Talk:Gurunath/Archive 1

Page Deletion

• Copied from Yogiraj gurunath page:

Answer to claim that the word Gurunath was coined in 1986 by Mahendranath:

The word Gurunath was used in 1967 when [Yogiraj Gurunath] wrote this poem, part of which is given below, in honor of all Gurus and especially Gorakshanath Babaji. This word was also in use and existed thousands of years before. In India, people have been giving this name to their children for a long time, singing it in bhajans, and in honor of this ancient word Gurunath, they give their homes and businesses this very name. The temperment of India Yogis is free and flowing, and it is only from the West that this coining and trademarking has come into being. It's an ego trip to claim ancient words like Siddha, Yoga, Kundalini, and Gurunath as one's personal property. It's just like the white man coming to America and dividing the lands and rivers which the Native American Indians rightly believed to be a free and flowing gift of God, and the common property of all. With divisions, grabbing, and coining began all the headaches and problems of humankind. Surely a greedy and insecure way to go about things, and certainly does not promote unity and harmony in humanity.

Allakh Niranjan, Sri Gurunath

Tum yogijan jivan prabhat

Kripa nidan de do vardan

Harpran tumhara anusandhan

Tum swayambhu jivan jwala ho

Raj hans ka urtha ujala ho

Hrydaya Nath prano pranam

Tum jan ke jivan jwala ho

Hamsacharya dan 15:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The 'coining' of a term that is already in existence and attempting to divorce the word from the etymological and linguistic context completely seems a strange attempt at putting forth a new world-view and doctrine. 'Gurunath' has been in use in India for many centuries. Devotees have chanted the refrain 'Bolo Sri Sat Gurunath Maharaj ki JAI!!!' since time immemorial. One only need to actually go to a temple or satsang (devotional gathering) almost anywhere in India to hear it. Practically all orders, missions, sects and sub-sects use this term.

"So I have coined a word—Gurunath ... This word can be the Western term for the same thing as Gurudev and it circumvents any religious or Eastern connections."

One must ask themselves - is it possible to take a term from Sanskrit - a language that has existed in India since ancient times (even by modern academic scholarly standards), and proposition its new usage to 'circumvent' Eastern connections. Furthermore, Sanskrit as a language cannot be divorced from a religio~philosophical context. The very existence of the language hinges on everything that would be deemed 'religious' by the West. Even further still, let us give Mahendranath (born Lawrence Miles) the benefit of the doubt...still the Western term for 'Gurudev' still puts the term 'Gurunath' back in the realm of religiousity and its Eastern connection for it means the same as 'Gurudev'. How does this 'newly coined' term 'Gurunath' actually work in practice? The article in Wikipedia completely glosses over it and merely states it as a patch to cover a potentially dangerous hole in a new sectarian lineage of house-holder yogi lay people who reside or are from the exclusivity of the West. So who exactly bestows a Guru-status on his shishyas (devotees)? For a according to those who belong the same order believe a Guru must pass away for one to get Guru-status. Or is this something exclusively for Westerners who feel when the time is right they may spontaneously bloom into 'Guru status'? Indeed, 'Gurunath' was his solution. So, newly coined terms may confer solutions to such dilemmas. Very interesting indeed. How did he know he had reached 'Guru Status' himself? The fact is that sometimes the devotees (or those that find a person and their ideals appealing) confer this status more than any other individual. Look at Marxism...Marx's distain for all things religious would be a bit incongruous with the fact that many revere his picture as if he were some religious figure and just peer into the fanatical, authoritarian dictators of whatever denomination to see that 'religious' reverence is more than evident in the core power structure.

Getting back to the term 'Gurunath' from within the Indian (and Eastern) tradition. We find that it is not used exclusively for householder yogis or sannyasins...but rather the term has been used to refer to persons of both pedigrees...it is also a term that addresses the Supreme Guru - the Lord Himself/Herself. The word 'Nath' is found in all major religions and within 'Hinduism' is found to inrelation to practically every God or Goddess...for the Gods and Goddesses of India have many epithets. One must only take a Char Dam pilgrimage in the Himalayas to find that even the mountains themselves are considered to be living, breathing yogis...they are Naths too - Kedar Nath, Badri Nath, Amar Nath...

The Aghoris, Siddhas, Tantriks, Kaulas and Kapilas (to name a few of the more esoteric branches of 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism') all have very close links to the Nath tradition. There has been and is still a lot of cross fertilisation going on. Many have taken initiation into a number of these traditions - sometimes both 'Hindu' and 'Buddhist'. So, as the practictioner progresses what exactly is their fold? It often becomes subordinate to the transendental quest and advanced practioners eventually become Masters that freely take from whatever tradition to get a specific teaching across to particular groups of people.

The term 'Gurudev' also is not solely reserved for the person that has foresaken family life. In India, it is extremely common for this term to be used to refer to one whom is very well respected in any given field. For example, one may call Pt. (Pundit) Ravi Shankar 'Gurudev' if he were your sitar teacher/guru. Rabinranath Tagore is often refered to with the title 'Gurudev'.

The term 'Swami'(male) 'Swamini' (female), however, is generally used to refer to one has foresaken their family and who often lives in an ashram or temple, and often wearing the ochre robes.

Currently, there seems nothing wrong with creating and promoting ones own synthesis of tantric teachings for a particular audience, but to claim one 'coins' a new term from a term that has already been minted in numerous currencies seems a bit too far. Perhaps, it would be better to say 'I have put a new gloss on this term'. For that is what the Buddha Sakyamuni did. The Buddha took the term 'brahmin' and gave it a new meaning - much to the consternation of the dogmatic priestly class...the Buddha even refered to himself as a brahmin. In fact, if one were to read the Sutras, one will find that the Buddha was referred to not as 'the Buddha' when he spoke but 'Bhagavan'...as in 'SriBhagavan uvaca' which is often translated as 'the Blessed Lord/One Spoke/Said'...anyone who knows Sanskrit and has read the Bhagavad Gita will notice that Sri Krishna is referred to in the same way...and indeed certain verses may easily be said by either.

May you all find what you seek...be true to yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.229.248 (talk • contribs)

Citation

As I've stated elsewhere, copied below, I am happy to make Shri Mahendranath's meaning secondary as long as a cite for prior use as a title is provided. Surely if Shri Mahendranath is wrong, the word simply needs to be looked up in a Sanskrit dictionary and the entry cited. I believe that the prior uses indicated above are references to a name, not a title. But if you have a dictionary cite for use as a title, please provide, ok? Below is a similar message posted on an anonymous user's page a couple of weeks ago... ---Baba Louis 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the Gurunath page with you. If you can provide an academic reference to the use of the tere Gurunath as a title for a Guru rather than as a given or family name or name of a river, etc. Normally, I would expect to find a glossary entry by doing a Google search for "glossary Gurunath" [1] - it find no glossary entries but rather people named Gurunath. On the other hand, the search for "glossary gurudev" [2] easily produces a nice glossary entry. So you can see why I'm dubious of the common use of the word as a title. With western thirst for Gurus and eastern knowledge, it would surely be in an online glossary. If you can provide an

academic reference, I will happily make the oldest use of the term the primary part of the article. I've already revised the text to indicate belief on Shri Mahendranath's part rather than fact. Remember that Wikipedia cannot be the judge of truth. All it can ask is that a primary or secondary source be provided. In this case, a primary source is provided. However, of course, people may make mistakes. It is important to present their evidence and belief without bias, even when they are wrong. Hope this helps you to see where I am coming from. ---Baba Louis 03:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Even after Mahendranath, it still isn't in any dictionary as a title, so you're contradicting yourself. The problem with sanskrit and yoga is that yogis care little about creating encyclopedias and dictionaries, and even less about translating them into English - only western redactors like Georg Feuerstein take on those challenges. Let's be real here. You know as well as anybody else that Gurunath is an ancient spiritual title. Otherwise people wouldn't have adapted it as a given name. It's simple. Gurunath has a specific meaning and that meaning is "Spiritual teacher and lord" - how could that be anything other than a title? Necessity of proof of it's titleship is obviated by it's meaning and ancient root words. The fact that it's a given name is what should be proven - which is done so amply with Google. Hamsacharya dan 15:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)