Sikhism: Did Nanak proclaim to be Guru?

[paarsurrey]

Sikhism: Did Nanak proclaim to be Guru, please?

I understand that Nanak did not claim to be Guru in a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and straightforward manner, as per Granth .
If yes, please quote from Nanak?
Right, please?
Thread open to everybody of religion or no-religion.

Regards
_____________
#21, #20 ,
#1,

 

[Vinayaka]

Anybody who doesn't make such egotistical claims is fine in my book. The true Guru would never make those claims, but let his teachings or works stand by themselves.

 

[danieldemol]

I looked up the definition of Guru, here’s what I found:
guru
/ˈɡʊruː/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   a Hindu spiritual teacher.
   
   
   • 2.
     an influential teacher or popular expert.
     
     
     I guess the obvious question is why would a person have to claim to be a guru to be one?
     
     An apple is an apple without ever needing to proclaim itself as such.
     
     Likewise one who gives spiritual teachings is a spiritual leader if they gain followers by definition.
     
     The claim seems irrelevant to whether or not he was a guru.

 

[Vinayaka]

I looked up the definition of Guru, here’s what I found:
guru
/ˈɡʊruː/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   a Hindu spiritual teacher.
   
   • 2.
     an influential teacher or popular expert.
     
     
     I guess the obvious question is why would a person have to claim to be a guru to be one?
     
     An apple is an apple without ever needing to proclaim itself as such.
     
     Likewise one who gives spiritual teachings is a spiritual leader if they gain followers by definition.
     
     The claim seems irrelevant to whether or not he was a guru.

In traditional Hinduism, the teacher is forbidden to teach until the first student appears. He has to be asked.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The Baha'i see Guru Nanak as one who was "…inspired to reconcile the religions of Hinduism and Islám, the followers of which religions had been in violent conflict.… The Bahá'ís thus view Guru Nanak as a 'saint of the highest order'."

He had many great teachings.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sikhism: Did Nanak proclaim to be Guru, please?

I understand that Nanak did not claim to be Guru in a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and straightforward manner, as per Granth .
If yes, please quote from Nanak?
Right, please?
Thread open to everybody of religion or no-religion.

Regards
_____________
#21, #20 ,
#1,

Why would it matter?

Sikhism is very interesting Faith from a Baha'i perspective given many similarities between the Teachings of the two Faiths. Both faiths have struggled at some point to be recognised as independent religions.

Whereas Baha'is view Gautama Buddha and Krishna as Manifestations of God, there is no clear reference to the Sikhs or their Gurus in the Bahá'í Writings, (although it is believed that Ábdu'l-Baha made reference to the Sikhs when He was talking about the existence of a physically strong people who neither smoke nor drink). Bahá'í's might view Guru Nanak as better understood as one of sainthood, rather than independent prophethood. In a letter from the Universal House of Justice, it is stated that Guru Nanak was endowed with a "saintly character". In the same letter, the Universal House of Justice states that he was

"inspired to reconcile the religions of Hinduism and Islam, the followers of which religions had been in violent conflict.... The Bahá'ís thus view Guru Nanak as a 'saint of the highest order' ".

Common principles might include:

- Sikhs believe in One God (Satnam, Waheguru)
- Men and women are equal
- Rejection of any system of class or caste
- Deeds are more important than membership of any particular religion
- A high standard of conduct and morals
- The importance of service to others

 

[paarsurrey]

Anybody who doesn't make such egotistical claims is fine in my book. The true Guru would never make those claims, but let his teachings or works stand by themselves.

And that is why I am reading Nanak's words in Granth. I will understand him from them. People could attribute things to Nanak what he never said. If Nanak did not say that he was a Guru, why make him one. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I looked up the definition of Guru, here’s what I found:
guru
/ˈɡʊruː/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   a Hindu spiritual teacher.
   • 2.
     an influential teacher or popular expert.
     
     
     I guess the obvious question is why would a person have to claim to be a guru to be one?
     
     An apple is an apple without ever needing to proclaim itself as such.
     
     Likewise one who gives spiritual teachings is a spiritual leader if they gain followers by definition.
     
     The claim seems irrelevant to whether or not he was a guru.

Please read Nanak's words in the Granth. He did not say, I understand, that he was Guru or a teacher, it is God whom he believed to be the Guru while Nanak was learning from Him. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

And that is why I am reading Nanak's words in Granth. I will understand him from them. People could attribute things to Nanak what he never said. If Nanak did not say that he was a Guru, why make him one. Right, please?

Regards

I don't think you understand how dharmic religions do this. Becoming a Guru is because of practices, not declarations. Can a person just go out and declare himself a doctor? No, he needs to have some qualifications, or if a village doctor, like a herbalist, have experience to demonstrate he is indeed a doctor. In Guru lineages, the next guru is appointed by the previous guru, based solely on qualifications.

Just declaring yourself, like the way Mirza Ghulan Ahmad did, or Baha'u'llah did simply doesn't work in dharmic faiths.

"I'm here. I'm here," doesn't cut it.

But to be fair, I'm not all that familiar with Guru Nanak and how he became the Sikh's first Guru. I guess it's time for some basic research. Maybe you can do the same and we can share.

Edited ... in my brief search, I discovered that elders noticed his spirituality at a young age, and he set off on may pilgrimages, debating and discussing people on the way, forming religious, and political views. The honorific of Guru would have been put in by others. Hopefully @ManSinha will be along to elucidate things for us.

 

[danieldemol]

Please read Nanak's words in the Granth. He did not say, I understand, that he was Guru or a teacher, it is God whom he believed to be the Guru while Nanak was learning from Him. Right, please?

Regards

I never said that Nanak claimed to be a guru, I said he is a guru by definition without having to claim to be one.

But I guess some people are too brainwashed into believing circular claims to understand the difference between what i’m saying and what you are saying

 

[Vinayaka]

Paarsurrey ... Chapter 6 of this should be helpful ... https://www.vidhia.com/Jagjit Singh/Dynamics_of_Sikh_Revolution.pdf

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't think you understand how dharmic religions do this. Becoming a Guru is because of practices, not declarations. Can a person just go out and declare himself a doctor? No, he needs to have some qualifications, or if a village doctor, like a herbalist, have experience to demonstrate he is indeed a doctor. In Guru lineages, the next guru is appointed by the previous guru, based solely on qualifications.

Just declaring yourself, like the way Mirza Ghulan Ahmad did, or Baha'u'llah did simply doesn't work in dharmic faiths.

"I'm here. I'm here," doesn't cut it.

But to be fair, I'm not all that familiar with Guru Nanak and how he became the Sikh's first Guru. I guess it's time for some basic research. Maybe you can do the same and we can share.

Edited ... in my brief search, I discovered that elders noticed his spirituality at a young age, and he set off on may pilgrimages, debating and discussing people on the way, forming religious, and political views. The honorific of Guru would have been put in by others. Hopefully @ManSinha will be along to elucidate things for us.

As one knows, these days, I am reading Nanak's words from the Granth. It is not at one place together in the Granth. It is scattered all over Granth and in between there are many other persons who say things "in the name of Nanak" or using his name Nanak in their writings. So with a lot of effort I copy/pasted from them from the Granth for my own use so that I could know Nanak from his own words. I am almost half-way through and asking little questions. Just answer them from Nanak's words if one has read it. Right, please?
Later I found a translation of Granth by a Christian, one of the earlier English translations of Granth. I understand, he also did the same things, one writer putting all his writings together.I have not read from it yet. One could read it, if one may like it:

Max Arthur Macauliffe
· The Sikh Religion Vol I (1909)
· The Sikh Religion Vol II (1909)
· The Sikh Religion Vol III (1909)
· The Sikh Religion Vol IV (1909)
· The Sikh Religion Vol V (1909)
· The Sikh Religion Vol VI (1909)
· Translation of the Japji - M. Macauliffe
Sikh Digital Library : The Sikh Religion - Its Gurus, Sacred Writings and Authors Vol. 1 - Max Arthur Macauliffe

Right, please?

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In traditional Hinduism, the teacher is forbidden to teach until the first student appears. He has to be asked.

Interestingly I see that this also unfolds down the Aramaic line of Messengers, just in a slightly different frame of reference.

The Messenger only gives the Message when the first Beleiver is ready to accept that Message, and not one moment before.

Regards Tony

 

[Jedster]

I looked up the definition of Guru, here’s what I found:
guru
/ˈɡʊruː/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   a Hindu spiritual teacher.
   • 2.
     an influential teacher or popular expert.
     
     
     I guess the obvious question is why would a person have to claim to be a guru to be one?
     
     An apple is an apple without ever needing to proclaim itself as such.
     
     Likewise one who gives spiritual teachings is a spiritual leader if they gain followers by definition.
     
     The claim seems irrelevant to whether or not he was a guru.

Anyone who has read Guru Nanak's writing(s) can see that he was a great master/teacher/guru of the highest order, who related to the people of his time by addressing issues that were dividing people.
He is one of the people that I am glad turned up in history.

 

[paarsurrey]

Anyone who has read Guru Nanak's writing(s) can see that he was a great master/teacher/guru of the highest order, who related to the people of his time by addressing issues that were dividing people.
He is one of the people that I am glad turned up in history.

I also admire Nanak, but did he claim to be Guru by his own words? Is it a difficult question, please? I think it is a simple question and could be answered from Granth from the portion of it by Nanak. Please read it and answer. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Interestingly I see that this also unfolds down the Aramaic line of Messengers, just in a slightly different frame of reference.

The Messenger only gives the Message when the first Beleiver is ready to accept that Message, and not one moment before.

Regards Tony

Does one mean that Nanak did not find anybody in his whole life to whom he could teach, and it was only after his demise that people became his disciples, please?

Regards

 

[Jedster]

I also admire Nanak, but did he claim to be Guru by his own words? Is it a difficult question, please? I think it is a simple question and could be answered from Granth from the portion of it by Nanak. Please read it and answer. Right, please?

Regards

Well, I don't not have the question that is in your mind, so I suggest that you read the whole GGS to see if you can find an answer.

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey ... Chapter 6 of this should be helpful ... https://www.vidhia.com/Jagjit Singh/Dynamics_of_Sikh_Revolution.pdf

Thanks for the input. Does one mean the following:

“Tera kawan gurujis ka tu chela … … … Sabad guru surat dhun chela.”1 Again, “The transcendent Lord, God, is the Guru whom Nanak has met.”2 Guru Nanak himself claims direct communion with God, and that his mission is a consequence of divine revelation. “O Lalo, as I receive the word of the Lord, so do I utter.”3
Guru Granth Sahib, pp. 942, 943. 2. Ibid., p. 599. 3. Ibid., p. 722.

One could see that Nanak here says that Lord,God is Nanak's Guru and he does not present himself as such. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, I don't not have the question that is in your mind, so I suggest that you read the whole GGS to see if you can find an answer.

I am already doing it. I have read Nanak's contents up-to "Page 795 of 1430" and intend to read the whole of it within a fortnight, or so. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I never said that Nanak claimed to be a guru, I said he is a guru by definition without having to claim to be one.

But I guess some people are too brainwashed into believing circular claims to understand the difference between what i’m saying and what you are saying

My question in the OP is about Nanak from his contents in the Granth specifically. Please look into it. Right, please?

Regards