Talk:Satguru: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
Satguru can be householder |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
#removed material that is discussed in the [[Guru]], [[Contemporary Sant Mat movement]] and others |
#removed material that is discussed in the [[Guru]], [[Contemporary Sant Mat movement]] and others |
||
[[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi fresco ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossifresco|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossifresco|@]]</small> 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
[[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi fresco ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossifresco|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossifresco|@]]</small> 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. |
Revision as of 09:39, 25 April 2006
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)
- 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
- removed Sikhism template as this article refers to Hiduism, Sikhism and Surat Shabd
- 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.