Sikhs Movements And Sects (Website)

[osingh]

If samprada had seena baseena teachings from Guru Gobind Singh ji then why did they fail to use Gurbani Viakaran?

How can we just neglect grammer, it's in Gurbani for all to see. Just study Gurbani Viakaran for 5 minutes and no-one can deny its significance. Our Guru Sahibaan created this grammer for Gurbani. If we can neglect Viakaran then what was the point of our Guru Sahibaan for creating in the first place?

Why did they go to all the trouble of creating this in-depth system making sure each word has the correct lagu matra?

How can it be insulting to limit Gurbani to grammer, it was our Guru Sahib who implemented this system! Is it not more insulting to ignore this wonderful system that guru Nanak Dev ji created for us?

Also it is wrong to think that Viakaran somehow limits our understanding of Gurbani. This couldn't be further from the truth. The more we study Viakaran the more we appreciate the depth of Gurbani. By studying Gurbani we can derive the deeper meanings of Gurbani.

We cannot just accept all of the teachings from samaparda's because they have a "lineage". Surely we must question all teachings from all samparda's and jathebandis to see if they agree with Gurbani. If some Udasi's are worshipping an idol of Baba Sri Chand ji then it is manmat and goes against Gurbani which advocates focusing on the dhuni of Naam.

Quote: "It be pretty insulting to limit gurbani with grammar as you cannot measure anubhav parkash coming from gurbani by gurbani vikayaran. Such is the beauty of Gurbani.!"

Bhai Randhir Singh ji employed grammer and wrote the rules of grammer in a book. So you are saying bhai sahib was not able to measure "anubhav parkash" from Gurbani. Veer ji have you read the meanings bhai Randhir Singh ji has done of Gurbani? Bhai Sahib reached the highest mystical states and he was firm believer in Viakaran.

So you are saying that only sampradayak Giani's can fully intepret Gurbani and they do this by using knowledge of other granths (Ved) and mats (Advait) but Viakaran is not important. This is illogical and makes no sense. Surely to get the best understanding of Gurbani we would have to use the system of Viakaran that the Guru's themselves employed when writing Gurbani.

Rabb Rakhe

[Into the Light]

Has viakaran been mentioned/discussed by Gursikhs prior to 1900's? Why is it that Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh Jee forgot to mention this very important fact in his writings or even Bhai Gurdaas Jee?

Or is vikarana actually manmade and not from our Guru Sahibs?

[osingh]

Intothelight ji,

Bhai Gurdas ji themselves use Viakaran in their bani. Before questioning Viakaran please study it. At first I didn't know about the importance of viakaran and the role different vowels play such as bihari, sihari, aunkar e.t.c. when doing arths of Gurbani. Just studying Viakaran for few hours and you will understand the importance.

"Or is vikarana actually manmade and not from our Guru Sahibs?"

Please read books on vaikaran by Prof. Sahib Singh ji or Bhai joginder Singh ji Talwara for further understanding, nobody can deny that viakaran is used and employed by our Guru Sahibaan.

[N30S1NGH]

Osingh veer,

Please try to understand this subtleness. Whilst, vikayaran is important to lay basic framework in gurbani translations. Gurbani cannot be bound by it. Gurbani is not kavita that one translate and thats final. Gurbani speaks to human consciousnesses on different level/avastha. At Bhramgyan level, gurbani speaks to bhramgyani differently than someone who is at jaigaso level so thats the reason it cannot be bound by grammar only. Surely, Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Ji had anubhav from gurbani on bhramgyan level where it was NOT bounded by vikayaran. Sant giani Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale Katha on Gurbani is also an classic example how deep(antrev) gurbani arths can get. Their katha on japji sahib is amazing, their katha on sukhmani sahib is amazing..!!

Vedant is used as reference thats all. For eg- what exactly these terms are mentioned in gurbani? What are their nature? Antish karan, Rajo, Tamo, Sato, Asthol sirar (panj tat), Sukhsham sirar, Karan sirar, Jagrath Avastha, Suopan Avastha, Sukhopat Avastha, Turiya avastha, what's the true nature of atma- paratma?

All these are very well defined in soraj parkash granth in the katha parsang between bhai dya singh ji and the sangat on atamgyan katha. So vedant (tat nichor of vedas) explanation of terms in gurbani is already there in the panth as reference guide going back from bhai dya singh ji and the sangat. When 5 nirmale came back, they trained panj pyares under hakum of sri guru gobind singh ji and from there- two biggest samparda came- Bhai Dya Singh Ji - Upsamaprda of Nirmale, Bhai Dharam Singh Ji- Upsamaprda of Nirmale. Both samparda worked side by side with taksal. Some sources (cannot verify that baba deep singh ji also were taught by panj singhs)

There are no evidence whatsoever that bhai dya singh ji has tried re-define these terms or vedant to re brand them as Sikhi as its pretty consistent with vedant (tat nichor of vedas). What is truth its truth there is no point of re-branding them. Gladly, you won't find current times of anti hindu parnioa, hyseteria during guru's time among sikhs or even centuries after. All this started late 1800 and early 1900 onwards.

I will try to find examples from gurbani where vikayaran takes help from antriv arths(deep arths) to define the terms..for time being see video below by sant hari singh ji randhawale.. Sikhs who have gotten bhramgyan can define these terms but it never contradictory to vedant (science of atma-paratma), its through experience one knows secret of vedas as gurbani says (science of atma-paratma). Sikhs who have not got bhramgyan, use vedant as reference to further study basic structural model of human consciouness, its components and its interactions in Gurmat..no one actually opens up vedant text and study them, don't have to go that far..its already translated by nirmale/sevapanthis alike..its already in taksal syllabus and those who are allergic or don't have enough time go over the syllabus they can pretend it does not exist (live in la la land) and keep listening to katha of Bhramgyani Sant gyani gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale katha which already has all antriv arths, gyan from vedant.

I just wanted to quote video of sant hari singh randhawale and my other post on explaining vedant:

My veer, off course wherever whenever rss goons or arya samaji fanatics have tried to challenge gurmat, our sikh gurmukhs have debated and refuted them.

Giani ditt singh ji who challenged and beat arya samaji.

Bhai Kavi Singh Santokh Nirmale wrote garabgajini tika of japji sahib to break ahankar of pseudo udasi mahant

sant baba isher singh ji kaljug wale wrote 500 different arths of vahiguroo mantar to refute arya samaji/rss propaganda.

And there are many more..i cannot remember.

They all have debated and stood up steady fast against things in hinduism which are contary to "Gurmat". But confusion, insecurity over paranoia hysterical attitude arises, when one starts thinking or automatically assuming everything including adhyatam and spiritual school of thoughts of hinduism is somehow - anti gurmat or contary to gurmat just because its belongs to different dharam.

However samparda's mahapursh don't automatically assume, they study through out years of study and research of various vedas and puratan texts of eastern dharma with their bibek buddhi- they pick up things which are consistent with gurmat and accept them as gurmat as well and leave other stuff which is contary to Gurmat.

There are two main benefits of that despite of all the political correctness:

1. Our sikh sants/scholars can fight these rss goons, from time to time again- nirmale sikh sadhus have gone to kumb mela and set up akhara there to promote gurmat there and make them available for any bachan bilas or debate...that is very proactive approach to fight rss instead of being arm chair critic sitting on forums and whine and cry about rss.

2. Our Sikh sants/scholars just like our Guru's have show unbiased appreciation/satkar and celebrated the truth/satya regardless whichever dharam it belongs to, i tried to give example before- advait vedant is science of atma-paratma....advait sceince of atma-paratma not only mentioned in advait vedant by adi sri sankyacharaya but its all across sri guru granth sahib ji/sri dasam granth as rightly mentioned by sant hari singh randhawa wale in the video and advait-sceince of atma-paratma also exist other eastern dharma scriptures like- bhagvad gita etc.

Did bhram wrote tat nichor of vedas- gyan layer of vedas? No. It's a science of atma-paratma.

Did adi sankyacharaya invented vedant? NO. The fact its always been there from aad sach since existence of atma-paratma.

Did he discovered it through bhramgyan? YES..accept it or not...truth is truth..regardless however painful it might be.

Since he discovered it and wrote about it for others to understand, does it give him a right to put supermacy stamp on it? NO

Do we have right to put supermacy stamp on it by playing with semantics of gurmat and making it appears it only belong organized sikh dharam? NO...it's nirgun vahiguroo ji property.

Has it been discovered before prior to adi sankacharaya sikh non sikh alike?? Yes off course, as i said its from aad sach, just like how reincarnation, karam, five elements of body is from sargun pasara.

Why should sikh reject an universal concept? Gurbani didn't reject just like how gurbani didn't rejected reincarnation and karma, then why should we?? We should not, just because same universal concept happen to be shared among spiritual orders in hinduism does not make it automatically bad or anti gurmat.

If we do reject it that only shows- insecurity, over parniao, hyper tension, hindu phobiac mindset which is undoubtly an gift from singh sabha and bhausaria mindset (thanks guys for suppressing gurmat )

Ok now in layman terms-

Lets just assume one of us is in university -studying planets/stars...One of our fellow student which we may or may not have bias or reservations discover an very unique star/planet through his hard work and wrote about it...not invented but just discovered, its always been there....just discover something.

Does this give him a right to say he invented it or put copyright stamp on the invention? NO...it's always been there.

Did someone discovered it before? Off course, may or may not be documented before, but that does not negates the fact that it was not discovered.

Does it give us a right just because of our reservations towards this individual on personal level to reject his discovery and actual unique star which is always been there? NO

If yes, that be knee je rk reaction on our part, yes lets just shoot the messenger instead of concentrating on the message...very productive..nice going mate..instead of saying- thanks dude- good work...

[N30S1NGH]

Also found an great article from nirmale explaining their stance on Gurmat Advait Vedant in responding to Bhai Sahib Kulbir singh Ji:

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

The relationship between Gurmat and the Vedas is certainly not as simple as the author makes out. Nowhere in Gurbani are the Vedas ‘rejected’. Indirect knowledge is considered redundant without the Satiguru, but never ‘rejected’. The knowledge within the Vedas is never questioned, only the capacity for individuals to understand its meaning;

Pandit parray vakhannay veda, anatar vastu n jannay bheda

The pandit reads and recites the Vedas but does not know the inner meaning

The quotation doesn’t state the pandit is reading falsehood. The issue here is whether or not Gurmat is nastik or aastik. In common parlance this is used to describe ‘athiests’. This is not the real meaning of the term. Naastik means those who reject the Vedas and aastika are those who uphold it. Therefore Buddhists, Jains, Charvaaks and others are said to be naastik because they reject the message of the Vedas. Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhaindranwale like all Nirmalay maintains that Gurmat is aastika. The teachings conform to the mahavakya (great statements of non-duality) found in the Upanishads within the Vedas. At the same time, Gurmat is svatantar, meaning that it is independent. It is not an explicit form of Vedanta in which its claim to orthodoxy is rooted in its Vedic origins. Traditionally post-Vedantic orthodoxy requires the samprdaya to produce a detailed commentary on the Braham Surtas of Badrayana drawing upon the Upanishads. This is the distinguishing line. For Gurmat the Satiguru is the supreme authority and Gurbani meets the category of ‘unspoken’ revealed knowledge. Since this knowledge is eternal truth, it does not disagree with the mahavakyas. Nowhere in Gurbani is the attribution of Ishvar to the Vedas questioned. It is also worth noting that Gurmat is not the only tradition that has this kind of relationship. The Sri Bhagvata Purana so cherished by vaishnavs, especially gaudiya vaishnavs, takes a similar position at points about the inadequacy of the Vedas to reveal the highest truth, only the saint can assist the bhakta. Yet they are undoubtedly aastika as a tradition.

Returning to the statement above, the author’s second misunderstanding is to contrarily argue that ‘Gurmat can be explained through Gurbani’ which implies that Nirmalay describe Gurmat through some other unrelated conceptual language. The truth is that his statement is a bit like saying that you cannot explain English through English. If the Guru says atma you need to know what He is talking about. The fact that the above author in an earlier post mistakes jeev for atma is testimony to the danger of not understanding the conceptual language of Gurbani (rather than Advaita Vedanta). This lack of knowledge is very dangerous. Nowhere does the Satiguru say ‘Jeev is Ishvar’, it is written that Atma and Parmatma are one and the same. Jeev means the ontological condition of being an individuated living being. Ishvar is the supreme being in the theological sense. This is apparent duality. The quotation he cites as evidence for the eternal nature of Jeev is considered by many Nirmalay as one of the more insightful advaita quotations in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. In fact Sadhu Gurdit Singh bases a sizeable portion of his text Sri Gurmat Sidhantsar to exploring that quotation. Lets have a look at it;

1) Pratam parmatma ka roop which is correctly interpreted to refer to Atma

2) It is then explained that Atma is not affected by time, does not die, does not experience pain, was there at the beginning of time, is within each and every heart, has neither mother or father - these are identical qualities as Parmatma, they can only apply to Braham, and then if there were still any doubt it is written ‘teen guna ek shakti upaya, mahamaya ta kee hai shaaeiaa’ â€" from His shakti the veiling or ‘shadowing’ effect of the three guna mahamaya exists.

3) If we maintain this is still talking about a jeev, this is a jeev that now possesses the same qualities as Braham!

4) The author then states that the man of the Atma is Atma roop. This demonstrates a serious lack of understanding. Atma has just been shown to have nothing attached to it beyond an inherent shakti. The man is made of the treh guna (this is stated in Rag Asa), hence the very idea of turiya. If Braham was accessible to the man, there would be no mention of turiya â€" by definition the transcending of the antakaran. The man is by its nature insentient until it is illumined by Atma. Atma is nirgun, as has been explained above, it is pure consciousness.

In Gurmat, for as long as the Atma is affected by microcosmic ignorance (agyan) then it can never be Ishvar. Only Ishvar can be Ishvar. Yet what underpins both is Atma, non different from Parmatma (as so many shabads maintain).

Thirdly, I maintain that there is a difference between Advaita and Advaita Vedanta. Advaita is non-duality, a philosophical position about being and divinity. Advaita Vedanta is the particular tradition descending from Adi Sankaracharya. As soon as you accept that Atma is nothing other than Parmatma (satchitanand as is written in Jaap Sahib), and that Maya possesses three gunas (which constitutes everything including the antahkaran), then you are taking an Advaita position. It is not uncommon to find scholars referring to the medieval bhakti traditions as Advaita devotional traditions. That is what Gurmat is. The irony is the alternative position presented by the above author may well avoid Advaita but to uphold that; a) jeev an eternal reality a sargun form of mukti as eternal residence in a heaven of sorts c) a realm in which Parmatma exists d) although separated somehow from the eternal witnessing jeev e) all attained through bhakti and naam - is word for word the vaishnavism of the Hare Krishnas. What makes Sikhi distinctive is its nirgun credentials. Nirgun, without guna, without defining characteristic and Sarguna meaning with any guna or defining characteristic, deen dyal, patit pavan, nirbhau, etc. Anyone who has studied tatashta lakshana and svarupa lakshana will understand the difference here. Nirguna is accepted across the board through the centuries to be the Braham of truth-consciousness-bliss. Jaap Sahib describes Parmatma in the same terms. There is no division of Parmatma into threefold division with different parts veiled from the jeev atma, as some vaishnav schools do. He is Ek. The author has failed to recognise that metaphors contextualise the non-dual statements making our updesh very ‘chintya’ (conceivable) and far from the troubled philosophy of the gaudiya vaishnav tradition. At various points in Gurbani the Satiguru has explained that a) the Atma by its nature is untouched by the experiences of the individual Maya constitutes everything including time and space, our mind and body c) transcending the three gunas is mukti/turiya. Turiya is EXPLICITLY contrasted with the other three states of consciousness. Turiya BY DEFINITION is the ‘annihilation’ or ‘loss of identity’ the author above finds repugnant.

The last statement the author makes is worth picking up on. The fact is that for the last 300 years up to this day, the Sant Mandali of Sikhi has drawn upon Advaita to describe their experiences and their understanding of Gurmat. They didn’t all necessarily study it, but they did recognise its truthfulness. Apart from possibly Nanaksar and those post singh sabha types influenced by their Semitic schooling, I can’t think of anyone who has rejected the traditional understanding of nirguna as has been given above. We have in the panth many many texts (literally thousands) dating from the 18th and 19th Centuries which uphold this stance, this use of terminology. So what does his statement mean? It either means that not one single brahmgyani existed between 1699 and the initiation of Bhai Randhir Singh which corrected everyone OR that all these brahmgyanis chose not to speak out against this incorrect version of Gurmat for all this time! Both are ridiculous and unfounded. With regards to Bhai Gurdas Ji, I feel the author has not studied his Kabit Svayay in which many very interesting quotations are found describing the Advaita position, explicitly describing the dissolution of ‘seer’ and ‘seen’ (duality).

Nb - My second translation and commentary which is now finished goes into all of this in great detail.

[osingh]

Veer N30Singh ji,

How can grammer just be the "basic framework"? What was the point of Guru Sahib implementing Viakaran, taking to the time to put the correct lagu matra at the end of words. How can we ignore this?

You are wrong in saying that Viakaran confines Gurbani. It makes the meanings clear. If you read the arths done by Bhai Randhir Singh ji you can see the way they have done arths of Gurbani whilst always staying within Viakran rules.

It does not make sense that Guru Sahib would have employed Viakaran if we could just ignore it after our avastha reaches a certain level. Why did not Bhai Randhir Singh ji ignore vaikaran when we can all agree they had reached very high stages of spirituality?

[N30S1NGH]

It's hard to explain but i will try anyway its kind of like vikayaran being outer layer in gurbani and antrev arths being inner layer in gurbani. I will try to give example- when gurmukhs listen to naam dhuni (resosance)/anhad shabad and get gyan of nirgun from shabad its not bound by vikayaran. There is no vikayaran there, its experience of gurbani one's consciousness get. Based on different avastha- different people get different anubhav parkash from shabad bani.

[osingh]

Veer ji,

You are not really answering my questions. Please answer this:

You say viakaran is the "outer layer" and the anthrev arths are the inner layer. So to to understand the "deeper" meanings of Gurbani we don't have to use viakaran?

Then what was the point of our Guru Sahib using viakaran in the first place?

Do you know how in-depth Gurbani Viakaran is? Prof. Sahib Singh ji and Bhai Joginder Singh ji Talwara's books are 100's of pages long and still they have not found the limit of viakaran and the rules of viakaran.

Do you understand where I am coming from?

Rabb Rakhe

[N30S1NGH]

Singh Ji, when did i say we don't need grammer to do basic translations? We do need grammar. As i said earlier, gurbani cannot be bound by only grammar.

Normal kavita poetry cannot always be understood using grammar rules. How can the deep mysticism expressed through poetry be fully comprehended through grammar rules?

For the record- Nirmale are known for teaching vikayaran of gurbani, thats the first one is taught when someone learns from their teacher.

[TuhadaDaas]

Some are arguing that "gurbani is not bound by vyakaran", now how about if someone else came along and said that bani isnt bound by letters either and that you can ignore letters sometimes to see different words as you get more meanings?? You would obviously find that absurd and total manmat. So why is it that the effect on meanings of the siharis, aunkars etc can be ignored as if they just arent there?

If I write a sentence with a comma in it, you cant just ignore the comma to get two meanings out of it, its just common sense.

Or how about if you just start ignoring dandis at the end of lines and join two lines together to create new meanings? You would call that crazy. Well that my friends is vykaran also.

Or even further, shabad headings cannot bind the meanings of gurbani, we should be able to read a whole ang as we see fit. Lets join the end of one shabad to the start of another. lol.