Why did we have 10 Gurus?

[TejS]

Now I apologize in advance if this comes off as ignorant or disrespecting.

Why was the message of Sikhi given over many hundred years over 10 Gurus, when Guru Nanak Dev Ji had attained enlightenment? He alone could have dispelled all Gurmat Gyan to us.

[GurjantGnostic]

37 minutes ago, TejS said:

Now I apologize in advance if this comes off as ignorant or disrespecting.

Why was the message of Sikhi given over many hundred years over 10 Gurus, when Guru Nanak Dev Ji had attained enlightenment? He alone could have dispelled all Gurmat Gyan to us.

Perhaps it was to give ample generational time for the Sangat itself to develop and each lifetime example of the Guru demonstrated a different aspect, or important lesson. 

Perhaps also Guru Nanak Ji wanted to avoid undue focus on him, as a person, to prevent it becoming the cult of Nanak instead of about Vaheguru. 

These are just my initial impressions. The Sangat here are much better qualified to answer. 

[BhForce]

1 hour ago, TejS said:

Now I apologize in advance if this comes off as ignorant or disrespecting.

OK. And I apologize if I come off as arrogant.

1 hour ago, TejS said:

Why was the message of Sikhi given over many hundred years over 10 Gurus, when Guru Nanak Dev Ji had attained enlightenment? He alone could have dispelled all Gurmat Gyan to us.

Quite true the Guru Nanak Dev ji was enlightened (they did not "attain" enlightenment), and that they could have recited the entire Guru Granth Sahib to us.

However, I want to say that it's so strange that you approach this question accepting the Christian or other mindset as the default, and Sikh history as being strange. Why don't you instead ask why it was only Jesus who promoted what later was called the Christian religion, and that too only for about 3 years?

Secondly, when you're God, you don't have to explain yourself to anybody. Gurbani says Guru Nanak ji was God himself manifested in the world. Why would we ever think to question God? Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote that the Khalsa manifested by Kal Purakh's mauj (leisure). So it's God's marzi (choice). He can do whatever he wants.

Thirdly, there's a whole lot of stuff the Gurus did. There were five whole Guruships where they lived entirely peacefully. Only after the 5th Guru was martyred did Guru Sahib pick up arms. I think it's a big deal that a whole century was spent peacefully, thereby demonstrating that the Gurus were not warmongers per se. But that can only happen if you have multiple Gurus. And Guru Sahibs interacted with so many people, traveled to many places, did lots of things, it would be difficult to do all in one lifetime.

Fourth, if you consider that the Muslims and Christians think of the Prophets as a sequence, then you can sort of consider that they, too, rolled out their religions over many lifetimes. It is a separate matter that the Christians don't believe the older prophets to be one spirit with Jesus, but still the question could be asked, why not just have Jesus dispense all gian?

Finally, I think GurjanGnostic is on to something here:

50 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Perhaps also Guru Nanak Ji wanted to avoid undue focus on him, as a person, to prevent it becoming the cult of Nanak instead of about Vaheguru. 

By having multiple Gurus, I agree that the idea that there was something internal to the Gurus that was the essence of Guruships (the jot or spirit) was strengthened.

[Wicked Warrior]

I always thought it was a better way to change a society's mindset and attitude. If Guru Nanak Ji was the only Guru then within a generation or two, his teachings could easily be forgotten. To change an individual's mind is easy. To effect a change in society requires generations. 

The other thing to remember is that all of the Gurus brought something valuable into Sikhi, be it langar, physical fitness, martial prowess, Khande di Amrit. Even Harminder Sahib would not have been created if there had been only Guru Nanak. 

[harsharan000]

Of course for us humans all the swaroops of Guru Sahibans are equally  sweet and lovely, but we must bear in mind, in all of them was the Jot of  one Wahiguru Akal Purukh, of the Shabad Guru operating in their physical forms, for the spiritual uplift of us jeevas.

It was He himself who came to our level, now the question about the number of them, is solely a matter of His hukum, of  which our human mind can never ever have even an idea.

But we should keep their one underlined message firm in our minds, if we want to be one with Him, which is:

Ik Oankar Satgur parsad.

Sat Sree Akal.

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, BhForce said:

OK. And I apologize if I come off as arrogant.

Quite true the Guru Nanak Dev ji was enlightened (they did not "attain" enlightenment), and that they could have recited the entire Guru Granth Sahib to us.

However, I want to say that it's so strange that you approach this question accepting the Christian or other mindset as the default, and Sikh history as being strange. Why don't you instead ask why it was only Jesus who promoted what later was called the Christian religion, and that too only for about 3 years?

Secondly, when you're God, you don't have to explain yourself to anybody. Gurbani says Guru Nanak ji was God himself manifested in the world. Why would we ever think to question God? Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote that the Khalsa manifested by Kal Purakh's mauj (leisure). So it's God's marzi (choice). He can do whatever he wants.

Thirdly, there's a whole lot of stuff the Gurus did. There were five whole Guruships where they lived entirely peacefully. Only after the 5th Guru was martyred did Guru Sahib pick up arms. I think it's a big deal that a whole century was spent peacefully, thereby demonstrating that the Gurus were not warmongers per se. But that can only happen if you have multiple Gurus. And Guru Sahibs interacted with so many people, traveled to many places, did lots of things, it would be difficult to do all in one lifetime.

Fourth, if you consider that the Muslims and Christians think of the Prophets as a sequence, then you can sort of consider that they, too, rolled out their religions over many lifetimes. It is a separate matter that the Christians don't believe the older prophets to be one spirit with Jesus, but still the question could be asked, why not just have Jesus dispense all gian?

Finally, I think GurjanGnostic is on to something here:

By having multiple Gurus, I agree that the idea that there was something internal to the Gurus that was the essence of Guruships (the jot or spirit) was strengthened.

Any guru could have recited the entire Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Even Dasam Bani. But yeah nice common sense. 

[harsharan000]

17 hours ago, TejS said:

Why was the message of Sikhi given over many hundred years over 10 Gurus, when Guru Nanak Dev Ji had attained enlightenment? He alone could have dispelled all Gurmat Gyan to us.

The message  was passed over by 10 Gurus and the Bhagat Jan in the SGGS,  by the Hukum of Wahiguru Akal Purukh, for the benefit of the jeevas.

You see, outward physically the Gurus were different, and that is how we limited perceive them, but in reality it was the Jot of Wahiguru Akal Purukh shinning in them, the one of only one Shabad Guru, which was their true divine one supreme reality.

If the physical limited form of Guru Sahiban were their true form, believe it, they would not have been born from a mother´s womb, neither grown up or got old, for they would have come as such direct from Sach Khand.

Their intention was to make us aware and make us realize their reality, their true identity of Shabad Guru personified for our spiritual uplift through bhakti.

 But as long we do not follow implicitly their teachings, we can never realize their true value, otherwise, we could see their omnipresence in their changeless permanent and eternal Shabad Guru swaroop.

In this respect the Bani says:

ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਨੁ ਖਟਿਆ ਭਗਤੀ ਭਰੇ ਭੰਡਾਰਾ ॥

Guramathee Naam Dhhan Khattiaa Bhagathee Bharae Bhanddaaraa ||

Through the Guru's Teachings, I have earned the wealth of the Naam; I possess the storehouses, overflowing with devotion to the Lord.

ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਨਾਮੁ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਦਰਿ ਸਚੈ ਸਚਿਆਰਾ ॥

Niramal Naam Manniaa Dhar Sachai Sachiaaraa ||

Believing in the Immaculate Naam, one is hailed as true, in the True Court of the Lord.

ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਜੀਉ ਪਰਾਣੁ ਹੈ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਅਪਾਰਾ

Jis Dhaa Jeeo Paraan Hai Anthar Joth Apaaraa ||

The Divine Light of the Infinite Lord, who owns the soul and the breath of life, is deep within the inner being.

 

Sat Sree Akal.

[TejS]

18 hours ago, BhForce said:

However, I want to say that it's so strange that you approach this question accepting the Christian or other mindset as the default, and Sikh history as being strange. Why don't you instead ask why it was only Jesus who promoted what later was called the Christian religion, and that too only for about 3 years?

Secondly, when you're God, you don't have to explain yourself to anybody. Gurbani says Guru Nanak ji was God himself manifested in the world. Why would we ever think to question God? Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote that the Khalsa manifested by Kal Purakh's mauj (leisure). So it's God's marzi (choice). He can do whatever he wants.

Thirdly, there's a whole lot of stuff the Gurus did. There were five whole Guruships where they lived entirely peacefully. Only after the 5th Guru was martyred did Guru Sahib pick up arms. I think it's a big deal that a whole century was spent peacefully, thereby demonstrating that the Gurus were not warmongers per se. But that can only happen if you have multiple Gurus. And Guru Sahibs interacted with so many people, traveled to many places, did lots of things, it would be difficult to do all in one lifetime.

Fourth, if you consider that the Muslims and Christians think of the Prophets as a sequence, then you can sort of consider that they, too, rolled out their religions over many lifetimes. It is a separate matter that the Christians don't believe the older prophets to be one spirit with Jesus, but still the question could be asked, why not just have Jesus dispense all gian?

Finally, I think GurjanGnostic is on to something here:

By having multiple Gurus, I agree that the idea that there was something internal to the Gurus that was the essence of Guruships (the jot or spirit) was strengthened.

Thank you for your answer.

I'm not sure why you feel that I approached this from an Abrahamic perspective. I'm well aware that the Abrahamics have had hundreds of prophets, and I'm also aware of they mess they are in with their abrogations and whatnot, which goes against the very fundamental tenet of God being absolute. However, my question stems from the concern of noticing the difference in the practices of Sikhs during Guru Nanak Dev Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji's times.  As I see it, the Sikhs in Guru Nanak Dev Ji's time, as a cause of our message being given over 239 years, were deprived of the teachings that had yet to be established.

I can agree that it is God's choice to do so as God wants, however we are meant to question aren't we?

 

[BhForce]

6 minutes ago, TejS said:

I can agree that it is God's choice to do so as God wants, however we are meant to question aren't we?

Depends on where the question is coming from. You asked your question in a humble way, and I responded to the best of my ability.

It's one thing to say "I believe in the Gurus, and I'm just confused on this one thing, can you help me to understand?". It's another for some jihadi to come up and say "So, why didn't just Guru Nanak do everything? He must not have been powerful enough."

Another reason I answered you is that sometimes Christians may ask this very question, since Jesus' ministry was only 3 years.

9 minutes ago, TejS said:

However, my question stems from the concern of noticing the difference in the practices of Sikhs during Guru Nanak Dev Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji's times.  As I see it, the Sikhs in Guru Nanak Dev Ji's time, as a cause of our message being given over 239 years, were deprived of the teachings that had yet to be established.

That's not something that we need to worry about.

Sikhs of whatever time period followed (and follow) the commands given to them up until that time.

That doesn't make the previous Sikhs any less, because they were in full accordance with the hukums at that time.

The Khalsa panth continues to evolve new hukums as necessary, and the devout Sikhs continue to obey them. (New hukums, or clarifications, like hukum about the Nirankaris, wedding venues, etc.)

In any case, even if we were to assume Guru Nanak Dev ji spent a single lifetime doing parchar, a lifetime is about 70 years. Surely some people must have died in that time. So they would have been "deprived" of some hukum, some Gurbani, or another.

You can even apply this to the parchar of Jesus. It was 3 years long. Again, someone died during those 3 years, right? People died before he turned water into wine, cured the lepers, etc. Someone died before the Last Supper, and he said that this wine is my blood, and this bread is my body. And before his death and resurrection. So people who died before that were deprived of the ability to have communion bread, because there was no doctrine of communion. And there was also no doctrine of everlasting life in Jesus, because there hadn't been a resurrection.

So don't let Christians make the long period of the Gurus' parchar a point of confusion.

[TejS]

20 hours ago, BhForce said:

Depends on where the question is coming from. You asked your question in a humble way, and I responded to the best of my ability.

It's one thing to say "I believe in the Gurus, and I'm just confused on this one thing, can you help me to understand?". It's another for some jihadi to come up and say "So, why didn't just Guru Nanak do everything? He must not have been powerful enough."

Another reason I answered you is that sometimes Christians may ask this very question, since Jesus' ministry was only 3 years.

That's not something that we need to worry about.

Sikhs of whatever time period followed (and follow) the commands given to them up until that time.

That doesn't make the previous Sikhs any less, because they were in full accordance with the hukums at that time.

The Khalsa panth continues to evolve new hukums as necessary, and the devout Sikhs continue to obey them. (New hukums, or clarifications, like hukum about the Nirankaris, wedding venues, etc.)

In any case, even if we were to assume Guru Nanak Dev ji spent a single lifetime doing parchar, a lifetime is about 70 years. Surely some people must have died in that time. So they would have been "deprived" of some hukum, some Gurbani, or another.

You can even apply this to the parchar of Jesus. It was 3 years long. Again, someone died during those 3 years, right? People died before he turned water into wine, cured the lepers, etc. Someone died before the Last Supper, and he said that this wine is my blood, and this bread is my body. And before his death and resurrection. So people who died before that were deprived of the ability to have communion bread, because there was no doctrine of communion. And there was also no doctrine of everlasting life in Jesus, because there hadn't been a resurrection.

So don't let Christians make the long period of the Gurus' parchar a point of confusion.

I'm not asking this question because a Christian asked me this, this was a genuine curiosity of mine. And regarding Christians, most of their writings are done by Paul, and the authenticity of his writings can be debated. That said, I don't consider Abrahamic theology given their definition of God. But I can see why you're bringing that up, a lot of missionaries and dawah boys running around trying to convert our people.

I guess I can agree with your claim of the panth continuing to evolve in modern circumstances, and perhaps to reflect that constant evolution, God spread out the message of Sikhi through 10 Gurus to demonstrate that religion can not be firmly practiced in a single way during all circumstances.