Jump to content

Talk:Satguru

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sharnak (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 25 April 2006 (Satguru always a Sannyasan?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]