Talk:Satguru

Discussion

Propose to merge this into Guru. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Satguru" and "Guru" really don't have the same meaning in those traditions that make a distinction, e.g., Sikhism & Surat Shabd Yoga, even if some other traditions use them interchangably, e.g., Hinduism. How would you preserve this distinction by merging the two articles? I don't support a merge at this time. — RDF ^talk 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

By creating a new section on the Guru article, named Satguru and explaining the specifics of this term. What do you think? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well you could merge the Hindu sections about Satguru with Guru, but the Sikh version is not the same. Satguru is a name for god, like Waheguru and is not a learned teacher. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If the redirect goes directly to the section, like shown below, I can live with it. — RDF ^talk 18:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Guru#Satguru

I don't think that Redirects can include anchors... So we can leave it like this for now. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're right, but it was worth a try. I also think the "See also" works for now. — RDF ^talk 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I am not sure that Sikhs refer to their gurus as satgurus. Can you confirm this? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do, not all, they use various names. Jossi.The darkness/light thing bothers me as what you do is making it too easy. I am not a scholar, but did some research for you, maybe that helps. Since , gu is never darkness in Sanskrit, Guna is "darkness" on the level of consciousness (greed, anger, passion) and ru has amongst other meanings "cutting" , "breaks" , "kill". Since this is not a proof it does make more sense(especially in the translation of the upnanshad). the breaker of guna. The etymology of ru as light must IMO derived from somewhere else, i don't know. Since the basic word gru or guru is meaning the heavy/important man, the other meaning was probaly added out of religious poetry or to give it a deeper meaning constructing such etymologies and is close to, whoever thougt that, what Prabhupada once gave as etymology to Guru. Thomas h 14:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That may be the case, but in folllowing Wikipedia policy, we can only write based on sources we find. Check my last edit to Guru. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Recent edits

1. removed Sikhism template as this article refers to Hiduism, Sikhism and Surat Shabd
2. removed material that is discussed in the Guru, Contemporary Sant Mat movement and others

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Satguru always a Sannyasan?

Hanuman Das, I appreciate your respect for Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, but this information that a satguru is never a householder is not true. You need other sources or it ought to be removed. You have sannyasin and satguru confused. I can give numerous citings and examples where this is not so. Gautama Buddha was married for gosh sake.

I do not need other sources. It is cited as something that Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami said. Wikipedia is not a judge of truth; it simply reports verifiable facts, and that is what my cited addition is. It is you who needs to cite a reference that a Satguru can be a householder if you wish to dispute it. I do not need multiple sources to include it. I'd recommend adding one good academic source that says a Satguru can be a householder and leave it at that. WP:NPOV means that you can't exclude multiple viewpoints simply because you don't agree with them or because there are conflicting opinions. That there are conflicting opinions is also a fact and an interesting one at that. —Hanuman Das 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Now that I think about it I can't think of a single source that has any mention of this in its definition. But there are so many examples from history (or legend). For instance, Milarepa's satguru Marpa was a householder. Nisargadatta Maharaj was a householder. Also Gautama Buddha. But you are right that Wikipedia is open to disparate views. Jon 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see a good reference that confirms you opinion as I suspect you are correct, but it is also possible that the term satguru is misused in popular usage; which also would be an interesting fact to include in the article, if true. Unfortunately, I don't have time to hit the library myself at this time, but I have no doubt that you or someone will find some more infomation on this apparent conflict... —Hanuman Das 21:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman, Thank you for being so kind. The more I thought about it the more I realized you were right that I had no source that says anything contrary to what Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami says. I only had these examples in mind that I already mentioned. I know that Avatars like Rama are sometimes married. This matter is not usually part of the description of a satguru or sadguru, but rather their state is described. It is hard to say for it is hard to say who was for sure a real satguru. We can only rely on lineage or the word of other satgurus. And often they are silent on who else is a satguru. Certainly Sai Baba of Shirdi was, but he was not married. He did smoke however. Perhaps someone else can do the research. Jon 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Note, however, that the statement "The definition of Satguru elsewhere does not however include that stricture" is a negative claim, which is 'true' as far as it goes if you check the definitions elsewhere. As far as others having the 'opinion' that Satgurus can be householders, this can be found in several not-so-authoritative sources. I have here a few I found:

• "Some Masters in the past were householders and had children." [1]
• Sadguru Yogiraj Sri Sri Mangeshda (See bottom sentence) [2]
• Tiruvannamalai, Kanchipuram (page 10) [3]
• "Sadguru must also be married" (Under "Qualities of a Sadguru") [4]

Interesting examples. I note that the first and third do not seem to be speaking specifically of satguru, but rather "Master" in the first and indeterminate in the second. And the first is clearly a Sikh example and I'm sure we can agree that Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami was not trying to speak to Sikh practices. The last example suggests that the rule varies from lineage to lineage, which is what I would suspect. For example, Kriya Yoga lineages seem to allow householder satgurus, while perhaps most other lineages do not.

With respect to the negative claim, I don't think it sufficient to merit inclusion. Kind of like that "Have you stopped beating your wife" question, the answer is not conclusive and the opposite may be true. It's true that some things may be so taken for granted that no one ever mentions them in writing, but I doubt that this is one of them. I'll add Hindu to the Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami sentence as we work to get a clearer understanding of the matter.... —Hanuman Das 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Surat Shabd Yoga, Sant Mat, Contemporary Sant Mat movements, Radha Soami, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and related lineages are well known for householder and even family lineages, such as Shiv Dayal Singh, Baba Sawan Singh, Kirpal Singh, Sant Thakar Singh and many others. 207.69.139.138 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at those links. Yes, you're right what you say. I suppose I need a source -- but will not come down to a definition most likely (as you say yourself) since most definitions are short. However, some reasoning is necessary even in looking at qualified sources in determining if a satguru is a sanyassin. Here's my thinking on this. Wikipedia defines a sanyassin as the last stage of the path as prescribed by Hinduism. But according to Meher Baba in "God Speaks" a satguru is no longer on the path at all, but is rather a perfected master. He is a perfect teacher and no longer a seeker or aspirant. The following exerpt speaks about both sanyasins and sadgurus so it is a good source for showing they are not one and the same thing.

"Throughout all ages, sadhus and seekers, sages and saints, munis and monks, tapasavis and sanyasis, Sufis and talibs, have struggled during their lifetimes, undergoing untold hardships in their efforts to extricate themselves from the maze of actions and to realize the eternal Existence by overcoming life... Emancipation from the grip of life and freedom from the labyrinths of actions are made possible for all and attained by a few, when a Perfect Master, Sadguru or Qutub is approached and his grace and guidance are invoked." ("God Speaks" Dodd Meade, 1955, p.291)

What do we do when we have one man's claim that satgurus are unmarried and all these examples (as mentioned above by me and the other person) where he is wrong? As far as adding the Hindu qualification, what about Nisargadatta Maharaj who was married with children? He was Hindu. Jon 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally found a published source that speaks directly on the subject. Bhau Kalchuri's book "Meher Prabhu," Manifestation Inc. 1986. See reference in article. Jon 15:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the paragraph looks pretty good now. Jon 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the only way it could be improved is if a reference could be found with a list of what sects might require sannyasin status vs. what sects allow householder Satgurus. It would be nice to be specific and explicit about it. Surely someone must have published an academic study of guru traditions... —Hanuman Das 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a satguru sort of above these exoteric religious rules? I also read, for instance, that Upasni Maharaj was a married man who became a satguru. In fact he was married three times (all three wives died). [5]

Yes, I agree with you. The exoteric definitions are superficial in a spiritual sense. The deeper meaning of Sannyasi is one who is "virat" - one who has mitigated material desires - therefore has renounced the material world. The symbolism of marriage and the seed desire of kama, or bodily pleasure, is the source of the exoteric definition of renunciate - since one who renounces married life thereby renounces sex and bodily pleasure. However, it is true that we have countless examples of Satgurus that have been married and have children. In the Kriya tradition for example, many of the modern masters were householder satgurus (i.e., Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar, etc..). Even Krishna, who was unequivocally a Satguru as he was the embodiment of Narayan, or Vishnu, had his consort, Radha. I think we can mitigate the quote from Sivaya Subramuniyaswami based on this preponderance of evidence. Hamsacharya dan 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a breath

Hey, everybody. Take a deep breath. Not long ago this was a pretty nice clean site. Then it became a magnet for everyone's teaching from their satguru. That's not what this is. Think about it. People read in books or on the net that so and so said he was a satguru or claimed to be one. So they go onto Wikipedia to see what that word means. Do you want to find a bunch of disciples of people arguing over what their "satguru" said about "satgurus?" Or talking about yoga practices or other sanskrit terms. Please please please help us get this site to a point where the researcher can learn about what a sadguru is (not from a contemporary guru either, for then there will be arument). Stick to the tradition only. Please don't make a fool out of such a great tradition by including all the things that you feel your guru would want you to include here. Stay on topic and use traditional vedantic sources. Otherwise you are scaring off people as we look like lunatics. Please. I don't know what else to say. If you, Hamsacharya dan, Hanuman Das, and Baba Louis, will let me I will stream line this and make some suggestions for scholarly sources and the modern guru (he said she said) stuff can be cleared out. This will really help the eastern part of Wikipedia if we can get this to a higher level since "satguru" is really central to the whole teaching of eastern thought. Let's serve Wikipedia users in this way. Jon 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the problem is. Just two days ago, you said "Thanks. I think the paragraph looks pretty good now." The only thing which has changed is Baba Louis' addition, which it seems you agree with. Also, I don't see any edit warring in this article. I was pleased to collaborate with you and pleased with the resulting paragraph. Could you be clearer about what has changed since you said it looked pretty good? In point of fact, the article should not be a dictionary entry. Contemporary opinions are proper subject matter for an encyclopdia, though perhaps a heading to separate them from the main body is in order. I'd like to see details about what sects require sannyasin status and what sects allow householders. That is also information worthy of an in-depth encyclopedia article. I don't see any problem with the article except that the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath quote is too long and the last half of it is off-topic. But I won't touch it b/c User:Hamsacharya dan gets vindictive when you change his stuff, refuses to discuss it, calls it vandalism, and accuses everybody of being a sockpuppet. I don't need the grief, so could you please make the change? —Hanuman Das 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

New Organization

I hope the overall reorganization is something everyone can live with for now. I think it's a page people wouldn't mind linking to and is informative. I am hoping that the "Ancient sources" section will be expanded from other vedic and Buddhist sources. I hope no one's feelings are hurt. The etymology of "guru" belongs under guru and the etymology of "sat" was already stated at the top. A lot of the Gurunath material read a little like original research or poetic license. It may not have been but that's how it read. Better to stick with what has been said or what he said, with quotes and references to maintain the appearance of objectivity and impartiality.Chris 11:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent edit, imo. —Hanuman Das 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks good the way it is now. Hamsacharya dan 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope my edits have not disrupted the new organization of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the new organization is helping a lot. NEti 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

John the Baptist as Satguru

Please note that personal web pages and/or self published books are not considered reliable sources and should only be used as primary sources about the author or the book. See WP:RS. We need a better citation for that text. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation is fine. A quick Google search should have sufficed to show that it was simply a published book which is also available on the web and provide the ISBN... I have done so... —Hanuman Das 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very probable that it is a self-published book, if one is to judge by its Amazon.com entry[6]. Nevertheless, the text in the article now reads with the proper attribution to the author. This is needed as John Baptist as Satguru is not a widely-held belief in Christianity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(OT: How is your Sanskrit? I need some help with the etymology of some Sanskrit terms) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

I don't have the right resources for Sanskrit etymology. Sorry. —Hanuman Das 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I may be have been mistaken about this book being self-published. The reason the book is featured so minimalistically in Amazon.com may be related to the fact that the publisher is in India. See [7]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, only a few books published in India really get much representation on Amazon.com. I could tell right away that it was an Indian book when I Googled b/c it showed an ISBN starting with 8. Hard to say how widely available it is in India, but it is certainly published by a book publisher since a self-published book in India is unlikely to have an ISBN... —Hanuman Das 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Satguru Nanak

As far as I understand, Sikhs refer often to Guru Nanak as "Satguru Nanak". See [8] Is there a Sikh here amongst editors that may clarify this? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Sadguru and Satguru

Suggestion: please explain the lexical difference between Sadguru and Satguru. Why are both terms used?

in Sanskrit (roughly):

• Satyam - the truth
• Sada - all encompassing, highest, all-inclusive, all
• Sadashiva - the highest form of Shiva

MahaDave 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)