they are finite created beings - the creation can be described. Howerver, the Infinite Creator, The Embodiment of All Power who wields All Power, can They be described. We can't decribe Them...so what's the enxty best thing - Mahraaj Jee tells us to simply remember Them.

This is the whole point of Naam Japna.

Ps - GurbaaNee is unknowable - that truly goes without saying.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

ਦਾਸ,
ਆਤਮਾ ਸਿੰਘ

With all due respect Veer Ji, you have not addressed any of the tuks I quoted.

I didn't mention any contradiction - questioning someone elses avaasta does not resolve what appears to you, as seeming contradiction.

I regularly hear a lot of talk about Bani being black and white and simple to understand via the role of viakaran - please do kirpa and explain how each of the tuks I have quoted does not negate the view that in all ages before Guru Nanak Dev Ji - there was adharma and that all previous truths, semetic and snaatn - are were kache in their original form (I am not talking about their present narrow minded, God-monopolising, shariat/ritual obsessed followers - which is the road our people are sadly also following today - and which is what Gurbani actually criticises IMHO).

Veer Harcharan Singh jeeo,

Below is the vichaar of Gurbani pankitis you quoted, based on my meagre understanding of Gurbani.

Quote:

With all due respect Atma Singh Veerji, I think this statement is a little extreme.

How can Dharam be both revealed and Kachaa?

Bhai Gurdas Ji says:

ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਭੁਲਾਇ ਕੈ ਮੋਹੇ ਲਾਲਚ ਦੁਨੀ ਸੈਤਾਣੇ ।

Majority Dharams, at least the main ones do talk about good and bad karma. They from time to time have tried to instill morality in people who followed them. For this reason, Siri Guru jee has written in Gurbani as that Simrities and Shasters do vichaar of good and bad karma but they don't contain the true essence of Dharma:

ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਪੁੰਨ ਪਾਪ ਬੀਚਾਰਦੇ ਤਤੈ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਜਾਣੀ ॥

What is that Tatt Vastoo i.e. the Dharma that Shasters don't talk about? It's the Naam that they don't contain and for this reason, though they offer excellent moral and philosophical advice and lead to the seekers they are unable to provide with the Tatt-Vastoo Naam.

Quote:

He clearly says that by forgetting the Bayd and K'teb - the followers have been incticed into greed by Satan. Does this by default not imply the Bayd and K'teb are therefore guides of truth?

As explained above, they are not the guides of truth and nor Gurbani anywhere says that they are guides of truth. Truth in Gurbani means Vaheguru himself. Yes these religious books are guides of morality (that changes from time to time and region to region) and do vichaar of Paap and Punn. If one is to follow them truly, one would at least be classified as following Satoguni but one would still be part of maya. These shasters keep one in maya and don't know about state beyond maya.

Quote:

Why would Guru Arjun Dev Ji say:

ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਦਿਲ ਮਾਹਿ ਕਮਾਹੀ ॥

This does not mean that one should do kamaayee of Kuran and Kateyb but it means that if one does kamaayee of Naam, within oneself, this is Kuran and Kateyd for one. This pankiti is similar to Siri Jap jee Sahib pankiti where Guru Sahib says that for us Guru is Ishar, Guru alone is Brahma and Guru is Bishan and Parbati maayee as well. To do kamaayee of Naam in our dil is Kuran and Kateb for us.

Quote:

Why would Bhagat Kabir Ji say:

ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹੁ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥

I am not quoting these tuks out of context - I am aware the shabds talk about hypocrisy of the followers - but that is a different subject.

This actually means that call (ਕਹਹੁ ) the matts (religions) of Bed and Kateb false because that is false that does not do vichaar (sachee Naam dee vichaar). These Vedas and Katebas don't do vichaar of Sat Naam. Matt means don't but matt also means Dharam or religion just as it means in the third pankiti of first pauri of Sudha Savaiye that we do everyday as nitnem. Why call them false? This is explained in the next pankiti i.e. on one hand they say that Allah Khuda is in all, then in then in the same book they tell you ways to kill a chicken. These self-contradictory religions are false.

Quote:

Guru Nanak Dev Ji says:

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਵੇਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਈ ॥

Gurmukh (Vaheguru - Mukhi Guru, Greatest Guru) is the divine celestial Naad (music, anhad shabad) that pervades the whole universe, Gurmukh is the divine knowledge (Ved means Gyaan or knowledge) and Gurmukh himself is present everywhere i.e. “Rahiya Samaayee”.

Quote:

Guru Arjun Dev Ji says:

ਸਾਸਤ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਬੇਦ ਬੀਚਾਰੇ ਮਹਾ ਪੁਰਖਨ ਇਉ ਕਹਿਆ ॥
ਬਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਭਜਨ ਨਾਹੀ ਨਿਸਤਾਰਾ ਸੂਖੁ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਲਹਿਆ ॥੧॥

This pankiti again is often misinterpreted. Mahapurakh Guru Sahib have said that no matter how many Shaster, Simritees and Vedas one may do vichaar on but without Harbhajan i.e. reciting Naam, one cannot get delivered and no one has found happiness without Naam.

Quote:

Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji says:

ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਪੜੇ ਕੋ ਇਹ ਗੁਨ ਸਿਮਰੇ ਹਰਿ ਕੋ ਨਾਮਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

As written in one of my posts recently, this pankiti means that the use of reading Vedas and Puranas is only if one recites Naam Hari.

Quote:

ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਜਾਸ ਗੁਨ ਗਾਵਤ ਤਾ ਕੋ ਨਾਮੁ ਹੀਐ ਮੋ ਧਰੁ ਰੇ ॥

For us Vedas Puranas is singing Jaas (jass, praises) of Vaheguru and keeping Naam in our hearts.


Kulbir Singh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2008 10:25AM by admin.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

Veer Harcharan Singh Jee,

the following Choupee can be found in Bachitar Natak - Siree Dasam Granth Sahib. Verses 20 - 28 are especially relevant. Please note how the actual scriptures, prophets and gods are being criticised by Dasmesh Pita Jee and not just the followers and their interpretations.

if this doesn't convince you then i think we will have to agree to disagree. i sincerely respect you views - there is nothing with brothers disagreeing with one another.

i personally like doing Sangat with people who have different views to me - it's far too easy to get on with people who think exactly like you do...the real test of Ekta and Panthic Piyaar is to have Love with those Gursikhs who think differently to you. i think this is why it is a good thing that different Jathebandeeaa(n) exist...everything Vaheguroo does is so Beautiful...


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


ਚੌਪਈ ॥
ਜਬ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਹਮ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਬਨਾਈ ॥ ਦਈਤ ਰਚੇ ਦੁਸਟ ਦੁਖਦਾਈ ॥
ਤੇ ਭੁਜ ਬਲ ਬਵਰੇ ਹੈੂੁ ਗਏ ॥ ਪੂਜਤ ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਰਹਿ ਗਏ ॥ 6॥
ਤੇ ਹਮ ਤਮਕਿ ਤਨਕ ਮੋ ਖਾਪੇ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਕੀ ਠਉਰ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਥਾਪੇ ॥
ਤੇ ਭੀ ਬਲਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਉਰਝਾਏ ॥ ਆਪਨ ਹੀ ਪਰਮੇਸਰ ਕਹਾਏ ॥7॥
ਮਹਾਦੇਵ ਅਚੁੱਤ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ ਬਿਸਨ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਕੋ ਠਹਿਰਾਯੋ ॥
ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਆਪ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬਖਾਨਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਜਾਨਾ ॥ 8॥
ਤਬ ਸਾਖੀ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਅਸਟ ਬਨਾਏ ॥ ਸਾਖ ਨਮਿਤ ਦੇਬੇ ਠਹਿਰਾਏ ॥
ਤੇ ਕਹੈ ਕਰੋ ਹਮਾਰੀ ਪੂਜਾ ॥ ਹਮ ਬਿਨ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਦੂਜਾ ॥ 9॥
ਪਰਮ ਤੱਤ ਕੋ ਜਿਨ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਕਰਿ ਈਸਰ ਤਿਨ ਕਹੁ ਮਾਨਾ ॥
ਕੇਤੇ ਸੂਰ ਚੰਦ ਕਹੁ ਮਾਨੈ ॥ ਅਗਨਿ ਹੋਤ੍ਰ ਕਈ ਪਵਨ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਨੈ ॥ 10॥
ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਪਾਹਨ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥ ਨ੍ਹਾਤ ਕਿਤੇ ਜਲ ਕਰਤ ਬਿਧਾਨਾ ॥
ਕੇਤਕ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਤ ਡਰਪਾਨਾ ॥ ਧਰਮ ਰਾਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥ 11॥
ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਸਾਖ ਨਮਿਤ ਠਹਿਰਾਏ ॥ ਤੇ ਹਿਆਂ ਆਇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਕਹਵਾਏ ॥
ਤਾ ਕੀ ਬਾਤ ਬਿਸਰ ਜਾਤੀ ਭੀ ॥ ਅਪਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਪਰਤ ਸੋਭ ਭੀ ॥ 12॥
ਜਬ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੋ ਨ ਤਿਨੈ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥ ਤਬ ਹਰਿ ਇਨ ਮਨੁਛਨ ਠਹਿਰਾਨਾ ॥
ਤੇ ਭੀ ਬਸਿ ਮਮਤਾ ਹੁਇ ਗਏ ॥ ਪਰਮੇਸਰ ਪਾਹਨ ਠਹਿਰਏ ॥ 13॥
ਤਬ ਹਰਿ ਸਿੱਧ ਸਾਧ ਠਹਿਰਾਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਨਹੀ ਪਾਏ ॥
ਜੇ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਤ ਭਯੋ ਜਗਿ ਸਿਆਨਾ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤਿਨ ਅਪਨੋ ਪੰਥੁ ਚਲਾਨਾ ॥ 14॥
ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰਖ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਨਹ ਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਬੈਰ ਬਾਦ ਅਹੰਕਾਰ ਬਢਾਯੋ ॥
ਪੇਡ ਪਾਤ ਆਪਨ ਤੇ ਜਲੈ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੈ ਪੰਥ ਨ ਕੋਊ ਚਲੈ ॥ 15॥
ਜਿਨਿ ਜਿਨਿ ਤਨਿਕ ਸਿੱਧ ਕੋ ਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤਿਨ ਅਪਨਾ ਰਾਹੁ ਚਲਾਯੋ ॥
ਪਰਮੇਸਰ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥ ਮਮ ਉਚਾਰਤੇ ਭਯੋ ਦਿਵਾਨਾ ॥ 16॥
ਪਰਮ ਤੱਤ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥ ਆਪ ਆਪ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਉਰਝਾਨਾ ॥
ਤਬ ਜੇ ਜੇ ਰਿਖਰਾਜ ਬਨਾਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਆਪਨ ਪੁਨ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਚਲਾਏ ॥ 17॥
ਜੇ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਨ ਕੇ ਭਏ ਅਨੁਰਾਗੀ ॥ ਤਿਨਿ ਤਿਨਿ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕੀ ਤਿਆਗੀ ॥
ਜਿਨ ਮਨ ਹਰਿ ਚਰਨਨ ਠਹਿਰਾਯੋ ॥ ਸੋ ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਨ ਕੇ ਰਾਹ ਨ ਆਯੋ ॥ 18॥
ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਚਾਰ ਹੀ ਬੇਦ ਬਨਾਏ ॥ ਸਰਬ ਲੋਕ ਤਿਹ ਕਰਮ ਚਲਾਏ ॥
ਜਿਨ ਕੀ ਲਿਵ ਹਰਿ ਚਰਨਨ ਲਾਗੀ ॥ ਤੇ ਬੇਦਨ ਤੇ ਭਏ ਤਿਆਗੀ ॥ 19॥
ਜਿਨ ਮਤ ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬਨ ਤਿਆਗੀ ॥ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕੇ ਭਏ ਅਨੁਰਾਗੀ ॥
ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਗੂੜ ਮੱਤ ਜੇ ਚਲਹੀ ॥ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਅਨੇਕ ਦੁਖਨ ਸੋ ਦਲਹੀ ॥ 20॥
ਜੇ ਜੇ ਸਹਿਤ ਜਾਤਨ ਸੰਦੇਹਿ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੋ ਸੰਗਿ ਨ ਛੋਡਤ ਨੇਹ ॥
ਤੇ ਤੇ ਪਰਮ ਪੁਰੀ ਕਹ ਜਾਹੀ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਹਰਿ ਸਿਉ ਅੰਤਰੁ ਕਛੁ ਨਾਹੀਂ ॥ 21॥
ਜੇ ਜੇ ਜੀਯ ਜਾਤਨ ਤੇ ਡਰੈ ॥ ਪਰਮ ਪ੍ਰਰਖ ਤਜਿ ਤਿਨ ਮਗ ਪਰੈ ॥
ਤੇ ਤੇ ਨਰਕ ਕੁੰਡ ਮੋ ਪਰਹੀ ॥ ਬਾਰ ਬਾਰ ਜਗ ਮੋ ਬਪੁ ਧਰਹੀ ॥ 22॥
ਤਬ ਹਰਿ ਬਹੁਰ ਦੱਤ ਉਪਜਾਇਓ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਅਪਨਾ ਪੰਥੁ ਚਲਾਇਓ ॥
ਕਰ ਮੋ ਨਖ ਸਿਰ ਜਟਾਂ ਸਵਾਰੀ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਨ ਕਛੂ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥ 23॥
ਪੁਨਿ ਹਰਿ ਗੋਰਖ ਕੌ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਸਿੱਖ ਕਰੇ ਤਿਨਹੂੰ ਬਡ ਰਾਜਾ ॥
ਸ੍ਰਵਨ ਫਾਰਿ ਮੁਦ੍ਰਾ ਦੁਐ ਡਾਰੀ ॥ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਪ੍ਰੀਤ ਰੀਤਿ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥ 24॥
ਪੁਨਿ ਹਰਿ ਰਾਮਾਨੰਦ ਕੋ ਕਰਾ ॥ ਭੇਸ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ਕੋ ਜਿਨ ਧਰਾ ॥
ਕੰਠੀ ਕੰਠਿ ਕਾਠ ਕੀ ਡਾਰੀ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਨ ਕਛੂ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥ 25॥
ਕੰਠੀ ਕੰਠਿ ਕਾਠ ਕੀ ਡਾਰੀ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਨ ਕਛੂ ਬਿਚਾਰੀ ॥ 25॥
ਮਹਾਦੀਨ ਤਬ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਅਰਬ ਦੇਸ ਕੋ ਕੀਨੋ ਰਾਜਾ ॥ 26॥
ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਏਕ ਪੰਥ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਲਿੰਗ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੀਨੇ ਸਭ ਰਾਜਾ ॥
ਸਭ ਤੇ ਅਪਨਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਯੋ ॥27॥
ਸਭ ਅਪਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਉਰਝਾਨਾ ॥ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾਹੂ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥
ਤਪ ਸਾਧਤ ਹਰਿ ਮੋਹਿ ਬੁਲਾਯੋ ॥ ਇਮ ਕਹਿ ਕੈ ਇਹ ਲੋਕ ਪਠਾਯੋ ॥ 28॥
ਅਕਾਲ ਪ੍ਰਰਖ ਬਾਚ ॥

chaapee |
jab pehilae ham srisatt banaaee | dheeth rachae dhusatt dhukhadhaaee |
thae bhuj bal bavarae haioo geae | poojath param purakh rehi geae | 6|
thae ham thamak thanak mo khaapae | thin kee thour dhaevathaa thaapae |
thae bhee bal poojaa ourajhaaeae | aapan hee paramaesar kehaaeae |7|
mehaadhaev achuth kehaayo | bisan aap hee ko thehiraayo |
brehamaa aap paarabreham bakhaanaa | prabh ko prabhoo n kinehoon jaanaa | 8|
thab saakhee prabh asatt banaaeae | saakh namith dhaebae thehiraaeae |
thae kehai karo hamaaree poojaa | ham bin avar n thaakur dhoojaa | 9|
param thaath ko jin n pashaanaa | thin kar eesar thin kahu maanaa |
kaethae soor chandh kahu maanai | agan hothr kee pavan pramaanai | 10|
kinehoon prabh paahan pehichaanaa | naath kithae jal karath bidhaanaa |
kaethak karam karath ddarapaanaa | dharam raaj ko dharam pashaanaa | 11|
jo prabh saakh namith thehiraaeae | thae hiaa aae prabhoo kehavaaeae |
thaa kee baath bisar jaathee bhee | apanee apanee parath sobh bhee | 12|
jab prabh ko n thinai pehichaanaa | thab har ein manushan thehiraanaa |
thae bhee bas mamathaa hue geae | paramaesar paahan thehireae | 13|
thab har sdh saadh thehiraaeae | thin bhee param purakh nehee paaeae |
jae koee hoth bhayo jag siaanaa | thin thin apano panth chalaanaa | 14|
param purakh kinehoon neh paayo | bair baadh ahankaar bataayo |
paedd paath aapan thae jalai | prabh kai panth n kooo chalai | 15|
jin jin thanik sdh ko paayo | thin thin apanaa raahu chalaayo |
paramaesar n kinehoon pehichaanaa | mam ouchaarathae bhayo dhivaanaa | 16|
param thaath kinehoon n pashaanaa | aap aap bheethar ourajhaanaa |
thab jae jae rikharaaj banaaeae | thin aapan pun sinmrith chalaaeae | 17|
jae sinmrithan kae bheae anuraagee | thin thin kriaa breham kee thiaagee |
jin man har charanan thehiraayo | so sinmrithan kae raah n aayo | 18|
brehamaa chaar hee baedh banaaeae | sarab lok thih karam chalaaeae |
jin kee liv har charanan laagee | thae baedhan thae bheae thiaagee | 19|
jin math baedh kathaeban thiaagee | paarabreham kae bheae anuraagee |
thin kae goorr maath jae chalehee | bhaath anaek dhukhan so dhalehee | 20|
jae jae sehith jaathan sandhaehi | prabh ko sang n shoddath naeh |
thae thae param puree keh jaahee | thin har sio anthar kash naahee | 21|
jae jae jeey jaathan thae ddarai | param prarakh thaj thin mag parai |
thae thae narak kanudd mo parehee | baar baar jag mo bap dharehee | 22|
thab har bahur dhaath oupajaaeiou | thin bhee apanaa panth chalaaeiou |
kar mo nakh sir jattaa savaaree | prabh kee kriaa n kashoo bichaaree | 23|
pun har gorakh ka ouparaajaa | skh karae thinehoon badd raajaa |
sravan faar mudhraa dhuai ddaaree | har kee preeth reeth n bichaaree | 24|
pun har raamaanandh ko karaa | bhaes bairaagee ko jin dharaa |
kanthee kanth kaath kee ddaaree | prabh kee kriaa n kashoo bichaaree | 25|
kanthee kanth kaath kee ddaaree | prabh kee kriaa n kashoo bichaaree | 25|
mehaadheen thab prabh ouparaajaa | arab dhaes ko keeno raajaa | 26|
thin bhee eaek panth ouparaajaa | ling binaa keenae sabh raajaa |
sabh thae apanaa naam japaayo | sath naam kaahoon n dhrirraayo |27|
sabh apanee apanee ourajhaanaa | paarabreham kaahoo n pashaanaa |
thap saadhath har mohi bulaayo | eim kehi kai eih lok pathaayo | 28|
akaal prarakh baach |

Chaupai
"When I created this Universe in the beginning. At first, I produced the wicked and troublesome demons
Who ran amok due to the might of their arms;
And abandoned the worship of the Supreme Purusha (i.e. me).(6)
Flushed with anger, I destroyed those demons in a little while;
And created the gods in their place.
They (the gods) too got involved in the worship of animal sacrifice and offerings of grains.
And called themselves as the Supreme Lord.(7)
Shiva called himself as Infallible (immortal). Vishnu ascertained himself to be the Supreme Lord.
Brahma too designated himself to be the Transcendent One.
None of them could comprehend the real Lord (i.e. me) as the Supreme Lord.(8)
(God said)-Then the Lord (I) established eight gods as witnesses called Sakhi (earth, the pole star, moon, sun, fire, wind, dawn and lustre).
These Sakhi gods were appointed to bear witness according to the actions of the people.
They said to the people, "Worship us only. There is no other God except ourselves."(9)
They, who did not recognize the Supreme Spirit (God), Accepted these witness gods as the Lord.
Many started to worship the sun and the moon.
Many worshipped the sacrificial fire and the wind.(10)
Several persons accepted the stone (idols) as the Lord.
Several others considered it auspicious to take a bath according to some fixed rules.
Innumerable people practised ceremonial acts and became afraid.
Some others considered Dharam Raj (King of justice for the dead) as their God.(11)
The celestial beings, who were appointed by the Lord as testifiers,
When they came here, they called themselves as the Supreme Soul.
They forgot even the directive of God.
And they became eager to become glorious.(12)
When they did not comprehend the Lord, Then the Lord created human beings.
They too were dominated by infatuation and self- interest,
And installed stone statues in place of the Lord.(13)
Then the Immortal Lord established the accomplished ascetics and the saints.
They too were unsuccessful in realizing the Supreme Lord.
They, who happened to be shrewd in the world, Set up their individual creeds.(14)
None could realize the Supreme Lord.
On the contrary, they spread enmity, conflict and ego.
Just as the tree is ablaze with the fire of its leaves, rubbing each other. (The populace was burning by the fire of spite, enmity and ego.)
But none followed the highway of the Lord.(15)
They, who attained a little spiritual power, Started their individual faiths.
And none recognized the Supreme Lord. Rather such people became mad with ego.(16)
Nobody understood the essence of the spiritual knowledge.
They were entrapped by their own self-conceit.
Then I created patriarchal sages (like Manu).
Later on they introduced their own Simrities.(17)
Those, who became votaries of the Simrities, They discarded God-oriented activity.
Those, who implanted the holy feet of the Lord in
their mind,
They never followed the way of the Simrities.(18)
Brahma composed only four Vedas.
All the people followed the ceremonial and religious rituals contained in the Vedas.
Those (fortunate) persons, who implanted the holy feet of the Lord in their mind,
Abandoned the path and the teachings, contained in the Vedas.(19)
Those, who DISCARDED the creed of the VEDAS (the Hindu scriptures) and also the faiths of the KATEBAS (Scriptures of Jews, Mohammedans and Christians),
They became the adorers of the Transcendent One.
Those, who follow the profound creed of the Lord, Obliterate various types of their sufferings.(20)
They, who endure torments on their bodies, And do not break off their affection with the Lord,
All of them go to the abode of the Lord,
And there is no difference between the Lord and them.(21)
They who are afraid of hardships.
And TURN AWAY FROM THE SUPREME SOUL and follow
the creeds of the Vedas and Semitic Scriptures;
All of them fall into the inferno of hell;
And take births again and again in the world.(22)
Thereafter the Lord created Dattatreya (An
incarnation-Son of Atri and Ansuya).
He, too, started his own sect.
He let long nails grow on the hands and kept matted hair on the head.
He, too, did not contemplate a plan for devotional love with the Lord.(23)
Then the Lord brought forth Gorakh Nath (Preceptor of ear split Yogis).
He made great kings his disciples.
He split (pierced) the ears and put into ear-rings in each ear,
But he, too, did not reflect on any means of the devotional love with the Lord.(24)
Then the Lord made Rama Nand (an apostle of ascetics),
Who adopted the garb of a Bairagi (a Vaishnava ascetic).
He wore a wooden necklace round his neck,
And did not consider a way to realize the Lord.(25)
repeated and missing line. Correct definition= Whosoever the leading Purushas (personages) were
created by the Lord. They all introduced their own creeds.

Then the Lord created Mahadin (Prophet Mohammed),
And made him the Emperor of the Arabian Peninsula. (26)
He, too, created a path (Islam-religion),
And made all the kings remove the foreskin of their phalluses (for circumcision).
He induced all and sundry to recite his name,
And DID NOT INSTILL THE TRUE ETERNAL NAME of the Lord in any one.(27)
All (the religious Preceptors) got entangled in their own dogmas.
No one comprehended the Transcendent One.
I was absorbed in His austere meditation when the Lord called me.
Having uttered the following words, He sent me to this world.(28)
The Immortal Lord (Purusha) spoke:

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

ਦਾਸ,
ਆਤਮਾ ਸਿੰਘ

Veer Atma Singh Ji,

The section of the Bachitar Natak you have quoted in my humble opinion - refers to the followers and representatives of these holy men - rather than the holy men themselves. I am not disputing the fact that the followers of these Margs lost the plot (in general) and that Sikhi is the supremem and pure light in Kalijug - but Vaheguru - who is Aad Sach, Jugaad Sach - has always been revealing his truth - in all ages. This is why Ramanand Ji is also mentioned here - even though they are a Bhagat.


Bhai Kulbir Singh Ji,

ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਪੜੇ ਕੋ ਇਹ ਗੁਨ ਸਿਮਰੇ ਹਰਿ ਕੋ ਨਾਮਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

"As written in one of my posts recently, this pankiti means that the use of reading Vedas and Puranas is only if one recites Naam Hari."

Veer Ji, just taking this one tuk as an example - my point here has been to negate the comment about all other granths being hearsay - why would Guru Maharaj even mention them in a postive light if they were hearsay? Why would they still be of use if one recites naam? Even if prior granths were more moralistic rather than esoteric, it does not mean they were not divine. That Gurbani exists in it's pure unadulterated form and is pristine does not relegate prior divine wisdom to hearsay.

I know your view already veer Kulbir Singh Ji, so this question was not intended for you but rather for Veer Atma Singh Ji - whose use of language I am questioning.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

Veer Harcharan Singh Jee,

you wrote:

"in my humble opinion - [the Chaupee Sahib quoted] refers to the FOLLOWERS AND REPRESENTATIVES of these holy men - rather than the holy men THEMSELVES"

pls pay particular attention to the following:

ਤਿਨ ਭੀ ਏਕ ਪੰਥ ਉਪਰਾਜਾ ॥ ਲਿੰਗ ਬਿਨਾ ਕੀਨੇ ਸਭ ਰਾਜਾ ॥
ਸਭ ਤੇ ਅਪਨਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਯੋ ॥ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਾਹੂੰ ਨ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਾਯੋ ॥27॥
ਸਭ ਅਪਨੀ ਅਪਨੀ ਉਰਝਾਨਾ ॥ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਕਾਹੂ ਨ ਪਛਾਨਾ ॥
ਤਪ ਸਾਧਤ ਹਰਿ ਮੋਹਿ ਬੁਲਾਯੋ ॥ ਇਮ ਕਹਿ ਕੈ ਇਹ ਲੋਕ ਪਠਾਯੋ ॥28॥
ਅਕਾਲ ਪ੍ਰਰਖ ਬਾਚ ॥

He, too, [Prophet Muhammad Sahib] created a path [Islam],
And made all the kings remove the foreskins [circumcision].
He induced all and sundry to RECITE HIS NAME,
And DID NOT INSTILL SAT-NAAM [VAHEGUROO GURMANTAR] in any one.(27)
ALL THE RELIGIOUS PRECEPTORS GOT ENTANGLED IN THEIR OWN DOGMAS
No one comprehended the Transcendent One.
I was absorbed in His austere meditation when the Lord called me.
Having uttered the following words, He sent me to this world.(28)

the above clearly and undeniably refers to The Prophet and describes where and why he went wrong - it definitely DOES NOT mention followers and representatives. frankly, you are denying what is staring you in the face Veer Jee.

please read the original language if you distrust the translation (i have edited it to try and make things clearer) the salient points are:

- The Prophet created Islam; therefore, it was not a directly revealed path form Vaheguroo.

- Therefore, he did not instill Gurmantar i.e. do Dhrir of Naam in anyone as this was not his duty nor a duty given to him.

- Without Naam, there can be no Perfect Dharam. Therefore, the web that was weaved as by all other Spiritual preceptors, got tangled and hence we have all these dogmas, superstitious beliefs e.g. if a dog walks in front of a Muslim while he is praying, he becomes unclean.

- As such, Islam glorifies The Prophet who was not the manifest Guroo-Jyot of Vaheguroo. For instance a Muslim must verbalise blessings regarding The Prophet more so than when blessing any other humans. Also The Prophet has always had certain rights which his followers don't i.e. no. of wives allowed.

you wrote: "this question was not intended for you but rather for Veer Atma Singh Ji - whose use of language I am questioning"

prior granths are useful and i am sure that they can take someone far but you will be unable to find one Panktee in the whole of GurbaaNee which will prove that anyone got Milaap with Vaheguroo through Kamayee of any of these Granths. i sincerely believe that i have already used Pankteeaa(n) to prove that these Granths are ultimately ignored by Prem-Bhagats.

Veer Jee, i really don't know what you mean when you say you are 'questioning' my 'use of language'. it is Bhai Gurdaas Jee who has referred to all other 'spiritual knowledge' as hearsay i.e. not directly revealed by Vaheguroo. this is the key difference between Gurmat and all other Dharams. yes - all that has ever been thought, spoken, written and done has been done by Vaheguroo. i believe that in this sense, Vaheguroo has been the inspiration behind all Dharam...even these 'hearsay' Dharams have lots to offer if followers follow them sincerely.

For instance, Bed are called 'pure words' by Mahraaj Jee (i.e. in Sukhmanee Sahib for instance i think - 'shud aakh(i)r') but being pure words does not make them Nirankaar's Self-Revealed BaaNee...they can help people get closer to Vaheguroo but ultimately, 'Bin Satguroo [Vaheguroo whose Revealed Roop is GurbaaNee/Gurmantar/Vaheguroo] Kinaai Na Paiaa'.

Please read Bhai Gurdaas Jee's Vaaraa(n) - they will really convince you of what is being said here and you will never feel the need to debate this again.

veer jee, this will be my last post - it is not my purpose in life to convince you about anything and i think we have both made all the points we need to make. readers will have to look at what we have both been saying and decide for themselves what makes sense and has or has not been proved.

if i have come across as bullish at any point, maafee mangdae Veer Jee. i sometimes talk/write too bluntly - i assure you, well i at least like to think, that in person i am not nearly so blunt or bullish. hopefully one day i will have your Darshan.

dhanvaad.

ps - am looking forward to listening to you doing Raag Keertan.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

ਦਾਸ,
ਆਤਮਾ ਸਿੰਘ

Pyare Veer Atma Singh Ji,

No need to apologise, your posts have politnes, humility and open-mindedness in them - if anything, I admire you for that.

Bhai Gurdaas ji's quote - this IMHO refers to those who talk about dharma rather than practice it - or even those who are obsessed with the words rather than the practice (simran - which exists in all Margs). I do not agree with the hearsay translation - it translates more to talking. In any case this point has run it's course.

More interestingly, I would like to know why you think Bhagat Ramanand Ji has been mentioned in the bani you have quoted as one of the failed spiritual leaders - this does not reconcile with the acceptance of Bhagat Ji and his bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Veer N3O jeeo,

Good to hear from you. ਦੇਰ ਆਏ ਦਰੁਸਤ ਆਏ

I think we don’t realize the seriousness of calling Gurmat or thinking that Gurmat subscribes to Advaita Vedanta. The implications of subscribing to Advaita are very severe and this is why many great thinkers of India have already rejected Advaita. These thinkers include Ramanujacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbarkacharya and Chaitanya etc. They have proven or they claim to have proved beyond doubt that the Advaita Vedanta is not in accordance with Brahm Sutras, or Vedas, or Upanishads. Everyone in India has rejected Advaita but our own Sikh philosophers especially those associated with Nirmalas are preaching that Gurmat and Advaita are same or that Gurmat is in accordance with Advaita.

It’s surprising that all these above mentioned scholars and Acharyas including the great Shankracharya, his Guru’s Guru Gaudapada claim to derive their philosophies from Brahmsutras and Upanishads yet, they are so different from each other and contrary to each other.

Anyone who has done even mediocre research of Gurmat and if such person reads about Advaita Vedanta, her or she can never think even in dream that Advaita is in accordance with Gurmat. Here are some points to ponder upon:

1) Advaita ultimately believes that there is only one existence and that is Brahman. This Brahman is not Vaheguru but the self of jeev i.e. Aatma. The self or Aatma or Brahman due to it’s habit of creating maya or playing with it has forgotten that it is Brahman. This is severely in contrast with Gurmat that first of all the Karta Vaheguru never is led astray as is the case with Advaita’s Brahm. Secondly, Vaheguru is not jeev and jeev is not Vaheguru but are two separate entities and the jeev is totally of and dependant on Vaheguru.

2) Advaita’s philosophy on creation of the world is very strange.
According to them Brahman the ultimate nirgun God has nothing to do with creation. The world has not been created but is an illusion that the world has been created just like one thinks of rope to be a snake in darkness. They also go forward saying that Atma is Brahman. Then how did Atma that’s Brahman, fall into the illusion of creation? In Gurmat, the creation is a conscious work by Vaheguru.

3) The status of Vaheguru in Advaita is that Ishwar is assumed to be God only for the sake of it but in reality there is no other existence beyond Atma. There is no merger of Atma and Vaheguru but the realization that Atma is Vaheguru. In Gurmat clearly there is Vaheguru and the jeev and merger in Gurmat means that the jeev’s surthee is one with Vaheguru.

4) There is no such thing as Prema Bhagti in Advaita because the Advaitin thinks that he or she is Brahman. They just have to realize this through intense mental cultivation. No room for Prema Bhagti because for Prema Bhagti one needs a wordhipper and the deity. In Gurmat, prema bhagti is the key to meeting with Vaheguru. Vaheguru is the deity and Jeev is the worshipper. The difference is very clear.

There are much more to write and I will write about that in due time but this much is enough for this post.

Quote:

Veer kulbir singh, i never mentioned words like "contradict vikayaran of gurbani" "against vikayaran" . I beleive they are very strong words which does not do justice to describe my stance.

This is what you wrote in your previous post:

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.

From the above I understood that when a brahmgyani does arth of Gurbani, they may over-rule viyakaran rules and my understanding is that if anything, the arths done by a Brahmgyani would actually make the utmost use of Gurbani viyakaran because after all the viyakaran of Gurbani has come from Guru Sahib and not a man made thing. I agree that a Brahmgyani may not have to actively and consciously employ Gurbani viyakaran but the meanings done by a Brahmgyani would naturally not go against viyakaran. Just as an advanced novelist when writing novel does not have to actively employ English grammar but it comes naturally to him or her. Same is the situation when a Mahapurakh does meanings of Gurbani.

Rest of the stuff that you have written about viyakaran not being consistent etc. is not really true. The scholars like Professor Sahib, Talwara jee and Giani Harbans Singh know of the exceptions and have written about them in their books. At many places, the spelling mistakes in the printed Birs play a role in our perception that viyakaran rules are inconsistent.

Quote:

In academic missionary circle- prof sahib singh's teeka - Gurbani Darpan is considered somewhat authority to translate/interpret gurbani. Prof sahib singh teeka its far from perfect, has lot of mistakes in them( thats fine because he mentioned in his preface that my work is just tip of the iceberg).

No one can do a perfect steek of Gurbani. I believe Giani Harbans Singh has done excellent steek of Gurbani, fully based on viyakaran. The thing I have noticed about Giani jee is that where ever he could, he has tried to do the traditional arth of Gurbani. Only at places where the sampradayak arth contradicted viyakaran, he has done arth according to viyakaran. Talwara jee has been pretty good as well. Even though these great scholars have done arths according to Viyakaran, the antreevi arth don’t match. This is perfectly fine. What is required is to not go against Gurbani viyakaran when doing arth. Doing creative arth does not mean that one should go against viyakaran. This is all I am saying.

Quote:

- vikaayaran niyam explained by prof sahib singh does not apply to some parts in bhagat bani because some parts in bhagata bani rachna is written in marathi basha in sri guru granth sahib ji, because each language has their own grammar, also sidhant of vikayaran prof sahib used in japj sahib, same sidhant of vikayaran couldn't apply in rehras sahib consistently. There are even diversity within vikayaran interpertation of gurbani as article suggests.

I can’t take this as prima facie. I agree that certain words may be used as singular in some language and plural in other. The word ‘hum’ is mostly used as a pronoun for plural noun but sometimes it’s used as a pronoun for singular noun too. This does not mean that viyakaran has been violated. We are not using some standard Punjabi or Hindi here. There are many dialects and languages employed in Gurbani. The main rules of viyakaran that come in handy while doing arth vichaar are the rules of ankand and mukta ending nouns. These lag-maatree rules that change according to saroop of the nouns is what really comes in handy when interpreting Gurbani. These rules are pretty much consistent in Gurbani and all exceptions to these rules are also pretty much recorded.

I don’t see the merit in Harkirat Singh in criticizing viyakaran or finding faults in it. He himself in my opinion is more of a Bhasha Vigiyani than master of Viyakaran. In the recent past, pure viyakaran works are of Talwara jee and Giani Harbans Singh.

In any case, this topic does not belong to this thread and should be discussed separately.

Quote:

Now question as of why i said anubhav arths of gurbani are not bound by vikayaran rules...not just antriv arths but uthanka of certain shabad is not bound by vikayaran either. I will give you three examples-

- Sikhi sidhant was challenged by RSS type people who were challenging Vahiguroo cannot be Gurmantar. At that point nirmale baba isher singh kalyug wale bought fwd 500 antriv arths of Vahiguroo mantar. Now tell me which vikayaran sidhant/rules he used when he bought fwd 500 arths of vahiguroo mantar? Sant jagjit singh said, arths are fully antriv in nature and if you were to do arths of vahiguroo in vikayaran you can go far 10 at the max.

In case 490 arths that Baba Ishar Singh jee did were against grammar, then we are just going to invite mockery from RSS, if they happen to bring up this point. One can do 1000 arths but if these arths are just creation of one’s imagination and if we are unable to satisfy scholars of other faiths, then in my opinion, it does injustice to the Sikhi cause. Who are the RSS to challenge that Vaheguru cannot be a mantra? And why are we trying to prove that Vaheguru mantra is truly a gurmantra using vedic rules. They can’t judge Sikhi mantra according to their rules. For them Khodsa Mantra (16 maatra mantra) may be the best or the 12 Maatra (Om Bhagvate Vasudevaia) could be the ultimate but we just don’t care. Vaheguru mantra need not be explained to them. The answer to them should be that the ultimate jaapaks of Khodsa Mantra and 12 maatra mantras had to become chelas of Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee. As the matter of fact, the Gurmantra should just not be discussed or mentioned to Aanmattees and Manmukhs. This mantra is the mantra to japp and there is no need to understand it or worry about how many maatras it has. This is the beej mantra of Khalsa and this is the Maha Mantra and the ultimate mantra. No mantra can come even close to this mantra.

Quote:

- If we go by gurbani vikayaran we will not be able to do uthanka of certain shabad since certain shabads are directly linked with events involving our Guru Sahiban and bhagats..as some people who are premis of vikayaran of gurbani beleive that there can be one interpertation of gurbani.

It’s not true that if we go by Gurbani viyakaran we can’t do uthaanka of shabads. Many shabads are a result of Guru Sahib’s interaction with different people and we should use uthaanka to understand shabads better, so far as it does not violate viyakaran.

Quote:

- This is very important point, please try to understand this.
When this jev gets bhramgyan, their surti merges into nirankar, same nirankar dhur ki bani comes from. When bhramgyani does interpertation of gurbani via their anubhav bhramgyan they don't need to follow 1st step use vikayaran to get arths of certain tuk or shabad because they already realize the tat nichor(essence) of that certain shabad, tuk. They give out tat nichor of shabad or tuk which naturally will not contradict Gurbani vikayaran sidhant set by Guru Sahib himself not dunavi punjabi vikayaran. Gurbani vikayaran is still yet to be fully discovered. As vikayaran niyam(rules) set by scholars of the panth still not sampooran itself or accurate as the article pointed out along with sant gurbachan singh ji pointed out.

Agreed.

Quote:

I admit i choose poor choice of words here, i meant to say body is made out of five elements but jev is in the body. Jiv atma is abnashi in essence but since antish karan doesn't recnognize its true self, until then this consciouness doesn't merge with super conscouness and become abhinashi.

theek hai jee. .

Quote:

Here is shabad where gurbani giving explaining avastha of gurmukh/bhramgyani. In this shabad two separate entities- joti(atma), surti(individual consciousness) merges into jot and surat:


Joti jot millaie surati surat sanjog ||


Clear distincation is made how joti(atma) and individual surti after getting bhramgyan merges with Param Jot and Param Surat no other than vahiguroo himself. What happened to the individual surti in this shabad? It merged into super consciouness nirgun roop which is sat chit anandsvaroop.

In this pankiti the word ‘sanjog’ has been used when talking about surat. I don’t know how you have interpreted this to mean that the individual surat has merged into the Param-surat of Vaheguru and lost itself. As the matter of fact it talks about sanjog i.e. milaap of the suratee of individual with that of Vaheguru. This means both have become one. How they have become one. Let me give you a worldly example. When we say ਸਾਡੀ ਸੋਚ ਇਕ ਹੈ it does not mean that my thinking and my friend’s thinking have merged and now there is only one thinking in existence. Same way sanjog or milaap of surat with Param surat and Jyot with Param Jyot does not mean that one of them ceases to exist.

Please listen to Sun Singh who has agreed in principle that the individual does not cease to exist. We both agree that the milaap or a merger takes place but we differ about the fate of individual Aatma. I am saying that it continues to retain identity (because this is the only way it can enjoy everlasting bliss) and you are insisting that the soul just ceases to exist. This Advaita Vedanta philosophy I cannot digest. Later in the article I will write more about Advaita and Gurmat.

Quote:

Here is another one

Pavanaie Mein Pavan Samaaiya Joti Mein Jot Ral Jaiya ||

Here is another one:

ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਦੀਸੈ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਸੁਣੀਐ ਏਕੁ ਏਕੁ ਵਖਾਣੀਐ ॥
breham dheesai breham suneeai eaek eaek vakhaaneeai ||
ਆਤਮ ਪਸਾਰਾ ਕਰਣਹਾਰਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਬਿਨਾ ਨਹੀ ਜਾਣੀਐ ॥
aatham pasaaraa karanehaaraa prabh binaa nehee jaaneeai ||

You are trying to convert the converted. I already agree and have been insisting that the jeev is totally merged in Vaheguru so much so that to the ordinary eye, there is no difference. But this does not mean that the jeev does not exist anymore. The example of Siri Dasmesh jee perfectly explains that being one means that one’s surthee is absorbed in Charan Kamal of Vaheguru. Siri Guru jee themselves have written about this. What more proof do we need.

Pavan meh Pavan gets merged and jyot gets merged in jyot but why does it have to mean that one has now ceased to exist? What happened to Gurbani’s promise of Sadd-Jeevan and everlasting bliss? How will the jeev enjoy bliss if the jeev no longer exists? To enjoy the bliss one has to exist. No one answers this question. If you say that Vaheguru will enjoy the bliss, then my answer is that he is already enjoying the bliss. Then are we doing all this bhagti for Vaheguru to enjoy more bliss? Can we really increase or decrease his bliss?

Quote:

I am just suprised it didnt even occur to you even for one second that is quite possible that this deliverance might have taken place in sri guru gobind singh ji previous earthly life as dushat daman avtar at hemkunt.

Even If we go with your opnion on this that guru ji was given deliverance in spiritual world which you should said it implies guru ji had seperate vajood, conscinouness then how do you explain narsingh avtar(half lion and half man) who came to kill harnakash and save parlhad. Was narsingh avtar before arrival was chilling in sachkhand as well holding onto his vajood and surti. Was he also doing naam simran same where in the sachkhand?

It does not matter if Siri Dasmesh jee was in Sachkhand or somewhere else. The fact of the matter is that Siri Guru jee became one with Vaheguru. Once you are one, you are one. It does not matter whether you are in Sachkhand or on Earth. By the way, I think Siri Guru jee is talking about their avastha in Sachkhand because they refer to this world as “maat lok”. If they had been at Maat Lok already, they would not have referred to this world as Maatlok.

Regarding your question about Narsingh, I don’t think he came from Sachkhand, nor did any other of the 24 avatars came from Sachkhand. The most elevated of all 24 avatars is Siri Krishna and he is not from Sachkhand but from Baikunth. The avatars came to the world as per hukam and then they were used by Guru-jyoti (as per Bhattan de savaiye) to do some tasks in this world. So, Narsingh was not chilling at Sachkhand but must have been hanging out in Baikunth, which I believe lies in Gyaan Khand.

Quote:

Quote:
""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:
Tithaie Gharaie Surat Mat Man Budh
Tithaie Gharaie Sora Sidha Ki Sudh ||


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

Nothing is been established here mate, thats your surti based on your own understanding of gurbani. As guru sahib mentioned in chaupi sahib, jinni buddhi vahiguroo valu milli hai, uhni buddhi dwara bandai di sochni aa or here is an classic tuk which explains whichever surat: jehri surat tahi rahe jai ||

Calling antish karan as advaita trash just shows how frustrated you are with theory of atma totally residing in gurmat. That you went to call advaita(oneness with bhram/vahiguroo) as trash in intoxication of your hindu phobia, you just fell in a same dandal which kala afghana has fell on this matter

What I have written is that to call the antashkaran made of 5 elements is totally an absurd thing. If it’s not trash then what else is it? As I wrote before I don’t have Hindu phobia but I certainly have a problem when someone tries to say that Gurmat is same as Advaita Vedanta. Advaita is a flawed philosophy that majority of Hindus have rejected as well including Madhva, Ramanujacharya, Nimburkacharya, Vallabhacharya, Chaitaniya, and other Vaishnav Acharyas. So, if I don’t agree with Advaita Vedanta, it does not make me diseased by Hindu Phobia.

You say that nothing is established but pray tell me how you explain Siri Dasmesh jee’s incident that totally destroys your Advaita argument that Atma loses identity. Mere Veer, you have only one way out. Like Kala Afghana, you will have to reject Dasam Granth. But if you do accept this saakhi of Siri Dasmesh jee as truth, then you will have to admit that being one with Vaheguru means to be absorbed in the Charan Kamal of Vaheguru and that jeev does not cease to exist after merger in Vaheguru.

Quote:

If you call loosing one vajood and merging completly with vahiguroo is an sucide, annahliation, merging into nothiness what you will do when Vahiguroo decides to merge all his parpanch akar/sargun parsara into itself?

what would you call when vahiguroo decides to merge all his parpanch ? sucide..?

You will also have to merge in to same energy and loose your vajood, consicouness, indentity which you call annihilation where would your vajood be then?

Here are few shabads to ponder upon on the topic of destruction and creation of all pasara including physical and spiritual realms how one day all the pasara akara, asthohol, sukhsham, traie gun will all perish. This shabad talks both about spiritual and physical realms:

Merging of jeevs who have not reached Vaheguru at the time of Pralya is not same as merging of Bhagats in Vaheguru. There has to be a difference and there is a difference. I think they stay dormant and when the next time world is created, they start where they were at the time of Pralya. The shabad that you quoted does not say that spiritual realms like Karam Khand and Sachkhand can perish. The very name of Sachkhand tells us that it’s an eternal khand. “Sach” means eternal. So this khand does not perish ever.

Quote:

Bazigar Jasie Baazi Paie
Nana Roop Bhek Dekhlaie
Sang Utar Thaimo Pasara
Tab Ikaie Ikankara ||

Kavan Roop Dristio Binasio
Kaithe Gayoo Oh Kath Dhayo ||

Jal Tai Utaie Anakh Taranga
Kanakh bhookaie Bahu ranga
Bij Bij Dekho Bahu Parkara
Phul Pakaie Taie Ikankara ||

Sahet Gatava Mein Ek Akash
Ghat Footaie Ohi Pargas ||

This shabad too does not tell me that the jeev is annihilated after merger with Vaheguru. This shabad talks about the physical world and I already agree that the physical world and whatever we can see will perish.

Quote:

Advaita is theory of atma ekta with paratama. Therefore, they have only mentioned attributes of vahiguroo which relates to this atma being sat chit anand saroop. I agree advaita does not mention attributes to do with emotions as it gyan marg. But because of that, you cannot say advaita theory is not parvan in Gurmat.

You are mistaken when you say that Advaita is a theory of ekta of Atma with Parmatma. In fact, Advaita is the discovery of the jeev, that jeev in fact is Parmatma i.e. Atma is Parmatma. This is why they start calling out Aham Brahmasiya. The fact of the matter is that Vaheguru can neither decrease or increase. If we were to accept your notion that Atma merges in Vaheguru and loses identity, then we will have to admit that Parmatma has increased and this is very contrary to Siri Dasmesh jee’s Bachan that ‘na baadh hai na ghaat hai not baadh ghaat hoth hai||.

I will be very honest in telling you that in my opinion as far as philosophy of mind is concerned and as far as reaching high levels of mental capabilities and understandings is concerned, Shankracharya and his Guru’s Guru – Gaudapada were probably in par with the great Shakyamuni – Siddhartha Buddha. Nothing less. Buddha was right up there as far as cultivating the mind and understanding the mind is concerned. I respect them for their genius minds and what they have written. What Shankracharya wrote at the age of 12, we can’t even write in 7 lives (unless we are blessed with Raam Naam Parkash). When you read Shankracharya’s or Gaudapada’s or Buddha’s works, you are shaken and you are shocked and you have to read again and again to understand what they are saying but despite all this, the path of Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee is much superior and totally distinct from these great philosophers and theologians. I am thinking of writing a detailed research paper on this. Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee’s path is not about philosophies or mental exercises but is divine path straight from Vaheguru. No one has understood Vaheguru more than Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee who in fact is the Guru-form of Vaheguru.

Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh writes a very interesting account in one of his books. He writes that when the jeev discovers and beholds its Aatma, it gets great bliss. At this stage, many Mahatmas think that they have realized Vaheguru because of the Parkash they see. They start saying that they are Brahm i.e. God. Bhai Sahib writes further that discovering oneself and beholding Aatma is not beholding Vaheguru. In Jail Chithiaan it’s written that before having darshan of Vaheguru, Bhai Sahib got darshan of his Aatma. He was in bliss then but he continued his journey to Vaheguru. One’s who get stuck at discovery Aatma, get stuck there and don’t get darshan of Vaheguru. They think they have found Vaheguru in Aatma. This is what seems to have happened to a number of Sikh Mahapurakhs. Advaita too stops just here. Advaita thinks that discovering oneself is discovering Vaheguru and that there is no Vaheguru beyond one’s Aatma. It's Guru Sahib who has shown the world that beyond Aatma there is Parmatma.

Quote:

Sant jagjit singh ji as sun singh quote again beleives in the Gurmat - sikhi prema marg and gyan marg both are parvan, for starters is prema bhagti but for bhramgyani according to their surtee/perception they could carry with this same prem bhavna or they could say, sing out all aloud from gurbani- sohang so jai jaap , ja ko paun, there is no paap or paun for them, they are above karams and reason its not recommended for jaigaso because they can become more ahankari with jap. This gurmat sidhant - prema bhagti/gyan marg is beleived by all samparda- nirmale, sevapanthis, taksal.

There is only one Maarag in Sikhi and that is Prem Bhagti. This mental Gyaan Maarag is the way of Advaita Vedanta who in turn have learned this from Shakyamuni Buddha and the disciples of Buddha like Nagarjana. What Gyaan can you have by mental exercise? The gyaan that Gurmat preaches is the Gyaan that comes as the result of engaging in Prema Bhagti of Naam and then when one becomes cognizant of Vaheguru, divine Gyaan comes. This is the gyaan Gurmat talks about. There is no such thing as two maarags in Gurmat one being Gyaan and the other being Prema Bhagti. The only maarag in Gurmat is Prema Bhagti of Naam. Gyaan is the result or fruit of this Prema Bhagti and not some bogus mental realization that I am Brahm or I am this or I am that. Such mental realizations bring a lot of shakti but not Tatt-Gyaan that Gurmat is talking about.

Quote:

Why don't you ask sant jagjit singh ji harkhowale when he comes to toronto next time on which anubhavi mahapursh he is referring to??

You are more than welcome to discuss this with sant jagjit singh ji

About 18-19 years ago, I had darshan of Sant Jagjit Singh jee at Malton Gurdwara. I went to see them at the place of his stay and we had some bachan bilaas. He may not remember me at that time. In those days, I was always looking for someone to show me the way to Vaheguru. I asked them the same thing and they instructed me to do 25 Siri Jap jee Sahibs for 6 months and then come back to them. I didn’t think I could do that many paaths and after that I never got to see them again. Many years later, I realized how correct they were and how wrong I was. What to talk about 25 paaths, one has to do much more paath than that to cleanse one’s inside and on top of so much Gurbani paath, one has to engage in Naam Abhyaas all the time and especially at Amrti Vela. I can’t see myself debating with them at any time. They are senior to me and I am much junior to them in all sense.

Quote:

Man tu jot saroop hai apna mool paichain ||



Advaita beleives avidya has diseased mind(mann) which in its orginal form was unman, guru maharaj giving updesh to mind with avidya - o ignorant mind, you are infact jot saroop...because of avidya you don't realize it but in fact you are jot saroop, recnognize yourself.

But you guys believe that Kaaran Sareer or the purest form does not even have Antashkaran including Mind. But here Siri Guru jee is clearly saying that Mann i.e. mind is Jyot Saroop. This contradicts the Advaita philosophy that does not recognize anything other than the Aatma, not even Vaheguru. They say that Aatma is Brahman and there is no antashkaran.

Quote:

To back it up all claim above on man which has antish karan and made out of five elements cannot be jot saroop and how vahiguroo cannot have mann but unman(atam chaitanta) here are tuks, once antish karan is gone and man becomes unman then only they can taste their own atma/paratma.

I already have quoted in my previous posts that Vaheguru has a mann. And mann being jyot saroop proves beyond doubt that mann cannot be destroyed and stays with the jeev all the time.

Quote:

As gurbani mentions describing state of bhramgyanis:

Man asaadh sadhai jan koe
Man maraie bin bhagat na hoi ||

Mann da maarna means to bring mind under control. Please look at the following pankiti:

ਮੁਰਦਾ ਹੋਇ ਮੁਰੀਦ ਨ ਗਲੀਂ ਹੋਵਣਾ॥

Being murda (dead) means to obey all hukams. Same way for the mind to die means for it to die towards the world i.e. to not find pleasures in mind and to obey hukams of Guru Sahib. It does not mean that mind has died in the sense of ceasing to exist.

In the end, I agree with your vichaar that we cannot convince each other and nor should we try to convert the other. For me this debate (vichaar, not Vaad) was very fruitful as it prompted me to think more profoundly about the notions I am subscribing to now. It prompted me to read more about Advaita and other philosophies and this in turn increased respect and awe I already hold for the great thinkers of India. I am now more resolved than ever before that Gurmat is indeed different and unique from existing philosophies of India and of course the world. I will be writing a writeup on this in the near future.

Daas,
Kulbir Singh



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2008 05:38PM by admin.

veer hjarcharans ingh jee,

you wrote:

"More interestingly, I would like to know why you think Bhagat Ramanand Ji has been mentioned in the bani you have quoted as one of the failed spiritual leaders - this does not reconcile with the acceptance of Bhagat Ji and his bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji".

the only thoughts i have worth sharing are that this could be referring to Bhagat Ramanand Sahib Jee at an earlier stage of his spiritual journey i.e. before he became a Prem-Bhagat and disciple of Siree Satguroo Sahib Jee.

or it could be referring to a different person altogether although i think this is doubtful given how well-known Bhagat Sahib Jee was.

veer kulbir singh jee - can you answer this. i don't have any further knowledge to offer any kind of opinion regarding this interesting question.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

ਦਾਸ,
ਆਤਮਾ ਸਿੰਘ

As always, a really amazing post Kulbir SIngh Jee.

Bhagat Ramanand Ji went against his own guru and advocated Rama bhagtee. He had to come in the sharan of Guru Nanak Dev Ji upon which he became blessed with Naam and got muktee. Many of the other bhagats also followed his suit and got naam from Guru Sahib. As Guru Sahib says in Bachittar Natak, no one preached "Satnaam", the gurmantra. Hence, all failed and so did their own ways. When Bhagat Ji got naam, he sang a Shabad praising Guru Sahib which is included in Guru Granth Sahib.

I doubt it is a different Ramanand but it could be since his name comes before Mohammad. So it could be that this Ramanand lived before Mohammad was born. It could also mean that Guru Sahib first listed Hindu ways and their leaders and then Islam which came in India later.

[quote]1) Advaita ultimately believes that there is only one existence and that is Brahman. This Brahman is not Vaheguru but the self of jeev i.e. Aatma. The self or Aatma or Brahman due to it’s habit of creating maya or playing with it has forgotten that it is Brahman. This is severely in contrast with Gurmat that first of all the Karta Vaheguru never is led astray as is the case with Advaita’s Brahm. Secondly, Vaheguru is not jeev and jeev is not Vaheguru but are two separate entities and the jeev is totally of and dependant on Vaheguru.[color][/quote]

This is incorrect. The Advaitin believes that he is not the jeevatma, but the Real Self s that which is all-pervading within, the Paramatman. Hence, the Advaitin does not believe in his identity as being based on the false ego-identity self at all, but in the underlying core Reality.



[color=green]ਜੋ ਕਿਛੁ ਹੋਆ ਸੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਭਾਣਾ ॥
jo kishh hoaa s thaeraa bhaanaa ||
Whatever happens is by the Pleasure of Your Will.

ਜੋ ਇਵ ਬੂਝੈ ਸੁ ਸਹਜਿ ਸਮਾਣਾ ॥੩॥
jo eiv boojhai s sehaj samaanaa ||3||
Whoever understands this, is intuitively merged in the Lord. ||3||

ਕਹਤੁ ਕਬੀਰੁ ਕਿਲਬਿਖ ਗਏ ਖੀਣਾ ॥
kehath kabeer kilabikh geae kheenaa ||
Says Kabeer, my sins have been obliterated.

ਮਨੁ ਭਇਆ ਜਗਜੀਵਨ ਲੀਣਾ ॥੪॥੧॥
man bhaeiaa jagajeevan leenaa ||4||1||
My mind has merged into the Lord, the Life of the World. ||4||1||
~SGGS Ji p. 1349



What is merged? The mind, the consciousness. How does this merger take place? By transcending the 3 states of ordinary consciousness, waking, sleeping, and dreaming. Advaita is simply telling us not to live in the consciousness of the Dream-world, which is to perceive according to modes of three gunas, maya and duality. But to recognize that all along we are not even the jeev, but the jyot.

2) Advaita’s philosophy on creation of the world is very strange.
According to them Brahman the ultimate nirgun God has nothing to do with creation. The world has not been created but is an illusion that the world has been created just like one thinks of rope to be a snake in darkness. They also go forward saying that Atma is Brahman. Then how did Atma that’s Brahman, fall into the illusion of creation? In Gurmat, the creation is a conscious work by Vaheguru.
This is a material misstatement. Advaita teaches one of the four-fold qualities in a spiritual aspirant is:

1.) Nityānitya vastu viveka — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).

Hence Advaita clearly acknowledges the nirgun Brahman as eternal, versus the transitory, and hence illusory nature of the sansaara of pakrti. And this can be explained by understanding past versus present. In the past, your experiences and nature were very real to you. But now that it has become "past" you recollect the memory of it as a dream. What is passing away is in it's fundamental nature only illusion. It will cease to be a real experience and become part of the dream. Advaita teaches that our consciousness perceives Reality in shadow, as if in a dream state, while that which we perceive to be Real is the true dream. Advaita is not a "weird" philosophy at all, but must be understood in context of transcending consciousness. We are not the body. We are not even the mind. We are not the ego. We are no the individual jeevatma. We are the eternal Someone, Parabrahm who is at play dreaming of being a jeeva. When we wake up, obtain mukti, become free from samskaras and obstacles that delude consciousness, samskaras, kaleshas, karam, kalpas...

we the dream-being cease to exist... and realize we are the Self, the Divine Beloved, That which is... neti, neti, but beyond even description of language. This is the basis of concept of Self-realization, which is not that the individual is God, but that God has become an individual. The difference between the two (atma and Paramatma) is consciousness and clarity. In Turiya consciousness there exists no ego, no jeev, no shadow to obscure the Light.



3) The status of Vaheguru in Advaita is that Ishwar is assumed to be God only for the sake of it but in reality there is no other existence beyond Atma. There is no merger of Atma and Vaheguru but the realization that Atma is Vaheguru. In Gurmat clearly there is Vaheguru and the jeev and merger in Gurmat means that the jeev’s surthee is one with Vaheguru.
The Atma is the drop of ocean water. The Vaheguru is the ocean. The atma is the jyoti. The Vaheguru is the Paramjyoti. Advaita asks, "Is there a difference between ocean and Ocean?" "Is there a difference between light and Light?" There is no jeevatma (ego identity) which supercedes God. There is only God as true nature pervading within, a Superconscious Light hidden from perception by defilements deriving from the sansaaric world of the illusive pakrti, Maya and duality. This is transcended by merging with the Truth, Shabad, Naam, sound-current of the Naad, cleansing the inner Mirror, opening dasm duar, blossoming of sahasrara chakr, etc. The jeev's consciousness by merging, is no longer in bondage to three gunas, ego-identity and hence, no longer jeevatman, but only the Paramatma. How can you "merge" and still be a separate jeev?


4) There is no such thing as Prema Bhagti in Advaita because the Advaitin thinks that he or she is Brahman. They just have to realize this through intense mental cultivation. No room for Prema Bhagti because for Prema Bhagti one needs a wordhipper and the deity. In Gurmat, prema bhagti is the key to meeting with Vaheguru. Vaheguru is the deity and Jeev is the worshipper. The difference is very clear.[/quote]
The Advaitin does not think that he or she (individual jeev egos) is God. The Advaitin believes that the God is playing the part of individual jeevs.



ਚੋਜੀ ਮੇਰੇ ਗੋਵਿੰਦਾ ਚੋਜੀ ਮੇਰੇ ਪਿਆਰਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਮੇਰਾ ਚੋਜੀ ਜੀਉ ॥
chojee maerae govindhaa chojee maerae piaariaa har prabh maeraa chojee jeeo ||
Playful is my Lord of the Universe; playful is my Beloved. My Lord God is wondrous and playful.

ਹਰਿ ਆਪੇ ਕਾਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੁ ਉਪਾਇਦਾ ਮੇਰੇ ਗੋਵਿਦਾ ਹਰਿ ਆਪੇ ਗੋਪੀ ਖੋਜੀ ਜੀਉ ॥
har aapae kaanha oupaaeidhaa maerae govidhaa har aapae gopee khojee jeeo ||
The Lord Himself created Krishna, O my Lord of the Universe; the Lord Himself is the milkmaids who seek Him.

ਹਰਿ ਆਪੇ ਸਭ ਘਟ ਭੋਗਦਾ ਮੇਰੇ ਗੋਵਿੰਦਾ ਆਪੇ ਰਸੀਆ ਭੋਗੀ ਜੀਉ ॥
har aapae sabh ghatt bhogadhaa maerae govindhaa aapae raseeaa bhogee jeeo ||
The Lord Himself enjoys every heart, O my Lord of the Universe; He Himself is the Ravisher and the Enjoyer.

ਹਰਿ ਸੁਜਾਣੁ ਨ ਭੁਲਈ ਮੇਰੇ ਗੋਵਿੰਦਾ ਆਪੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਜੋਗੀ ਜੀਉ ॥੧॥
har sujaan n bhulee maerae govindhaa aapae sathigur jogee jeeo ||1||
The Lord is All-knowing - He cannot be fooled, O my Lord of the Universe. He is the True Guru, the Yogi. ||1||

ਆਪੇ ਜਗਤੁ ਉਪਾਇਦਾ ਮੇਰੇ ਗੋਵਿਦਾ ਹਰਿ ਆਪਿ ਖੇਲੈ ਬਹੁ ਰੰਗੀ ਜੀਉ ॥
aapae jagath oupaaeidhaa maerae govidhaa har aap khaelai bahu rangee jeeo ||
He Himself created the world, O my Lord of the Universe; the Lord Himself plays in so many ways!
~SGGS Ji p. 174



"Vaheguru is the deity and Jeev is the worshipper. The difference is very clear." Not really so clear as that veer ji. Advaita is not the philosophy of Gurbani. BUT, Gurbani clearly contains an Advaita component. The clearest philosophy of Gurbani is Achint Abedabeda, the philosophy which includes BOTH Dvaita (separate Object-subject, lover and Beloved) as well as Advaita (Everything is only the One Divine Beloved, and the world is only illusion.)



ਸੰਸਾ ਇਹੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ਹੈ ਸੁਤਿਆ ਰੈਣਿ ਵਿਹਾਇ ॥
sansaa eihu sansaar hai suthiaa rain vihaae ||
This world is an illusion; people pass their life-nights sleeping.
~SGGS Ji p. 36



ਸਦਾ ਮੁਕਤੁ ਆਪੇ ਹੈ ਸਚਾ ਆਪੇ ਅਲਖੁ ਲਖਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੪॥
sadhaa mukath aapae hai sachaa aapae alakh lakhaavaniaa ||4||
The True Lord is liberated forever. The Unseen Lord causes Himself to be seen. ||4||

ਆਪੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਆਪੇ ਛਾਇਆ ॥
aapae maaeiaa aapae shhaaeiaa ||
He Himself is Maya, and He Himself is the Illusion.

ਆਪੇ ਮੋਹੁ ਸਭੁ ਜਗਤੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥
aapae mohu sabh jagath oupaaeiaa ||
He Himself has generated emotional attachment throughout the entire universe.
~SGGS Ji p. 125



ਮ੍ਰਿਗ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਜਿਉ ਜਗ ਰਚਨਾ ਯਹ ਦੇਖਹੁ ਰਿਦੈ ਬਿਚਾਰਿ ॥
mrig thrisanaa jio jag rachanaa yeh dhaekhahu ridhai bichaar ||
The created world is like an illusion, a mirage - see this, and reflect upon it in your mind.

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਭਜੁ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਨਿਤ ਜਾ ਤੇ ਹੋਤ ਉਧਾਰ ॥੨॥੨॥
kahu naanak bhaj raam naam nith jaa thae hoth oudhhaar ||2||2||
Says Nanak, vibrate forever the Name of the Lord, which shall deliver you. ||2||2||
~SGGS Ji p. 536



ਆਪੇ ਪਾਰਸੁ ਆਪਿ ਧਾਤੁ ਹੈ ਆਪਿ ਕੀਤੋਨੁ ਕੰਚਨੁ ॥
aapae paaras aap dhhaath hai aap keethon kanchan ||
He Himself is the Philosopher's Stone, He Himself is the metal, and He Himself is transformed into gold.

ਆਪੇ ਠਾਕੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਕੁ ਆਪੇ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਪਾਪ ਖੰਡਨੁ ॥
aapae thaakur saevak aapae aapae hee paap khanddan ||
He Himself is the Lord and Master, He Himself is the servant, and He Himself is the Destroyer of sins.

ਆਪੇ ਸਭਿ ਘਟ ਭੋਗਵੈ ਸੁਆਮੀ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਸਭੁ ਅੰਜਨੁ ॥
aapae sabh ghatt bhogavai suaamee aapae hee sabh anjan ||
He Himself enjoys every heart; the Lord Master Himself is the basis of all illusion.
~SGGS Ji p. 552



ਏਕਸ ਤੇ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋਇ ॥
eaekas thae dhoojaa naahee koe ||
Everything comes from the One and only Lord; there is no other at all.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਬੂਝੈ ਸੋਝੀ ਹੋਇ ॥੯॥
guramukh boojhai sojhee hoe ||9||
The Gurmukh realizes this, and understands. ||9||
~SGGS Ji p. 842


~bhul chak maaf karni ji

Bibi Harjas Kaur jeeo,

Quote:

This is incorrect. The Advaitin believes that he is not the jeevatma, but the Real Self s that which is all-pervading within, the Paramatman. Hence, the Advaitin does not believe in his identity as being based on the false ego-identity self at all, but in the underlying core Reality.

You can say it which ever way you want but the bottomline is that the Advaitins believe that there is no difference between Aatma and Brahman and that Aatma is Brahman i.e. the ultimate nirgun God.

Quote:

1.) Nityānitya vastu viveka — The ability (viveka) to correctly discriminate between the eternal (nitya) substance (Brahman) and the substance that is transitory existence (anitya).

Hence Advaita clearly acknowledges the nirgun Brahman as eternal, versus the transitory, and hence illusory nature of the sansaara of pakrti. And this can be explained by understanding past versus present. In the past, your experiences and nature were very real to you. But now that it has become "past" you recollect the memory of it as a dream. What is passing away is in it's fundamental nature only illusion. It will cease to be a real experience and become part of the dream. Advaita teaches that our consciousness perceives Reality in shadow, as if in a dream state, while that which we perceive to be Real is the true dream. Advaita is not a "weird" philosophy at all, but must be understood in context of transcending consciousness. We are not the body. We are not even the mind. We are not the ego. We are no the individual jeevatma. We are the eternal Someone, Parabrahm who is at play dreaming of being a jeeva. When we wake up, obtain mukti, become free from samskaras and obstacles that delude consciousness, samskaras, kaleshas, karam, kalpas...

we the dream-being cease to exist... and realize we are the Self, the Divine Beloved, That which is... neti, neti, but beyond even description of language. This is the basis of concept of Self-realization, which is not that the individual is God, but that God has become an individual. The difference between the two (atma and Paramatma) is consciousness and clarity. In Turiya consciousness there exists no ego, no jeev, no shadow to obscure the Light.

But you still have not answered my question originally if there was and is only one Brahman and even now there is only one Brahman i.e. God, and that all the world, the creation, and even the jeev is illusion, then how did Brahman or God falter in the first place? How can a perfect God falter? I know you will say that Brahman still has not faltered but tell me whoever has faltered i.e. the jeev, how did it begin in the first place?

All the stuff you have written above, I do understand but this does not answer my question. You write the following:

Quote:

We are the eternal Someone, Parabrahm who is at play dreaming of being a jeeva. When we wake up, obtain mukti, become free from samskaras and obstacles that delude consciousness, samskaras, kaleshas, karam, kalpas...

After reading Gurbani and after understanding Gurbani can you even say the above in a dream? How can you say that 'Some, Parabrahm who is at play dreaming of being a dream' and is now stuck in maya. Parabrahm is not subject to dreams and he does not dream. Vaheguru is always in a highly conscious state.

Quote:

The Atma is the drop of ocean water. The Vaheguru is the ocean. The atma is the jyoti. The Vaheguru is the Paramjyoti. Advaita asks, "Is there a difference between ocean and Ocean?" "Is there a difference between light and Light?" There is no jeevatma (ego identity) which supercedes God.

Your above statement about Advaita is incorrect. Advaita does not believe in Aatma as being a drop of water and Vaheguru the ocean. It believes that Aatma IS Vaheguru and not a drop. Aatma is Vaheguru.

Quote:

The jeev's consciousness by merging, is no longer in bondage to three gunas, ego-identity and hence, no longer jeevatman, but only the Paramatma. How can you "merge" and still be a separate jeev?

Please refer to my previous posts on this thread and look for example of Siri Dasmesh jee whereby Siri Guru jee state it very clearly that they have merged and then still kept their identity.

Quote:

"Vaheguru is the deity and Jeev is the worshipper. The difference is very clear." Not really so clear as that veer ji. Advaita is not the philosophy of Gurbani. BUT, Gurbani clearly contains an Advaita component. The clearest philosophy of Gurbani is Achint Abedabeda, the philosophy which includes BOTH Dvaita (separate Object-subject, lover and Beloved) as well as Advaita (Everything is only the One Divine Beloved, and the world is only illusion.)

I have already mentioned under this thread in my previous posts that Achintya Abhedabhed is closer to Gurmat than other Dualist and Non-Dualist schools as far as the relationship between Jeev and Vaheguru is concerned but there are other components of this philosophy that do not go very well with Gurmat, especially the Radha Krishna component.

I am saddened to hear Bhain jeeo, that your thinking has changed so much from last time you were posting. As Veer Aatma Singh requested and advised, please stay firm in Khalsa rehit e.g. wearing Dastaar, doing Amritvela with Gurmat Naam Abhyaas and not indulging in anti-rehit stuff. Rest is your free will.

Your well-wisher,
Kulbir Singh

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

dear bhain jee harjas kaur jee,

apparently, Sant Mani Singh who was previously known as Resham Singh, wrote the below where he has, i presume, talked about his experience of Milaap with Vaheguroo. it is interesting that he too seemed to believe that Milaap with Par-Aatma does not equal non-existence of Jeev-Aatma.

ps - i personally am looking forward to finding out more about this Gursikh who sounds as though he led a very inspiring Tat Gurmat lifestyle and had lots of Guroo-Dee-Kirpaa.


ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

ਦਾਸ,
ਆਤਮਾ ਸਿੰਘ

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


[www.tapoban.org]


"When asked if one can dissolve with another he replied, “When you burn two lamps in a room, they meet. THE LIGHT MEETS. You can’t divide the first light from the second light. STILL THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. You can bring them close, even then their flames will remain different. The light will dissolve into each other. YOU CAN@T MELT INTO EACH-OTHER. Only your light can melt in the other – your outer aura.”

am i misunderstanding or are people saying that Guru Nanak and Amrit Sanchar is the ONLY way to God, throughout eternity?

"Your above statement about Advaita is incorrect. Advaita does not believe in Aatma as being a drop of water and Vaheguru the ocean. It believes that Aatma IS Vaheguru and not a drop. Aatma is Vaheguru. "

But look:

ਸਾਗਰ ਮਹਿ ਬੂੰਦ ਬੂੰਦ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਗਰੁ ਕਵਣੁ ਬੁਝੈ ਬਿਧਿ ਜਾਣੈ ॥ (Ang 878)

Also waht advaitins are saying (i think) is to end duality (subject-object or experience experienced and experiencer):

ਗੁਰਿ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਜਾ ਕੀ ਹੈ ਮਾਰੀ ॥ ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬੀਚਾਰੀ (Ang 1090)

Brahma- this is the word used for Paratma by Advaitins.

I do not think Advaiti is anti-Bhakti in anyway. expecially because if you look at people such as Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta- who were strongly associated with Advaita- as people who were Living it- they advocated Bhakti aswell as Jnana. I read an interview with Nisargadatta (its online somewhere) where he quoted sloaks by Guru Nanak to illustrate a point.

Quote:

But look:
ਸਾਗਰ ਮਹਿ ਬੂੰਦ ਬੂੰਦ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਗਰੁ ਕਵਣੁ ਬੁਝੈ ਬਿਧਿ ਜਾਣੈ ॥ (Ang 878)

Navjot, I looked at it. What are you trying to imply? This pankiti tells me that the jeev is in Vaheguru and Vaheguru is in jeev. This is not telling me that Aatma is Vaheguru and there is no Vaheguru separate or outside of Aatma, as Advaita preaches.

Quote:

ਗੁਰਿ ਦੁਬਿਧਾ ਜਾ ਕੀ ਹੈ ਮਾਰੀ ॥ ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸੋ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਬੀਚਾਰੀ (Ang 1090)
Brahma- this is the word used for Paratma by Advaitins.

So what if this is the word used by Advaitins for Paratma? Because of this are you trying to say that Advaita becomes Gurmat or Gurmat becomes Advaita?

Quote:

I do not think Advaiti is anti-Bhakti in anyway. expecially because if you look at people such as Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta- who were strongly associated with Advaita- as people who were Living it- they advocated Bhakti aswell as Jnana. I read an interview with Nisargadatta (its online somewhere) where he quoted sloaks by Guru Nanak to illustrate a point.

I don't have anything against any philosophy in the world including Advaita. All I am saying is that stop labelling Gurmat as Advaita or saying tha Gurmat is Advaita or that Gurmat subscribes to Advaita. That's all I am saying. As far as respect and awe is concerned I have it for both Advaita and it's contributing source - Buddhist philosophy. Though Shankracharya did not make any reference to Buddhist philosophy but his Guru's Guru Gaudapada did make references of admiration to Buddha and Nagarjana.

Regarding Ramana Maharishi, I have read about him and know that a lot of Westerners were his followers but I have never been impressed by him. One thing about him is that he had no Guru. I don't doubt the spiritual experiences he got but whatever the reason, I am not drawn towards him.

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir singh

I do not know how that sloak is telling you about jeev or Vahuguru since neither word is mentioned. The sloak says something lilke the drop is in the ocean and other ocean is in the drop. I didnt bring up the ocean/drop metaphor one of you lot did.

I think Advaita (not sure) they say that Ishwar is a projection of the mind in its dualistic state- going beyond the duality then it is realised that there was only One all along- Atma. Doesnt it say in Gurbani that you shouldnt go outside the body looking for It? Implying look within- Atma.

Strange you are comfortable when Guru uses muslim or arabic terminology, but when i point out that Advaita terminology is being used you say it isnt relevant. All I am saying is that Gurubani utilises the Advaita language too. I dont know where this jump to saying that Gurmat becomes Advaita came from, when did I imply that? When you say Guru is addressing Sufis are you saying that Islam becomes Gurmat and Gurmat becomes Islam? Why would you assume I am saying such a thing (Im not)?

At most I am saying that what they say is not totally different to what Guru Granth sometimes says- or so it seems to me.
Look at this:

ਨਹ ਕਿਛੁ ਜਨਮੈ ਨਹ ਕਿਛੁ ਮਰੈ ॥ (Ang 281)

Nor is anything born nor does anything die. Now doesnt this remind you of Gaudapada and his Ajativada?

I dont know what this word Gurmat is meant to imply, I dont personally use it. I wouldnt claim anything except Gurbani to be 'Gurmat'.

People are attacking Advaita (which I dont particularly ascribe to by the way) and I am merely pointing out some personal knowledge I have on the subject where I think what people are saying is inaccurate.

The thing about Advaita is that its something of a religious fashion these days and alot of preachers and thinkers have taken up its banner and spread false teachings grounded in their mere thought processes.

Gaudapada admired Buddha and Nagarjana? are you sure or is this what you read on wikipedia? I would be careful we know that Gurbani is often mistranslated so you can imagine what mistakes are made with a language as intricate as sanskrit, expecially when translated by westerners or modernist indians.

Its a little vain I think to disregard someome from our discussion just because you personally are not 'drawn' toawrds them. I mentioned Ramana Maharshi as an a modern exponent or perhaps(?) epitome of Advaita. That is all.

Navjot,

Quote:

I do not know how that sloak is telling you about jeev or Vahuguru since neither word is mentioned. The sloak says something lilke the drop is in the ocean and other ocean is in the drop.

Salok talks about Ocean and drop. It obviously means Jeev and Vaheguru.

Quote:

Strange you are comfortable when Guru uses muslim or arabic terminology, but when i point out that Advaita terminology is being used you say it isnt relevant.

I am equally comfortable whether Arabic terminology is employed or Vedic. The thing to understand is Gurmat principle. Guru Sahib has taken liberty to employ a lot of old words and terminology to prove the Gurmat point.

Quote:

All I am saying is that Gurubani utilises the Advaita language too. I dont know where this jump to saying that Gurmat becomes Advaita came from, when did I imply that? When you say Guru is addressing Sufis are you saying that Islam becomes Gurmat and Gurmat becomes Islam? Why would you assume I am saying such a thing (Im not)?

Theek hai Bhai Galtee ho gayee. Maaf karna, if I misunderstood your point.

Quote:

Gaudapada admired Buddha and Nagarjana? are you sure or is this what you read on wikipedia? I would be careful we know that Gurbani is often mistranslated so you can imagine what mistakes are made with a language as intricate as sanskrit, expecially when translated by westerners or modernist indians.

I read it in either Dr Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy or esteemed Bengali writer, a contemporary of Dr. Radhakrishnan - Surendranath Dasgupta who wrote the monumental work, a five volumed word, 'A History of India Philosophy'. Of course, I did not read the original work of Gaudapada that's written in Sanskrit. I know for fact that Surendranath Dasgupta was one of the few writers of India philosophy who had first hand knowledge from the original source i.e. Sanskrit source.

Kulbir Singh