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

one could say that it obviously means Atma and Paramatma.

even to look at it your way: 'Vaheguru is in Jeev and Jeev is in Vaheguru' you are saying that Jeev and Vahrguru are one and the same substance? (Like the drop and the ocean are btoh water) Interesting. Sounds very...advaitic

some (most) of these modern indian writers dont know how to translate. e.g. they translate Atma as meaning Self.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

Navjot jio,

Quote:

one could say that it obviously means Atma and Paramatma.

But the shabad is not letting us to derive that meaning. Please read the shabad completely.

ਸਾਗਰ ਮਹਿ ਬੂੰਦ ਬੂੰਦ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਗਰੁ ਕਵਣੁ ਬੁਝੈ ਬਿਧਿ ਜਾਣੈ ॥
ਉਤਭੁਜ ਚਲਤ ਆਪਿ ਕਰਿ ਚੀਨੈ ਆਪੇ ਤਤੁ ਪਛਾਣੈ ॥੧॥
ਐਸਾ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ਕੋਈ ॥
ਤਿਸ ਤੇ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
ਦਿਨ ਮਹਿ ਰੈਣਿ ਰੈਣਿ ਮਹਿ ਦਿਨੀਅਰੁ ਉਸਨ ਸੀਤ ਬਿਧਿ ਸੋਈ ॥
ਤਾ ਕੀ ਗਤਿ ਮਿਤਿ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਗੁਰ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਮਝ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥੨॥
ਪੁਰਖ ਮਹਿ ਨਾਰਿ ਨਾਰਿ ਮਹਿ ਪੁਰਖਾ ਬੂਝਹੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਗਿਆਨੀ ॥
ਧੁਨਿ ਮਹਿ ਧਿਆਨੁ ਧਿਆਨ ਮਹਿ ਜਾਨਿਆ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਕਥ ਕਹਾਨੀ ॥੩॥
ਮਨ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਹਿ ਮਨੂਆ ਪੰਚ ਮਿਲੇ ਗੁਰ ਭਾਈ ॥
ਨਾਨਕ ਤਿਨ ਕੈ ਸਦ ਬਲਿਹਾਰੀ ਜਿਨ ਏਕ ਸਬਦਿ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਈ ॥੪॥੯॥

Especially the last tuk which means:
Nanak is ever a sacrifice unto those who are entangled (by surat) in Eak Shabad (Naam).
Because it is relating to jeev that is why Guru Sahib used ਤਿਨ and ਜਿਨ words.
Hope that helps understanding the essence of this Shabad.

Guru Mehar karay

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru

concentration on sabad doesnt negate what i say or even prove what you say. i already told you advaita doesnt conflict with naam bhakti. 'jin' 'tin' these are pronouns used to refer to the person who does naam bhakti. so it says- to paraphrase- Nanak is a sacrficie to that who does naam bhakti. This is called language, the kind of language you or me in duality will understand.

so you have just thown in some little reasoning and run away. why dont YOU look at the whole sabad?

here is Kulbir Thind's translation of the second line (I use SriGranth.org as a reference):
"He Himself creates the wondrous play of the world. He Himself contemplates it, and understands its true essence. ||1|| "

do you dispute this translation of the second line of the first salok? By 'He' it is referring to God/Paratma. This answers the people here who are saying how can Brahm be in ignorance about its own nature as suggested by Advaitins, It is Brahms own play. That Brahma is in ignorance itself is an illusion.


Shall we continue?

Aisā gi­ān bīcẖārai ko­ī. Ŧis ṯė mukaṯ param gaṯ ho­ī.

Gian bichar- the way of a Jnani. To perceive things is this way- this one is liberated, the supreme state occurs in them.

i think you know this but are purposely being stubborn and denying it, just out of anti-hindu bigotry. Forgive me if I am wrong.

Guru ji speaks to Yogis and Jnanis aswell as Bhaktas.

sorry but just to add the rest of the pauri is negating opposites (or dualities). then Guru says:

Ḏẖun meh ḏẖi­ān ḏẖi­ān meh jāni­ā gurmukẖ akath kahānī.

so from Dhun (Naam) comes meditation and from meditation comes Jnana (Gian) of that which is Unspeakbale. right?

Quote:

concentration on sabad doesnt negate what i say or even prove what you say. i already told you advaita doesnt conflict with naam bhakti. 'jin' 'tin' these are pronouns used to refer to the person who does naam bhakti.

How doesn't Advaita conflict with Naam Bhagti when they don't believe in anything apart from their Aatma. The Brahman too is Aatma and the world is an illusion. How can they do prema bhagti? I mentioned it before that to do prema bhagti, one needs a worshipper and the worshippee i.e. deity. If one believe one's self or Aatma to be the ultimate reality, how can one do prema bhagti? This is why the way of Advaitins is Gyaan (I don't know why you insist on writing jnan instead of gyaan). Gurmat is all about prema bhagti of the deity Vaheguru.

Quote:

here is Kulbir Thind's translation of the second line (I use SriGranth.org as a reference):
"He Himself creates the wondrous play of the world. He Himself contemplates it, and understands its true essence. ||1|| "

do you dispute this translation of the second line of the first salok? By 'He' it is referring to God/Paratma.

Here is the pankiti I believe you are talking about above:

ਉਤਭੁਜ ਚਲਤ ਆਪਿ ਕਰਿ ਚੀਨੈ ਆਪੇ ਤਤੁ ਪਛਾਣੈ ॥੧॥

He himself creates the plant world (ਉਤਭੁਜ ) and other wonders of the world, then himself recognizes (ਚੀਨੈ) (the greatness of it), then himself recognizes the essence of it. This in no way is Advaita. In the first pankiti itself Guru Sahib established that in drop is ocean and in ocean is drop. This way two entities have been recognized, thereby negating Advaita. In this pankiti, Guru Sahib is taking the thought further and saying that he being in his own creation himself is doing all wonders of the world.

Quote:

This answers the people here who are saying how can Brahm be in ignorance about its own nature as suggested by Advaitins, It is Brahms own play. That Brahma is in ignorance itself is an illusion.

In this pankiti, it's now shown that Vaheguru is ignorant of his rachna. It just says that he himself creates the world and recognizes the greatness of it. This is echoed in the pankitis like Vekhai Vigsai Kar Vichaar. He himself looks at his creation, does vichaar on it greatness and Vigsai i.e. is contented and happy with is. This is not advaita that believes the creation to be an act of ignorance. In Gurmat the act of creation is a conscious act of Vaheguru.

Quote:

Shall we continue?

ਐਸਾ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ਕੋਈ ॥ ਤਿਸ ਤੇ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥


Gian bichar- the way of a Jnani. To perceive things is this way- this one is liberated, the supreme state occurs in them.

The above is your misunderstanding. Such vichaar is done by a rare person. What vichaar? That from Vaheguru one can obtain Mukti and receive the greatest spiritual position. How's this pankiti supporting Advaita?

Quote:

sorry but just to add the rest of the pauri is negating opposites (or dualities). then Guru says:
Ḏẖun meh ḏẖi­ān ḏẖi­ān meh jāni­ā gurmukẖ akath kahānī.

so from Dhun (Naam) comes meditation and from meditation comes Jnana (Gian) of that which is Unspeakbale. right?

This pankiti tells us about Gurmat Vidhi of Naam Abhyaas. The seeker has it's dhyaan (concentration) in the dhuni (of Naam) and by being in such dhyaan one realizes Vaheguru. Through Guru i.e. Gurmukh, such undescribable description is realized.

Kulbir Singh

Jnan, Jnani, Jnana- thats the way texts concerning advaita write it. Gyana is our panjabi, I'll happily stick to this panjabi form if you want.

They Believe that Atma= Brahman, it is the SAME as saying Brahman=Atma. They are synonymous. Advaitin is one worships Brahman. To the realised Advaitin (I suppose) it is Brahman who takes up the role of the unknowing Bhakta and Brahman also who takes up the role of the Ishta- it is Brahma worhsipping Brahma.

You say the ocean drop mentioned in Gurbani negates advaita. But isnt it saying that the ocean and the drop are in ESSENCE the same thing? Atma=Brahma Brahma=Atma. By saying that Jeev is in Prabh and Prabh is in Jeev are you saying that Prabh is in essence Jeev? This is clearly ridiculous, as we say Prabh is Akal and Ajoni.

I think this salok is saying something similar to the salok about the ocean and drop:

Āṯmaʼn sarī bāsavḏaivas­y jė ko­ī jānas bẖėv.
Nānak ṯā ko ḏās hai so­ī niranjan ḏėv.
(Ang 1353)

you ask how can advaitins do bhagti? Nisargadatta himself did Japa. Heres a quote attributed to Ramana Maharshi:

"When the Japa becomes continuous, all other thoughts cease and one is in one’s real nature, which is Japa or Dhyana (meditation or contemplation). We turn our mind outwards on things of the world and are therefore not aware of our real nature being always Japa. When the conscious effort of Japa or Dhyana, as we call it, we prevent our mind from thinking of other things, then what remains is our real nature, which is Japa."

"So long as you think you are name and form, you can’t escape name and form in Japa also. When you realise you are not name and form, then name and form will drop of themselves. No other effort is necessary. Japa or Dhyana will naturally and as a matter of course lead to it. What is now regarded as the means, Japa, will then be found to be the goal. Name and God are not different. This is clearly shown in the teachings of Namdev"

Surely you are not so arrogant to tell Advaitins what they do and dont believe?

"Gurmat is all about prema bhagti of the deity Vaheguru." to me it seems that in paath it say that it is God Itself that ultimately performs the Bhagti. Theres no actual jeev-self there to do it:

"Hari Aape Thakur Hari Aape Sevaku Ji Kia Nanak Jant Vichara" (So Purakh paath)

"ਆਪ ਹੀ ਪੂਜਾਰੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਦੇਵਾ ॥੩॥ " (Ang 803)


i took outbuj to mean/be on par with kudrat. that salok doesnt use the word 'creates'- 'chalat' and 'kar' do not translate to creates. they are present tense. 'chalat' things are 'going' according to God's power and 'kar' God is 'doing' these things. to say that it translates to "Guru Sahib is taking the thought further and saying that he being in his own creation himself is doing all wonders of the world." is not correct. look at the language. 'Aapay Tatu Pachaanai' - God Itself is Beholding 'Tat'. To behold Tat is a matter of Bichar.

The impression I have is that: Advaita doesnt believe creation to be an act of ignorance (like a mistake) as you suggest but it believes that the perception that there is a creation is out of ignorance. This is NOT the same thing.

Like i said im not upholding Advait as the same as Gurmat. Howevr you appear to have some notion of a 'Gurmat' ideology that applies throughtout the Guru Granth. I dont believe such a thing could ever work. The Guru Granth has many contradicitions- your gurmat ideology wont stand up to all of its saloks- not only that but tells us to abandon Sianap. This comes down to the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Theres different modes of expression for Ultimate Truth.

Now answer me this- do you or dont you agree with the muslim sufis talk of fana (annihilation)? I want a clear answer.

Quote:

Howevr you appear to have some notion of a 'Gurmat' ideology that applies throughtout the Guru Granth. I dont believe such a thing could ever work. The Guru Granth has many contradicitions- your gurmat ideology wont stand up to all of its saloks

A Sikh could not have written the above. How can you say that Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee has many contradictions? First of all there are no contradictions. Secondly, if you perceive some contradictions, these are are result of your (or anyone else's) imperfect wisdom. Gurmat (Ideology of the Gurus) is just as perfect as Vaheguru himself because as per Gurbani, Gurbani is 'Dhur kee Baani' i.e. has come directly from Tatt-Gyaan saroop Vaheguru.

You don't seem to have faith in Gurbani because this is why you have stated that it contains contradictions. There is no point debating with you because I am going to quote from Gurbani and you don't seem to have faith in it. If you want to do Tarka-vaad, then it's a different story.

Quote:

Now answer me this- do you or dont you agree with the muslim sufis talk of fana (annihilation)? I want a clear answer.

I don't believe in the fanah notion of Sufis, or Shuniya notion of Buddhist or in Aatma being Parmatma notion of Advaitins.

Quote:

"Gurmat is all about prema bhagti of the deity Vaheguru." to me it seems that in paath it say that it is God Itself that ultimately performs the Bhagti. Theres no actual jeev-self there to do it:
"Hari Aape Thakur Hari Aape Sevaku Ji Kia Nanak Jant Vichara" (So Purakh paath)

"ਆਪ ਹੀ ਪੂਜਾਰੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਦੇਵਾ ॥੩॥ " (Ang 803)

The above pankitis just mean that Vaheguru is pervading in all his creation including the jeevs. When the jeev gets Vaheguru-realization, he realizes that Vaheguru is all-pervading i.e. in everyone and is controlling everything. In this sense the above pankiti is stated, not in the sense that there is no Jeev and only Brahm as is the case with Advaitins.

Navjot, if you are so sympathatic to Advaita, please go first convince the Madhvas to accept Advaita. Why are you forcing Advaita on us? First convince the Vaishnavs schools like Madhvas, Vallabhas, Nimbarkas and Chaitaniyas about Advaita. These Hindu schools have rejected Advaita and you are insisting it on us? They go so far as saying that Madhva who's considered to be an avatar of Pavan, was a born enemy of Shankra.

The pankitis that you are quoting tell us that Vaheguru is all pervading. It tells us that inside the jeev is Vaheguru and since the jeev lives in this world and this world is in Vaheguru therefore the jeev too is in Vaheguru. These pankitis don't prove an Advaita notion of Aatma being Vaheguru and that nothing exists beside Aatma.

Quote:

i took outbuj to mean/be on par with kudrat. that salok doesnt use the word 'creates'- 'chalat' and 'kar' do not translate to creates. they are present tense. 'chalat' things are 'going' according to God's power and 'kar' God is 'doing' these things.

Utbhuj means creation of banaspati (the plant world) but eventually it means the whole creation. Chalat does not means things are going. You are mistaken here. You are translating this word wrongly as a verb whereas this word Chalat is a noun and it means wonders. Do some more research of this word and you will realize that many times this word is used in the meanings of wonders. As for 'kar', this actually means 'kar ke'. Please refer to translation of Viyakaran masters including Professor Sahib Singh and Giani Harbans Singh for more details. The meanings that I did are in line with theirs.

Quote:

you ask how can advaitins do bhagti? Nisargadatta himself did Japa. Heres a quote attributed to Ramana Maharshi:
"When the Japa becomes continuous, all other thoughts cease and one is in one’s real nature, which is Japa or Dhyana (meditation or contemplation). We turn our mind outwards on things of the world and are therefore not aware of our real nature being always Japa. When the conscious effort of Japa or Dhyana, as we call it, we prevent our mind from thinking of other things, then what remains is our real nature, which is Japa."

"So long as you think you are name and form, you can’t escape name and form in Japa also. When you realise you are not name and form, then name and form will drop of themselves. No other effort is necessary. Japa or Dhyana will naturally and as a matter of course lead to it. What is now regarded as the means, Japa, will then be found to be the goal. Name and God are not different. This is clearly shown in the teachings of Namdev"

Surely you are not so arrogant to tell Advaitins what they do and dont believe?

Just because one is doing japa does not mean that one is doing Prema Bhagti. You must know this much. Prema Bhagti is not only about Japa but also about total submission to the Deity. The Buddhist who are silent about Vaheguru too do Japa of Mantras including the japa of 'Buddho Buddho'. Does this make their japa part of Prema Bhagti? Same way the japa that Nisargadatta did was not of a deity but of himself i.e. repeating that he is he is (I am I am). You are classifying this as Prema Bhagti?

I don't have anything personal against Advaita but all I am saying is that Gurmat is Gurmat and not Advaita, Vishesh-Advaita or Duvaita. Gurmat is unique. There are similarities between Gurmat and all these schools of Advaita and Dvaita but this does not mean that Gurmat subscribes to these thoughts.

Quote:

You say the ocean drop mentioned in Gurbani negates advaita. But isnt it saying that the ocean and the drop are in ESSENCE the same thing? Atma=Brahma Brahma=Atma.

Your logic is strange. The drop and ocean have same chemical properties but this does not mean that the drop equals ocean. Can you sail a ship in a drop of water? No. But you can sail it in the ocean. Why are you debating a vain debate? Vaheguru and jeev dont' equal in Gurmat. Period.

Quote:

By saying that Jeev is in Prabh and Prabh is in Jeev are you saying that Prabh is in essence Jeev? This is clearly ridiculous, as we say Prabh is Akal and Ajoni.

It is you who is stating the ridiculous by saying that because Vaheguru is in present in the jeev, it is taking birth. This is the greatness of Vaheguru that he is in his creation but still is Naranjan i.e. without Anjan i.e. without the effect of maya. Please read Gurbani more keenly to get this understanding that Vaheguru is in his creation but Nirlayp from it as well.

Kulbir Singh

Any ideology is manmat. produce of mind. There are different modes of expression. Apparent contradictions expose the limitations of thinking. The Zen Buddhists know the power of contradiction (or paradox, if you prefer). Gurubani is unfettered by logic.

perhaps you want to believe there is an ideology so that you can build a school of thought about it, with instructions. Guru Granth isnt a ideological document. you've developed a few ideas and now all your understanding of any paath you psychologically interpret to fit these ideas. its a mental game. your are following your own interpretation rather than the paath itself. Anything that suggests elsewise you find alarming. However I actually see this attitude of mind as beneficial. Because such strong faith implies one's mind is becomeing one pointed in is devotion.

What astonds me is your arrogance- telling people what a sikh could or couldnt have written, telling people what things mean etc.

If God is all pervading and controlling everything, that means that everything is God. If God is pervading and controlling the Jeev completely as well as the non-Jeev then how is this different as everything is Brahm. Do you know the shabad- 'ek tu hi ek tu hi ek tu hi'? I suppose what you are saying is some kind of pantheism. That the world is materially real.

Tell me this, can there be sense of being a Jeev without Haumai (I am)?

Who is 'forcing' advaita on anyone? I could turn around and say why are you enforcing your Vaheguru-Jeev stuff on me and Harjas Kaur? I have only taken the defensive position in all these posts. Why are you bringing all these Hindu schools into it? What have they got to do with me as a sikh? I can see alot of similarities there that is all- look at the vocab they use like ajati, or the way they describe atma reminds me of the descriptions of Parabrahm in Gurubani before any creation occured. But im not a follower of advaita, i already said that.

to me Japa in sikhi is not limited to prema bhagti. but even then if you read their writings they do not reject prema bhakti or japa on a deity. Japa by its nature is an act of devotion.

For the record I agree that kathaks shouldnt be preaching advaita in Gurduaras. But then I think kathaks are a waste of space anyway.

Quote:

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.

You continue to misunderstand an essential difference. Advaitins do not believe the individual JEEV, the individual ego-atman is the same as nirgun Brahman, because the nature of individuality and ego is avidya. They believe the ego-identity is an illusory quality associated with distortion of perception in the world of pakrti. But that the inner light, the inner soul quality of the individual atman, is the hidden All-Pervading One who has no second. To see a second, as separate object-identity, is immediately to perceive in duality.

Quote:

ye tv aksharam anirdesyam avyaktam paryupasate sarvatra-gam acintyam ca
kuta-stham acalam dhruvam sanniyamyendriya-gramam sarvatra sama-buddhayah
te prapnuvanti mam eva sarva-bhuta-hite ratah
"But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable -- the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth -- by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me." ~Bhagavad-gita As It Is 12.3-4

Even the Bhagavad-Gita which discusses relationship between the atman and the Paramatman (Bhagavan Krishna) in terms of Dvaita, can also be construed to coincide with Advaita if you take the personal object ("at last achieve Me," as saying equally, "at last achieve Self-Realization." Because it is in changing of perception surpassing the senses, to awakening awareness of the Transcendant All-Pervading which is controlling and within all beings which leads to merging. Dvaita keeps the focus on the dual aspect of lover and Divine Beloved, whereas Advaita tries to explain what is not logical to human minds, that this Holy relationship between soul and God at a deeper level of reality has no subject, has no Object, but is only appearing so due to the misperception because of the nature of created materiality. Beyond the world of the three gunas, this misperception does not apply, because it is outside the constraints of Maya and duality. Outside of duality, there is no separation between the Creator and His creation... because at a fundamental level, there is no creation. All is appearance manifesting in the Time dimension. In infinity, time is not a reality. So these things must be perceived with a higher level of consciousness because they aren't logical to the brain.

Quote:

ਤ੍ਰੈ ਗੁਣ ਮਾਇਆ ਮੋਹੁ ਹੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਚਉਥਾ ਪਦੁ ਪਾਇ ॥
thrai gun maaeiaa mohu hai guramukh chouthhaa padh paae ||
The three qualities hold people in attachment to Maya. The Gurmukh attains the fourth state of higher consciousness.

ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਮੇਲਾਇਅਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਸਿਆ ਮਨਿ ਆਇ ॥
kar kirapaa maelaaeian har naam vasiaa man aae ||
Granting His Grace, God unites us with Himself. The Name of the Lord comes to abide within the mind.
~SGGS Ji p. 30

You keep saying Advaita teaches the jeev atman is the same thing as Brahman, as if to say all the petty little egos are the same thing as God. This is not so. It is a misunderstanding of the teachings. To awaken from the illusion of the separate self (ego-identity which obscures the true light of the inner atman) is to realize that the Self (Brahman) was the only Presence with Reality all along, hidden by a veil of illusion as a separate individual being (jeev atman).

Shri Shankara is saying that the ultimate Reality (nirguna) is non-dual, and so can't be perceived or explained in terms of duality and separation. For one thing, nirguna is infinite, and hence outside of the Time dimension. Since the entire universe and worlds upon worlds including Brahma-loka are passing away and of transient nature, in a dimension outside of Time, they already cease to exist, and are illusory. Atman आत्मन्‍ as defined as that which is beyond identification with the transient world of passing forms, pakrti.

Quote:

sa nityo nitya-sambandhah prakritis ca paraiva sa
"The same jiva is eternal and is for eternity and without a beginning joined to the Supreme Lord by the tie of an eternal kinship. He is transcendental spiritual potency." ~Sri Brahma-samhita 5.21

Quote:

ਜਾਤਿ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਮਹਿ ਜਾਤਾ ਅਕਲ ਕਲਾ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ਰਹਿਆ ॥
jaath mehi joth joth mehi jaathaa akal kalaa bharapoor rehiaa ||
Your Light is in Your creatures, and Your creatures are in Your Light; Your almighty power is pervading everywhere.
~SGGS Ji p. 469

"Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (all this is Brahman), (Ch. Up. III. 14. 1).

Quote:

Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of senses, mind or intellect. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. [www.shankaracharya.org]

And Gurbani says the same:

Quote:

ਦੂਜੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਜਗਤ ਚਿਤ ਵਾਸੁ ॥
dhoojee maaeiaa jagath chith vaas ||
The duality of Maya dwells in the consciousness of the people of the world.

ਕਾਮ ਕ੍ਰੋਧ ਅਹੰਕਾਰ ਬਿਨਾਸੁ ॥੧॥
kaam krodhh ahankaar binaas ||1||
They are destroyed by sexual desire, anger and egotism. ||1||

ਦੂਜਾ ਕਉਣੁ ਕਹਾ ਨਹੀ ਕੋਈ ॥
dhoojaa koun kehaa nehee koee ||
Whom should I call the second, when there is only the One?

ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨੁ ਸੋਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
sabh mehi eaek niranjan soee ||1|| rehaao ||
The One Immaculate Lord is pervading among all. ||1||Pause||

ਦੂਜੀ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਆਖੈ ਦੋਇ ॥
dhoojee dhuramath aakhai dhoe ||
The dual-minded evil intellect speaks of a second.

ਆਵੈ ਜਾਇ ਮਰਿ ਦੂਜਾ ਹੋਇ ॥੨॥
aavai jaae mar dhoojaa hoe ||2||
One who harbors duality comes and goes and dies. ||2||

ਧਰਣਿ ਗਗਨ ਨਹ ਦੇਖਉ ਦੋਇ ॥
dhharan gagan neh dhaekho dhoe ||
In the earth and in the sky, I do not see any second.

ਨਾਰੀ ਪੁਰਖ ਸਬਾਈ ਲੋਇ ॥੩॥
naaree purakh sabaaee loe ||3||
Among all the women and the men, His Light is shining. ||3||

ਰਵਿ ਸਸਿ ਦੇਖਉ ਦੀਪਕ ਉਜਿਆਲਾ ॥
rav sas dhaekho dheepak oujiaalaa ||
In the lamps of the sun and the moon, I see His Light.

ਸਰਬ ਨਿਰੰਤਰਿ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਮੁ ਬਾਲਾ ॥੪॥
sarab niranthar preetham baalaa ||4||
Dwelling among all is my ever-youthful Beloved. ||4||

ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ॥
kar kirapaa maeraa chith laaeiaa ||
In His Mercy, He attuned my consciousness to the Lord.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰਿ ਮੋ ਕਉ ਏਕੁ ਬੁਝਾਇਆ ॥੫॥
sathigur mo ko eaek bujhaaeiaa ||5||
The True Guru has led me to understand the One Lord. ||5||

ਏਕੁ ਨਿਰੰਜਨੁ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਾਤਾ ॥
eaek niranjan guramukh jaathaa ||
The Gurmukh knows the One Immaculate Lord.

ਦੂਜਾ ਮਾਰਿ ਸਬਦਿ ਪਛਾਤਾ ॥੬॥
dhoojaa maar sabadh pashhaathaa ||6||
Subduing duality, one comes to realize the Word of the Shabad. ||6||

ਏਕੋ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਵਰਤੈ ਸਭ ਲੋਈ ॥
eaeko hukam varathai sabh loee ||
The Command of the One Lord prevails throughout all the worlds.

ਏਕਸੁ ਤੇ ਸਭ ਓਪਤਿ ਹੋਈ ॥੭॥
eaekas thae sabh oupath hoee ||7||
From the One, all have arisen. ||7||

ਰਾਹ ਦੋਵੈ ਖਸਮੁ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਣੁ ॥
raah dhovai khasam eaeko jaan ||
There are two routes, but remember that their Lord and Master is only One.

ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਹੁਕਮੁ ਪਛਾਣੁ ॥੮॥
gur kai sabadh hukam pashhaan ||8||
Through the Word of the Guru's Shabad, recognize the Hukam of the Lord's Command. ||8||

ਸਗਲ ਰੂਪ ਵਰਨ ਮਨ ਮਾਹੀ ॥
sagal roop varan man maahee ||
He is contained in all forms, colors and minds.

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਏਕੋ ਸਾਲਾਹੀ ॥੯॥੫॥
kahu naanak eaeko saalaahee ||9||5||
Says Nanak, praise the One Lord. ||9||5||
~SGGS Ji p. 223

Quote:

ਖੋਜਤ ਖੋਜਤ ਪਾਇਆ ਡਰੁ ਕਰਿ ਮਿਲੈ ਮਿਲਾਇ ॥
khojath khojath paaeiaa ddar kar milai milaae ||
I searched and searched, and found God. In the Fear of God, I have been united in His Union.

ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੈ ਘਰਿ ਵਸੈ ਹਉਮੈ ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਜਾਇ ॥
aap pashhaanai ghar vasai houmai thrisanaa jaae ||
Through self-realization, people dwell within the home of their inner being; egotism and desire depart.

ਨਾਨਕ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਊਜਲੇ ਜੋ ਰਾਤੇ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਇ ॥੮॥੭॥
naanak niramal oojalae jo raathae har naae ||8||7||
O Nanak, those who are attuned to the Name of the Lord are immaculate and radiant. ||8||7||
~SGGS Ji p. 57

~Bhul chak maaf karni ji

Quote:

How doesn't Advaita conflict with Naam Bhagti when they don't believe in anything apart from their Aatma. The Brahman too is Aatma and the world is an illusion. How can they do prema bhagti? I mentioned it before that to do prema bhagti, one needs a worshipper and the worshippee i.e. deity. If one believe one's self or Aatma to be the ultimate reality, how can one do prema bhagti?

Gurbani also says the world is illusion veer ji. Where did you get the notion Advaitins only believe in their own Atman and not in God? This is a ridiculous characterization. Advaitins believe that their ultimate identity is God Himself, which is a very different thing than believing their petty little ego-natures are God. Sikhs also believe this in the sense that a Gurmukh becomes merged in Vaheguru. This is by recognizing the Sanskrit definition of atman as being that uncreated aspect within living beings. So there is an aspect within created beings which is uncreated and eternal, and hence part of the Ajooni. As Sage Shankara teaches, the atman is everything that the Paramatman is... only appearing as separate (in the world of false appearances, sansaar). When the atman merges, unites with the Paramatman, or is Realized in Turiya consciousness, there is only Paramatman, because illusion of separation ceases to exist. The Atman is the same as Paramatman.


Naam bhagkti is a method of obtaining Self-realization, mukti. Advaitins use Self-inquiry which you properly noted is a form of Gyana, or Jyana depending on linguistical preference. According to Guru Sahib, in Kaliyuga the japping of Naam with devotion is the safest way to cross the ocean of suffering. But we don't have to belittle the wise philosophies of Advaita to prove anything about superiority of Sikhi. Often such attitudes only show lack of understanding, tolerance and respect for other teachings, and lack of familiarity at how close they actually are to Sikhi since Sikhi is derived from all the wisdom of the Vedas according to Gurbani.

Quote:

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਵੇਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਈ ॥
guramukh naadhan guramukh vaedhan guramukh rehiaa samaaee ||
The Guru's Word is the Sound-current of the Naad; the Guru's Word is the Wisdom of the Vedas; the Guru's Word is all-pervading.

ਗੁਰੁ ਈਸਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਰਖੁ ਬਰਮਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਰਬਤੀ ਮਾਈ ॥
gur eesar gur gorakh baramaa gur paarabathee maaee ||
The Guru is Shiva, the Guru is Vishnu and Brahma; the Guru is Paarvati and Lakhshmi.
~SGGS Ji p. 2

Quote:

This single, unitary divinity had several aspects and names in the Upanishads, one of the most important of which is Atman, a word that originally meant "breath" or "soul" or "vital principle" (as the word "Atmen" does in German). As a cosmological principle or deity, Atman seems to be something like "universal soul" or "universal spirit." In the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanishad , Atman is explicitly called a Person that created the universe by first splitting himself into male and female halves. In the Chandogya Upanishad, this single god is called Brahman, and is "the One without a second"; this Brahman is not only the principle and creator of all there is, but is also fully present within each individual.

This dual conception, Brahman and Atman, gets worked out in the following way. Brahman can be located both in the physical, external world and also in the spiritual and inner world where it is present as Atman, "universal spirit." Now every human being has an undying soul (atman) which, because of samsara, lasts through eternity from life to life; this undying atman is a microcosm of Atman, the universal spirit. By understanding yourself, by coming to know one's own soul, one then arrives at the knowledge of Atman itself; the key to understanding the nature of the one unitary principle of the universe is to see one's (undying) self as identical with that principle: "tat svam asi": That (Atman) is what you are, Svetaketu. (Chandogya Upanishad VI.8.4ff.)


Here's the equation: Brahman=Atman=atman. Brahman is the totality of the universe as it is present outside of you;, Atman is the totality of the universe as it is present within you; Brahman is the totality of the world known objectively, Atman is the totality of the world known subjectively.

This equation fundamentally underlies the whole of Krishna's teachings concerning dharma in the Baghavad Gita. [www.wsu.edu]

Harjas Kaur:


"since Sikhi is derived from all the wisdom of the Vedas according to Gurbani. "

'derived'? i dont think thats correct, nowhere have i heard or seen it said that sikhi is derived from Vedas. If that was so Guru Nanak would not have rejected the sacred thread ceremony.

Sikhi came direct from Prabh/Vaheguru.

I think sometimes Guru talks about the essence of the Vedas, or that the Vedas also state something stated.

Quote:

"since Sikhi is derived from all the wisdom of the Vedas according to Gurbani. "

Simrat Shastr Bedh sabhai bhoh bhedh kahe hum ek n janiyo

We read this in our reheras Sahib every day.

Bhehen Harjas Kaur Jee, even though the Gurus clearly say Vaheguru created Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma yet why are you still insisting that Vishnu is our IshtDev? Even Vaheguru himself says this (Akal Purkh Baach!) in Bachintr Naatak when talking to Guru Gobind Singh Jee, yet insisting on the opposite.

Just because kirtam names like Ram, Krishan, Gopal, Gobind are used for Vaheguru does not mean the Guru are referring to the Avtars of Vishnu. The Gurus have also used Islamic names like Allah and Rahim for Vaheguru yet no one is saying that Sikhi subscribes to Islam.

When our Tenth Master has clearly written:

Kishan Bishan Kabhun na diaun
Kan sune paihchan na tin son
Liv lagi mohi pag in son
Maha kal rakhvar hamaro
Maha loh mai kinkar tharo

I do not worship Krishna or Vishnu, etc. I do not recognize them. I am engrossed in the loving-devotion of my Lord alone. The Lord of death, Akal, is my refuge. He saves me in all tribulations

When our Guru has clearly written this, then why are you still insisting that Sikhi is a Vishnu worshiping faith? Was Guru Gobind Singh Jee unaware of Sikh philosophy when he wrote ``Kishan Bishan Kabhun na Diau``?

I really find it strange for people to actually think that Sikhi subscribes to Advaitism when Gurbani clearly contradicts Advait Vedanta. The sad thing is that now that it is proven that Gurbani does not agree with Advaitism, we now have Sikhs who are now openly stating that it is Gurbani which is full of contradictions! How sad state of affairs our Panth is right now that Sikhs themselves are casting doubts about uniformity of the perfect Bani of the Gurus.

To some here Gurbani of Guru Nanak may by contradictory, but the Advait Vedant of Shankar Acharya is ``perfect`` despite the fact that all other major schools of Vedanta in India do not agree with Advait Vedant and have even refuted it.

I think that it`s all to do with what is the current trend. I have seen these Sikh discussion forums for a long time. During the 90s I remember that it was considered very trendy to identify Gurmat with Sufism and Islam, so many Sikhs would go to any length in trying to identify with Sufism, many would start using Sufi terminology while a small minority would even make an effort to say that Sikhi IS Sufism. After Sep-11-2001 it was no longer fashionable to identify with anything Islamic. After that trend the new trend was Buddhism.

For a few years many Sikhs relate Gurmat to Buddhism, and that stayed on for many years. But since the last year or so Advait Vedant has become very fashionable amongst Sikhs in discussion forums. It's the new trend (for now). Now we are saying that Sikhi subscribes to Advaitism. And where ever Gurbani contradictions Advaitism, it must be Gurbani that is at error or "contradictory", because Advaitism can never be wrong as it is "perfect".

bed kateb na bhed lakhiyo sabh haar paray Har haath na aaio.

vedas and katebas have not unravelled God's mystery; they have been wearied in their search, but have not been able to attain Him. 8.250 (35)

Bed Puran haar hath chhadiyo tadap dhian na aay. 1

The vedas and the puranas failed and hence gave up all their efforts for realising Him. (711)

Ik bin doosar so na chinaar,
Bhanjan garhan samrath sadaa Prabh jaanat hai Kartar 1 Rahau

Except one God do not accept anyone else. God is the Destroyer , the Designer, the Omnipotent and the Eternal, who is known as the Creator. Pause.

Jo jeea hot det kachh tuh kar man bach karam bichar.

If these stones had any life, they could have given you something. Just rely on your thoughts, words, and deeds.



kaun baat pari tisai path sarthi rath koi 1
Taat maat na jaat jakaar putr potra mukand.
kaun kaaj kahahingay aan devknand.2
Dev dait disaa visaa jeh keen sarab, pasaar.
Kaun upmaa taun ko mukh let nam murar 3

What need had he to be the driver of Arjuns chariot?
God the bestower of salvation, has neither father nor mother nor caste nor son nor grandson.
What for should he have to come into the world to be known as the son of Devki?
He has created gods, demons and spread them in all directions.
What glory do we offer Him when we call him by the name of Murar. (711)

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

xzik101 jio,

Quote "The sad thing is that now that it is proven that Gurbani does not agree with Advaitism, we now have Sikhs who are now openly stating that it is Gurbani which is full of contradictions! How sad state of affairs our Panth is right now that Sikhs themselves are casting doubts about uniformity of the perfect Bani of the Gurus."

ਬਿਲਕੁਲ ਦਰੁਸਤ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਆ ਆਪ ਜੀ ਨੇ। ਖਵਰੇ ਕਿਉਂ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਸਿੱਖਾ ਨੂੰ ਅੱਜ ਮਾਂ ਨਾਲੋ ਵੱਧ ਮਾਸੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਹੇਜ ਜਾਗ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ? ਲਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਇਹ ਸੰਤ ਭਾਸ਼ਾ ਤੋਂ ਅੱਕ ਗਏ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਵੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਣਾ ਦੀਆਂ ਚਟਪਟੀਆ ਗੱਲਾ ਵਿਚ ਜਿਆਦਾ ਸੁਆਦ ਆਉਣ ਲਗ ਪਿਆ ਹੈ। ਕੁੱਝ ਵੀ ਗੱਲ ਹੋਵੇ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਮੌਸਮੀ ਸਿੱਖਾ ਨੂੰ ਇਕ ਗੱਲ ਦ੍ਰਿੜ ਕਰ ਲੈਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਜੇਕਰ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇ ਘਰ ਵਿਚ ਪੂਰੀ ਨਹੀ ਪਈ ਤਾਂ ਲੱਖ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਲਗਾ ਲੈਣ ਭਾਂਵੇ ਸਾਰੀ ਦੁਨੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਭ੍ਰਮਣ ਕਰ ਲੈਣ, ਕੁਲ ਦੁਨੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੇਦ ਸ਼ਾਸ਼ਤਰ ਪੜ ਲੈਣ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੂਰੀ ਕਿਤੋਂ ਨਹੀ ਪੈਣੀ ਅੰਤ ਨਿਬੇੜੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਘਰ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਹੀ ਹੋਣੇ ਹਨ।

ਸਿਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ ਬੇਦ ਵਖਾਣੈ ॥ ਭਰਮੇ ਭੂਲਾ ਤਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ॥
ਬਿਨੁ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸੇਵੇ ਸੁਖੁ ਨ ਪਾਏ ॥ ਦੁਖੋ ਦੁਖੁ ਕਮਾਵਣਿਆ ॥੭॥ Panna 114

Guru Mehar Karay

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

bhain jee harjas kaur jee,

you wrote:


"...since Sikhi is derived from all the wisdom of the Vedas according to Gurbani.

Quote:
ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਨਾਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਵੇਦੰ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਸਮਾਈ ॥
guramukh naadhan guramukh vaedhan guramukh rehiaa samaaee ||
The Guru's Word is the Sound-current of the Naad; the Guru's Word is the Wisdom of the Vedas; the Guru's Word is all-pervading.

ਗੁਰੁ ਈਸਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਗੋਰਖੁ ਬਰਮਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਪਾਰਬਤੀ ਮਾਈ ॥
gur eesar gur gorakh baramaa gur paarabathee maaee ||
The Guru is Shiva, the Guru is Vishnu and Brahma; the Guru is Paarvati and Lakhshmi.
~SGGS Ji p. 2"


bhain jee, i genuinely can't remember the last time i saw a Du-panktee be so completely mis-interpreted in order to make a point. please explain how you arrived at this conclusion. this Du-panktee and the way you quoted it was challenged by myself and Veer Kulbir Singh Jee elsewhere but you insist on using it once again to make a bogus claim.

here's a simple litmus test - see what Your Father says in Choupee Sahib regarding not recognising these scriptures and then re-interpet what the above is more liklely to mean, paying attention to the whole PauRee...

we all need to use the Kaswatee of GurbaaNee to judge the rest of GurbaaNee. this is how to establish an overall consistent Gurmat context.

the only other route open to us is to proclaim that GurbaaNee is contradictory. i really wouldn't advise anyone to start to or to continue to walk upon that cursed path.

sadly, it seems some people already have judging by this and the other related thread.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

ਦਾਸ,
ਆਤਮਾ ਸਿੰਘ

xzik

i suggest you read things carefully before responding to them, to stop yourself looking foolish in future. otherwise the only discussion you are having is with your own imagination.

its the anti-hindu trend that continued the longest, starting from your singh sabha forefathers wanting to bootlick the Christian missionary mindset of the English Raj. even now sikhs boast about their presence in the english army- against their own des- like this is something to be proud of.

Now in Guru Granth Hari is distinguished from from Vishnu ('Bisan' or 'Bisnu') to signify Akal. Even though Gurus use this Naam most they distinguish sikhs from Vaishnavas (e.g. pauris addressed to Vaishnavas in Sukhmani). Word Vaheguru is hardly used yet some sikhs take it upon themselves it insert it in translations.

If you knew anything about the Vaishnavas you will know that they use the language associated with Vishnu to describe Akal Purakh, That above the Hindu trinity and Its Source. Again the Shaivites use Shiva to describe supreme Godhead above the deva Mahadev. In Dasam Granth it uses the words Mahakal and Kallika- this derive from Tantra where they mean much the same thing, Again when the Krishna-schools say Krishna they refer to Akal Purakh. These are language differences. Their whole trinity is associated with unifying 'Om'.

Even the Shaktas use Shiva to name It (That behind shakti). To them Nirgun Durga is Agam Agochar just like Nirgun Brahm (or Vaheuguru) is to us,

If you bothered to learn about these things you might understand this.

"the only other route open to us is to proclaim that GurbaaNee is contradictory. i really wouldn't advise anyone to start to or to continue to walk upon that cursed path."

yes because some peoples petty intellect cannot handle such an idea

lets just selectively quote from Dasam Granth, anything that doesnt agree with us we can just say that Guru didnt write.

Navjot Singh, when did I say I'm anti Hindu? I'm probably one of the most pro Hindu people you would find on this discussion forum. Why don't you do a search on all my posts. Never I have I said anything against the Hindus or Hindu Dharm. But I wouldn't be pro to the extent where I start to distort the unique message of our Gurus and start to say shameless comments like our Guru's Bani is "contradictory".

By the way, the translation I made on the top was not my translation. It was a translation from a Daulat Rai`s book Sahib e Kamal, and Daulat Rai is a Hindu, but I guess to you, Daulat Rai must also be anti-Hindu. But wait, how can that be since Daulat Rai was also a prominent Arya Samaji of his time!

Brother Navjot Singh Jee, reading your post it`s obvious your understanding of Gurmat is far from perfect, or even Advaitism for that matter. You cannot do justice to Sikhi or Advaita by just having half knowledge about these subjects.

They say that a semi literate man with half knowledge is more dangerous than a literate man with full knowledge. Sadly this seems to be the case with you.