Nanak Is The Guru, Nanak Is The Lord Himself

[Amarpal]

Dear Khalsa Ji,

As I understand, which I have said ealier in my last post on Sukhmani Sahib, and which I reproduce below"

"Each one of us is born in this world with a mission. The mission consists of three elements (i) To pay for the past Karma and exhaust them; (ii) The experience positive and negative aspects of life on earth, learn from them and evolve to a higher level of spirituality; and (iii) To act as an instrument of ‘The Sat’ to protect and sustain the creation of ‘The Sat’ and to and help in evolving it to a higher level. The sum total of these three elements is equal to 1 i.e. one life. The weighing factors of these three elements in life vary form individual to individual depending on one’s past Karmas. The person who has accumulated lots of bad Karmas in past life will find its life more loaded with the task of exhausting i.e. paying for those Karmas. On the other side of the spectrum, the person, who has no negative Karmas and who in a way has already evolved to the highest spiritual level, will have its life loaded with the third element, ie. The live their lives as an instrument of ‘The Sat’. Nanak, Gautam, Jesus and Mahavira belonged to this class. Most of the other individuals fall in between these two extremes of the spectrum; their mission of life is loaded with all the three elements, with varying weighing factor for each of the element for each one of them. All this depends on the individual’s past Karmas."

Guru sahib had no past karmas to exhaust, his mission was to help us and thus serve the cause of 'The Sat'. Guru Nanak Dev Ji is (I have used 'is' because I am convinced that his soul is still around and is guiding us, this is my personal understanding) a very evolved soul. Guru Sahib out of unlimited compassion for the suffering creation of 'The Sat' he took birth in human form.

When a soul takes form and is born in this world, its past (the quality and nature of its soul) remains hidden from it. All the limitations of the body, into which this soul resides get applied to this new born. The new born has to strive and, where needed, struggle hard and grow to discover its true self. When this was achieved by Guru Nanak Dev Ji, his true self blossomed and found expression in his divinity, the evolved soul got expreesed through his work and speech. This event is characterised by Guru Nanak's statement ' There is no Hindu, there is no Musalman'. After this Guru Sahib went around helping others to evolve and discover thier ture self. Till this event Guru Sahib was trying and learn the truth from different groups of Sadhus and Fakirs. Similar wandering and struggle was part of live 'Gautam the Buddha'. He to broke the shell (mental) of the body to reach the Gyana that was always present in him.

As I understand the 'Bodied Nanak' is Divine Guru, in soul form it is one with 'The Sat'. The Divinity of the 'Bodied Nanak' came from the highly evolved pure Soul that resided in him, which he has discovered during his own life time.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Thank you Amarpal ji for a very poetic and uplifting reply.

 

[JimRinX]

Dear Khalsa jios
All of the above! I too could tell that Sikhism has evolved from the teachings of an Enlightened One; as I've always considered myself a 'Lucky Buddhist' - one whose been granted a little 'Clear Light Deity Entity Provided Insight' - and so I know these things!
It's good to see other people who are also not 'formally' Sikhs; as I believe that Guru Nanak would have wanted it that way.
As so many of these threads deal with what seem to me to be divisions amongst the Sikhi; those who see the people who took the actions that led to Operation Blue Star one way, and those who see it another, for example; I hope that you'll all remember this!
The Sikhi, Blessed with the Wisdom of Guru Nanak, can (help me) make the Whole World a more Loving Kind Place, if you can keep these issues from tearing the Sikhi apart and/or from making War on those who wronged you decades or centuries ago!
Love Is The Answer!

 

[karam]

karamji


your words are very inspiring. I have only one question. Do you mean "shadow of God?" A shadow is a darer place where light does not shine through brightly. You may mean in the jyote or LIght of God rather than shadow, judging for all else that you said.

sorry for the late reply, don't take my words literally, you can take shadow as someone who is very close to god, I beleive God sends enlightened souls from time to time to clear darkness from our minds, same way Guru Nanak was sent, I beleive he was on a mission

 

[a.mother]

I beleive Guru Nanak was the shadow of God, Guru Nanak and parmatma both were abhed mean I don't find any difference between them, Guru Nanak was born enlightened with the will of God, and only and only God was Guru Nanak's guru, after carefully reviewing guru Nanak's sakhis I came to the conclusion that Guru Nanak was born enlightened...this is the reason he could enlighten mullas and brahmans at very young age,

Sat Sri Akal,Karam ji,
I just can't say thanks to you because I don't have enough and proper words to say it. Karam ji where you have found these words ,you have open everything in a very simple way.
Thank you so much from bottom of my tiny heart what Waheguru have bless me with.

 

[a.mother]

karamji


your words are very inspiring. I have only one question. Do you mean "shadow of God?" A shadow is a darer place where light does not shine through brightly. You may mean in the jyote or LIght of God rather than shadow, judging for all else that you said.

Sat Sri Akal , Narayanjot Kaur ji , Karam ji used a word shadow,I don't know what is the technical mean for this word , but what I know in common language this word is used for guru sahib ji and god that they not two they are one , mean they are abhed. In this case light or jyot of god has same mean which Karam ji want to say.Any way thanks to you who wants to clear the mean and many thanks to Karam ji who's post gave humble PEACE to my mind.

 

[spnadmin]

a.mother ji

Thanks you. Sometimes when I ask questions, it does not mean I don't have an answer or two. I do this so that as many people are possible, some non Sikhs and others Sikhs without a lot of background in Sikhi, will have a clear understanding of what a writer means to say. That is sometimes a funny thing but true.

 

[a.mother]

a.mother ji

Thanks you. Sometimes when I ask questions, it does not mean I don't have an answer or two. I do this so that as many people are possible, some non Sikhs and others Sikhs without a lot of background in Sikhi, will have a clear understanding of what a writer means to say. That is sometimes a funny thing but true.

Sat Sri Akal ji , Even I felt the same way what you have want to clear from Karam ji. but this will help more to non sikh viewer too.
Thanks lots.

 

[KAMLASINGH]

I think the translation of this Shabad is problematic for many reasons. First of all it is one "tuk" taken from the shabad. A shabad is a complete composition. So, to understand the concept, or the idea, the composer is trying to relay to the reader, is only understood by reading the entire composition.

Secondly, the name "Nanak" in the shabad is symbolic. There is a specific reason why all the nine Guruji's whose bani is in The Guru Granth Sahib, use Nanak as their name. While Guru Gobind Singh Ji never used "Nanak" in his bani. If we do not understand the symbolism, we can't understand the bani.

Thirdly, the translators (all of them) of Sri Guru Granth Sahib believe that Gurbani is just another philosophy, and translate it from that point of view. They can never grasp the essence of gurbani.

Lastly, a reader can not understand gurbani unless the reader is in the same state of mind as the writer. The writer in this case is connected with God, that means the reader must be enlightened before he or she can understand gurbani.

After reading the entire Shabad, I think the meaning of this "tuk" is: Guru (meaning God) is Nanak (symbolic), and Nanak(symbolically) is Guru (God). One does not exist without the other. It is like, the creation (karma), does not exist without the support of the creator (dharma), and the dharma is not needed, if there is no karma, or creation.

For example, if one creates a product or a service, to make this product or service useful, one needs to support and sustain the creation. The creation of the good or service in this case is Karma, or creation, and the support function to sustain the good or service is dharma. If one does not have a good or service to sell, one does not need sales force to sell it, and does not need money for the payroll. Similarly, if one has a good or service to sell, one can not do it unless one has the support structure to sustain.

So, in nut shell, the meaning of the stated tuk is: the creation does not exist without the creator's support, and the creators support is not needed if there is no creation.

 

[spnadmin]

Kamalsingh ji

I cannot opine whether some or all translators are taking the wrong approach. The trasnlation to me seems very close. However, I do think this tuk captures much of what you are saying as concept. In that sense I agree with you:

The shabad is from the bani of Bhat Mathura and is on Ang 1408 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. ਜੋਤਿ ਰੂਪਿ ਹਰਿ ਆਪਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਕਹਾਯਉ ॥
joth roop har aap guroo naanak kehaayo || The Embodiment of Light, the Lord Himself is called Guru Nanak.

jothi light
roop body, embodiment
har Lord or God
aap himself
Guroo Guru
Naanak Naanak
kehaayo called or said to be

One assumes first that Light and Lord, or jothi and Har, are the same concept. Then assume that Guru Nanaak is said to be the Lord. That makes him also jothi roop.

So, The Light itself is merged with Nanak (and all Gurus merged into one Light). That is the meaning I take from this.

Please permit me to point out that this was written by one of the bhats. From an historical standpoint, the bhats knew of some, not all, of the Gurus. Guru Arjan Dev in making this selection of shabad for Sri Guru Granth Sahib is therefore the one who has clariifed that all Gurus are merged with the light or are the embodiment of the Light - jothi roop. Since the bhats were Hindu, a reading of the shabad might lead a reader in a different direction. So the focus should be on johti Light not on any thought that the Gurus are somehow a God/Har incarnated.

 

[KAMLASINGH]

If one believes that gurbani is philosophy, then you are right, and all the gurbani translations are correct. But I believe that gurbani is statement of a fact. Guruji’s are stating a fact that is not known to the rest of the world. For them to be able to make factual statements, they have to know the fact first. The knowledge of the fact can only come from the creator.
I will translate the tuk you introduced, as follows:
joiq rUip hir Awip guru, nwnku khwXau ]
qw qy AMgdu BXa,u qq isau qqu imlwXau ]
The jot roop of God is the Guru, who enlightened Nanak, and Nanak gave the enlightenment to Angad, and so on. This was accomplished when tat was re-united with the tat.
Meaning of jot is light or intelligence. Opposite of jot is kal. Kal means darkness or ignorance, or lack of intelligence. Meaning of Guru is “One that transforms darkness into light”, or the “one that transforms lack of intelligence into intelligence”.
The five elements and their compounds that make up our body, lack intelligence. So our physical body is not intelligent. What makes the physical body intelligent is “tat”, and that “tat” is the Guru.
We obviously are intelligent, then we can say we already have the guru within us. But meaning of “qq isau qqu imlwXau” is that we have only half of the “tat” in us, but there is another half that we have no access to. Our situation is very similar to a computer that has no internet access.
Obviously, each one of us is just a miniscule part of the whole, so when one is attached to the whole, one becomes whole.
Since, the “tat” makes our dumb body work, then we should be recognized as “tat” and not by our physical appearance. When Nanak (physical entity) is enlightened, he becomes God. We recognize Nanak by his physical existence. But the real Nanak is what is sitting inside the physical body, and we know that it is God. Hence: joiq rUip hir Awip guru, nwnku khwXau ] Part of God that creates intelligence in living beings, is the Guru who manifested Himself, in the physical form, as Nanak.
Guruji’s did not want to say this themselves, because they did not want to confuse the reader. Moreover that idea was already tried in Christianity. So, they had Bhats state that.

 

[spnadmin]

Kamlasingh ji

I with your indulgence need to again separate the historical aspect of this tuk from the philosophical interpretation.

1.

Guruji’s did not want to say this themselves, because they did not want to confuse the reader. Moreover that idea was already tried in Christianity. So, they had Bhats state that.

It is difficult to believe that our Gurus would use the Bhats to make philosophical points for them that they as Gurus were unwilling to make themselves. It sounds dodgy.

2. There is not a lot of wiggle room in the vichaar of the tuk. Whether referring to 1 Guru or 11. The Gurus are the embodiment of the Light.

I am willing to be corrected, however, someone would have to explain to me how en-LIGHTENED our Gurus, they would need spokesmen in the form of Hindu poets.

The Bhats were part of the bakhti movement of northern india, and subscribed to the notion of One God, who was nirgun. Some of their poetry was preserved by Guru Arjan Dev ji as bani in the Aadi Granth. Some of their poetry was not included. If they were authorized spokesmen for our Gurus, all of their poetry would be part of Guru Granth Sahib. That is not the case.

 

[KAMLASINGH]

Well, the question here was, "Is guru Nanak Lord and the creator". This was the question from sikh80: "Is Guru Nanak dev ji stated to be Creator?
or
The translation is not correct
or
My appreciation Of the translation is faulty".
I stated that yes, since Guru Nanak is the embodiment of the Divine, he is divine, and all that Divine is.
In essence, you are saying the same thing.
Isn't that the view of every other religion?
The point here is not what the history is, or who said what, or which religion is better, the point is, are we ever going to know the truth?
With this religious bickering going on for over 5000 years, we haven't reached any conclusion yet. What we are doing today, other religion have been there and done that. We are not any special than anybody else.
I am proposing a simple truth. My understanding of gurbani tells me that all that has been said about God, for over 5000 years, is about one simple thing that can be jotted down in one sentence.
It is essential for us to know the truth for many reasons, least of which is that our very existance is in jeopardy.

 

[spnadmin]

I stated that yes, since Guru Nanak is the embodiment of the Divine, he is divine, and all that Divine is.
In essence, you are saying the same thing.
Isn't that the view of every other religion?

"Isn't that the view of every other religion?"

I would say, "No." One notable example from history is the torture and execution of Sufi Saints by Islamic hierarchy for preaching that one can merge with the Divine.

Another notable example from history is the near torture and execution of Bonaventure the Franciscan scholar by the hierarchy of the Roman Church for preaching about the "footprints of God" in creation - evidence for God's immanence in all of creation. This was condemned as heresy. He narrowly escaped death.

Within Sha'riah it is heresy to say that any human can embody the Divine.

"It is imperative at this point to draw attention to a common misconception. It is one thing to fulfill the obligations proceeding from divine attributes and quite another to strive to be an incarnation of divinity. The latter is patently false and un-Islamic." http://english.islammessage.com/articledetails.aspx?articleId=665

Wherever there is a dualistic construct of the I/Thou relationship between "man" and "god" divinity is bestowed by the divine upon rare individuals. The distinction between I (me) and Thou (God) is maintained because the duality is a fundamental assumption.By definition, duality is not something that can be overcome.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Ref:-Nanak is The GURU and NANAK is Lord

Hahing gone thru so many posts related to this thread I find surmised that there is so much confusion in the overall understanding of the references mentioned in the thread.

If we sincerely and truely understand the reference meaning of THE WORD "GURU" itself
that should be enough to get the right answer we may be looking for.Ironny is that so far we have never thought of actually knowing the reference meaning of the word
GURU'

The day we do this most of our confusions would automatically get removed.

With thanks
Prakash.s.Bagga

 

[Parma]

ਗੁਰੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਹਰਿ ਸੋਇ ॥੪॥੭॥੯॥
गुरु नानकु नानकु हरि सोइ ॥४॥७॥९॥
Gur Nānak Nānak har so­ė. ||4||7||9||
Nanak is the Guru; Nanak is the Lord Himself. ||4||7||9||

Gur = Knowledgable, Nanak, Nanak har soe.

Best I can do with the english translation
Knowledgable Nanak, Nanak imparts (the knowledge) all = Har everything
What Guru Nanak is saying is Guru Nanak is just like everyone else, just as the whole of humanity is apart of har, he is a slave to the har which is inside all, The knowledge has come to nanak and he imparts it to that energy har which is inside everyone else, he is not declaring himself to be god! Har = Everything!