# Is Sikh Philosophy Only For Sikhs?



## Nadeem (Mar 11, 2007)

Judging by some of the recent postings in this Forum from individuals like Kaur-1 and Surinder Kaur-Ji, this is a Sikh _Philosophy_ website but it is only meant for Sikhs. Other people, who are not Sikh, cannot contribute to this website in any constructive way. Instead those of us who are genuinely interested in Sikh philosophy must create their own website or simply go somewhere else. Can this be correct?

My understanding of Sikh philosophy as a non-Sikh consists of the following:

1) A Universal Message for All People (regardless of religion, caste or race)

2) Equality of Women

3) Equality of Humans

In addition to these features of Sikh _Philosophy _there are religious concepts like Naam Japna [I have already started a thread on this concept] Kirat Karo and Vand Chakko [sharing with others who are not Sikh]

Now, maybe I have made a mistake in my understanding of Sikh philosophy and its relevance to people who belong to other faiths? Maybe the information I have recieved from Kaur-1 and Surinder Kaur is actually correct and that the standard understanding of Sikh Philosophy needs to be radically revised and changed. If so, please let me know, so that non-Sikhs like me can leave this website and go somewhere else to appreciate real Sikh Philosophy and Wisdom.


----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------


----------



## Nadeem (Mar 11, 2007)

My question is: Can Saurinder-Ji or Kaur-1 provide any evidence of the _false_ or "fake" assumptions or _incorrect _information they allege I am making about Sikh Philosophy or is it simply prejudice?


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 11, 2007)

Nadeem ji,

This is my impression of the forum and this topic so far. Members of the forum are on a number of different wavelengths ranging from deeply versed in Sikh writing and text to beginners. Or, ranging from extremely zealous about Sikhi to moderate. Or, even ranging from desirous to discuss all of eastern philosophy including Sikh thought to narrowly focused on Sikh beliefs. Some are exclusive in the way they understand Sikh philosophy and don't tolerate non-Asians, non-Sikhs, etc. Others are very inclusive and draw one another into conversation. Some are sarcastic. others are interested in what everyone else has to say.

Just like everywhere else on the planet.

I too experience a number of predicaments because of my beginning status in the forum. Is there one culture of speakers or many, and where do I fit in? Is this a forum where individuals propound a personal perspective? Is it a forum where we interact in a dialog? Do those who are so advanced in Sikh thought (speak and read banis in original Punjabi and have explored the various texts of the SGGS) really have the patience to suffer beginners like me? These are my early questions.

Actually the forum seems to be all over the lot. I am just learning to use "ji" when I respond because it seems to be a norm of communication on the forum.

I haven't found either Kaur1 or Surinder Kaur Cheema to be disinterested in other points of view. Both have engaged me. One response to my posts seemed mysterious. It may just be a matter of personal interest in a topic or a thread that is the cause. Anyway, it is impossible to read someone's mind or predict motivations. 

By jumping around from topic to topic and thread to thread one can always find a conversation that asks for attention. Sometimes the well runs dry; sometimes it fills up again.


----------



## Nadeem (Mar 12, 2007)

aad0002 writes: "I haven't found either Kaur1 or Surinder Kaur Cheema to be disinterested in other points of view. Both have engaged me."

I wish I could say the same. Please look at the previous threads and you will see that they appear quite content to muffle proper discussion through the inveterate use of _ad hominem _arguments. They seem to be less interested in what you say than in who you are, which is very unfortunate.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 12, 2007)

Nadeem ji,

I am on my way to work in 30 minutes and want to say more. I promise I will re-read the threads. It may just be a problem of different styles of speaking in the forum.

 One thing that bothers me from time to time in the entire forum: I can never be sure if a statement is meant at face value, and wants a response, or whether  person is being ironic and doesn't really expect a reply. 

Let's just keep this dialog going as far as it takes us, and stop when there is nothing more to be said. I responded to you on a related thread earlier today, and want to say more about the issue of intellect versus ritual. This has become a point of interest for me. Accept my thanks, as you were the one who got me interested in this to begin with.

Peace!


----------



## Admin (Mar 12, 2007)

I may sound sarcastic to some after reading this post but i would share what i think... thanks for bearing with me everybody... 

I think some of us are reacting too naive to the situation in hand. If some of the members do not seem to tackle the queries of people like devkumar or nadeem in a friendly logical manner that does not mean that these people have joined the forum with an agenda or something... 

For the sake of information of everybody around here: devkumar ji has requested that all his posts and username be deleted from this forum as to him sikhism seems to be a personal property of sikhs alone. I am afraid this is exactly the impression they are getting from us, the sikhs, as we are opening an undue fortress each time something is asked on sikhism... It is our own shortcomings to think otherwise rather than they coming with an agenda. Sikhism is not all about living in a shell... its a global concept and thats why concept of SPN was originated where everybody from around the world with variable religious and cultural backgrounds could join and share their philosophy... but the situation seems to be totally opposite, with fellow sikhs representing themselves as being hostile and narrow minded towards other philosophies...   The purpose of SPN seems defeated but there is some light at the end of tunnel with the presense of members like aa0002 & Surinder Cheems ji...                      

There are many sikh forums online which are totally dedicated to sikhism and they do not seem to entertain any of other thought processess... even near to  their forums. This is a big loss for sikhism, as we can not take sikh philosophy to the masses as was done by our Gurus, who went from country to country to spread the message of almighty. Unfortunately, when someone adherent to other philosphies, who has been brought up like that way, comes and tries to learn about sikh philosophy, what we are presenting them:-->  Total hostality, our fears, our insecurities... Do you think this is going to spread the word of Guru beyond our closed mindsets? 

We, the sikhs very proudly say: go away from here, this is a sikh forum!! Sounds pretty disgracful to me... and to any person with sensible mindset. Why it is so hard for us to accept a new thought process and deliberate on it in a logical manner rather opening an offensive from the word go. I think People who accepted the words of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, during those turbulent times with open hands and minds, were more open minded than we, the present sikhs are, who can not even allow  persons from other religious following to come and share their thoughts in an open friendly manner on a "sikh forum"... It would be more appropriate to call upon more learned sikhs on this forum, who can enter intro a formal dialogue and represent sikhs in a better light...

My views were to reiterate the point that Sikhism Philosophy Network welcomes everybody from evey corner of the world, with variable religious and cultural backgounds. 

Again, i would request you to read the Terms of Service (see my signatures below) very carefully and if you all can not abide by these rules then i am afraid this forum not for you... Choice is yours. 

Thanks for your reading my thoughts.

Warm Regards.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 12, 2007)

Aman ji

Instead of writing a response from my office, I should be getting ready for a meeting. However the passion in your comments deserves a reply. And, no you don't sound sarcastic at all.

Thank you for your kind words. But more for your sense of perspective on the forum. You resolved many of my questions.

In fact, I am hooked on the forum now and must ask if this is an "attachment"? Nonetheless, my guess is that many Sikhs feel beleagured, and so the fortress mentality. History has taught Sikhs some hard lessons, and in spite of these lessons Sikhi is the fastest growing religious path today. Many times when members of a group equate identity with survival they shut others out. Unfortunate, but understandable. Other times it is just hard to figure out what some individuals mean by what they say in the forum.

Learning how to conduct oneself in a forum is yet another lesson to be learned.

Wahe Ji and thank you.


----------



## simpy (Mar 12, 2007)

*Respected Aman Ji and ad002 Ji, *


*so many of our visitors were getting a whole lot confused, hopefully everything will workout fine from now on.*

*Dhan Dhan Siri Guru Arjan Dev Ji De Bachan page # 803*


*BUly mwrgu ijnih bqwieAw ]
AYsw guru vfBwgI pwieAw ]1]
ismir mnw rwm nwmu icqwry ]
bis rhy ihrdY gur crn ipAwry ]1] rhwau ]
kwim k®oiD loiB moih mnu lInw ]
bMDn kwit mukiq guir kInw ]2]
duK suK krq jnim Puin mUAw ]
crn kml guir AwsRmu dIAw ]3]
Agin swgr bUfq sMswrw ]
nwnk bwh pkir siqguir insqwrw ]4]

**English Translation of the above*


*He places those back on the Path who strays;*
*such a Guru is found only by great good fortune. *
*Meditate, contemplate the Name of the God in mind.*
*The Beloved Feet of the Guru abide within my heart.*
*The mind gets engrossed in sexual desire, anger, greed and emotional attachment.*
*By breaking my bonds, the Guru has liberated me. *
*Experiencing pain and pleasure, one is born, only to die again.*
*The Lotus Feet of my Guru bring peace and provides shelter to me. *
*The world is drowning in the ocean of fire.*
*O Nanak, the True Guru has saved me by holding me by the arm.*

*forgive me please*


----------



## Nadeem (Mar 12, 2007)

I would like to thank both Aman Singh and aad0002 for two excellent posts (above). Infact, I would like to say that both pieces were inspired and both have taken a serious and thoughtful approach to the issues and problems that are faced, in a sense, by every religious community. I agree wholeheartedly that some members of the Sikh community, due to a broad range of historical and social factors, have had to insulate themselves from perceived threats, attacks and unjustifiable antagonism issuing from non-Sikhs, both in India itself and in the Western Diaspora. As a Muslim myself, similar problems have arisen - as we all know - from the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. My own view is that Sikhs, unlike Muslims, have also had to face additional problems on account of who they are - discrimination on account of the _way_ they look but I believe many of them have overcome this with startling success. I understand that many assimilated Sikhs in the West and in India do not identify themselves as necessarily _religious_ Sikhs and some have decided, for various reasons, not to wear the turban or a beard at all. It is not my job, in this forum, to question the validity of these different kinds of _personal _responses, as I am not a practising Sikh myself. However, as a non-Sikh who shares similar cultural values I know from first-hand experience that people who face the greatest challenges in life are often the best people. There is a famous saying: God tests those He Loves the most. As a non-Sikh one is _always_ worried about making statements that might appear patronising or loosely sentimental and I assume that this may be one factor why some non-Sikhs simply do not participate in Forums like this altogether. In other words, some people are _very_ sensitive about upsetting anyone, especially individuals from communities with whom they share a natural bond of affection and love. It is not everyday that one can find individuals who love other communities on the basis of their philosophical or spiritual values but people like this _do_ exist. The case of Sikh Dharma is, in my own personal opinion, unique in this world on account of its attempt to bring people from communities as wide a field as Hindus and Muslims, together in love. To my mind - and I tend to be very critical about these things - interventions of this kind serve a much higher purpose than most people ordinarily imagine. The life and teachings of Baba Nanak-Ji constitute a very special insight into a world torn apart by hatred, deep animosity and suspicion. Sikhs are not alone in feeling insulated from the world outside – some Muslims and Hindus feel pretty much the same and automatically revert to this impulse. I agree that this automatic feeling is unhealthy and the root cause of many unsuspectingly serious internal and external problems. 

I sometimes hear negative things issuing from the mouths of Muslims and Hindus towards each other including people who still entertain tragic memories of the Partitioning of India. In effect, the blame-game never ends in the minds of these individuals. My own personal response to dogmatic Muslims has been _extremely_ severe even if it means having to always maintain what is called 'cognitive dissonance'. In a sense I refuse to inherit other people's prejudices no matter how close they are - even if - as in my own case, they happen to be an otherwise "friendly" uncle or an aunt. I say this from personal experience. So, the question is: why bother going against your own community or your own family? Why not simply keep quiet and allow different communities/families to live and die in their own prejudices? Well, for a start I am both geographically and historically removed from events in the past and consequently I am forced to adopt a much more critical stance in relation to the kind of information I am handed down. My family have sacrificed a lot to ensure that I receive a "proper education" and so, if I believe I am the beneficiary of a 'more enlightened' understanding than, say, my parents’ generation, I am obliged, by that very fact, to make full and proper use of that education. What that means in practice is that I must _disengage_ from any dogmatic approaches that claim to represent the_ whole_ truth. That means I cannot just accept what people tell me about other faiths - I must go out and investigate these things for myself. I cannot look only at the _behaviour_ of individuals, no matter how outrageous or contrary to my expectations. I must examine, as objectively as I can, the _character _of a community, its origins and formation in terms of its approach to metaphysics and then, in turn, to examine its theology, art, history, sociology etc. 

In my book, apprehension and understanding are two very different things; I can apprehend an idea without understanding it fully. To give an obvious basic example, I _apprehend_ that Sikhs are people who wear Turbans and Beards but I may not have yet understood fully _why_ this may be the case as there may be an indefinite range of dimensions in Sikhism of which I am - as yet - unaware. The same would apply to my initial _apprehension_ of Hindus or _Buddhists_. I cannot function properly in this world if, all I do is claim to _understand_ when, in actuality, what I am really doing is simply _apprehending_ ideas or images. 

How would individuals in a "Muslim Philosophy Forum" or a "Hindu Philosophy Forum" react to a Sikh who wanted to contribute to _their _discussions? I think you will find some individuals who would be hostile but then you will also find some who would be very welcoming. My own view is that if the Forum is really about _Philosophy_ and not simply _Religion_ or primarily _philosophical_ and secondarily _religious, _then no one should really object to the contributions made by people from other faiths or no faith. It may be that a person from a different faith or no faith is _convinced _by the nature of _philosophical_ arguments and not on the basis of _religious_ arguments. Philosophical arguments generally aim to provide a better view or take on the nature of reality itself and for many logical or philosophically minded people a sound argument carries much more weight than narrow theological or religious points of view. I am not suggesting that there are no religious philosophers or that you cannot combine both religion and philosophy; what I am saying is that for many people like myself a sound argument is always the best point of entry in trying to understand other philosophies and, by extension, faiths different from our own.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 12, 2007)

Surinder Kaur Cheema ji,

I want to say you are a natural teacher. This is not simple flattery. When you would post a pauree without a translation, in Gurmurki font, you were offering an incredibly complicated puzzle for the uninitiated. I figured out how to find the source document quickly using Google, and then by applying Find in the Edit menu it was simple to go an exact place in a given text. Using a Punjabi/English translation of the text, I was on my way. Read the verse, think about it, and write a short interpretation.

At first I asked "why the devil is she doing that?" How was a body to get the point? Then I realized how much I had learned over 3 Cheema posts.
It was very effective way to navigate through the Guru's wisdom.

Now that you have provided the source and translation of this most recent set of verses, I am kind of sad. But thank you anyway. We can focus our attention on the meaning and less on detective work.

Once and a while, give us a new problem to solve. It is after all sikh philosophy.


----------



## spnadmin (Mar 12, 2007)

Nadeem ji,

Your essay is poetic. It goes right to the heart. There is nothing more I can say.


----------



## Nadeem (Mar 12, 2007)

Many thanks for your very kind words.

In my post I wrote: "In my book...." That was just idiomatic english for "in my book of life" ..I have not written a book (yet)


----------



## Lee (Apr 13, 2007)

Sat sri akaal, cyber sangat!

Heh I misread the title of this thread and was about to wade in in with no Sikhi is for all of us, hah I didn't know you meant the forum. 

Still my original answer is still valid, I guess.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 13, 2007)

Lee ji and Nadeem ji,

Sikhi is a universal religion, but it is not an "anything goes religion". Its precepts can be found in several other religions as can many of its central values. But Sikhi is also a distinct religious path that cannot and should not be understood as a religion that wraps around anyone like one of those loose plastic raincoats you keep in the glove compartment of your car in case of a sudden rainstorm, and then fold it up and put it away when the rain is over. Sikh beliefs are also not a collection of inspirational sayings that anyone can lay claim to. Disciplined study and practice is required.

To say you are a Sikh, to a person with rooted Sikh convictions, suggests you have willingly taken on the religious discipline that defines your identity in important ways. 

The forum is for everyone, but at the same time there is an expectation that the Sikh faith wlil not be discussed in a casual way. You will note how deeply versed many participants are in their knowledge and practice. So they won't be dismissing casual treatment of this religion, or taking it lightly. 

Forum discussion is serious.

Respectfully


----------



## Lee (Apr 13, 2007)

Aad Ji,

Waheguru ji ka khalsa,
Waheguru ji ki fathe!

Heh please don't misunderstand me, I am indeed a converted Sikh and have been so for 6-7 years know.

I understand what you mean, and I agree, yet the teachings and philospy of Sikhi is for everybody; anybody can become Sikh.


----------



## Lionchild (Apr 23, 2007)

The sikhi philsophy is not only for sikhs, it can be applied to anyone! I know this for sure, im sikhi of another path, but i still follow some aspects of the sikhi faith.


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (May 4, 2007)

Lionchild veerji,

You are not Sikhi of another path. You have converted to Bahai path having renounced the validity and adequacy of Sikhism on a public forum. While you may choose to follow some aspects of Sikh faith, let it be known that you have, in renouncing the Guru's path (Sikhism), also renounced the Sikh Guru. So you are in fact, no follower of Sikhi/Guru's path in any way, shape or form.

Without submission to Guruji, there is no Sikhi. Sikhi is following, as a disciple, to the best of your ability and understanding, not rules and regulations, but Guru's instruction for how to live as His disciple.

But Sikh philosophy and everything Sikh is certainly open for anyone to explore, investigate, and hopefully appreciate. It is a difficult path in many ways, and not for everyone.


----------



## vinod (May 6, 2007)

The basic question of Nadeem ji if the Sikh philosphy only for sikhs can be answered in  sentence that it is not so. God is one. It is we who name Him differently.Be it Allah /God or 'waheguru'/Bhagwan these are just one.We have divided them and as a result we have ourselves got divided.
It is funny to imagine that there will be more than one God.God,I am using it as a generic, is one.How can then the God of Muslims be different than the god of Hindus or Sikhs.Keeping this concept in mind one can always intermingle.Unfortunately some religions are under the control of fanatics.This is a sorry state of affairs.Entire civilisation does suffer when these things happen.
Insha allah , everything would be alright.Nadeem ji, Sikhi is a way of life.Hope you will enjoy it.
Best of Luck.


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (May 6, 2007)

God is one, but all religious paths are not one and the same thing.  That is a sanatan dharam belief.


----------



## jasi (May 6, 2007)

dear nadeem

you got all missunderstood the sikh philosphy do not belongs to sikhs but all the human being from all the races and origions. one God and different passport and origion to approch. the biggest diffrerence is that we must insist to remeber God with each our  breath as it is written in Holy Koran.

the focus is on one GOD not on the people what they beileves or preach. like it is said in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. "you can not explain Him.you can not write aboutHim,you can not creat Him,you can not talk about Him" 

it is like a ocean how a small drop of water can talk about ocean??

every thing finishes here. hope you understand that. please go ahead and contribute to sikh philosphy of that great Wonder which we feel in all what is hapening around the world. remeber that "what you sow that is what you reap"

thanks. jaspi


----------



## Harjas Kaur Khalsa (May 6, 2007)

> the focus is on one GOD not on the people what they beileve or preach.



But a forum is about many people with many ideas, some of them opposed, some even anti-Panthic, some deliberately distorting mainstream Sikhi, and some with missionary agenda.

Yes, you are correct Sikh philosophy is for everyone. But the debates result from the above differences in approach. I was countering about fanatics, since very often Sikhs themselves are criticized as fanatics for trying to define carefully and not get swept away by contrary agendas.

Just an opinion. I am not saying you are wrong.


----------



## kaur-1 (Jul 5, 2007)

Nadeem said:


> aad0002 writes: "I haven't found either Kaur1 or Surinder Kaur Cheema to be disinterested in other points of view. Both have engaged me."
> 
> I wish I could say the same. Please look at the previous threads and you will see that they appear quite content to muffle proper discussion through the inveterate use of _ad hominem _arguments. They seem to be less interested in what you say than in who you are, which is very unfortunate.



Nadeem,
 I joined this forum site as it stated under the banner " *Sikhism Philosophy Network*" "Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve" and I assumed it meant to "Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve" Gur Sikhi and to discuss in a sensible manner inter faith dialogue.

Yes SPN is for all but all I could see from your post's (which I many say have been deleted along with other members to control the 'situation' that you instigated here)
- is *NO* sign of learning or asking question in relation to learning about Gur Sikhi.

- I do know that you are engaged to a Sikh girl and therefore in your own strange way has made an attempt in at least posting in a Sikh forum. *BUT *as I can see *NO ATTEMPT *has been made to learn about Gurbani.

- All I can decipher from your long winded essay type post on this thread is a *CRY BABY* attitude.

And like a *CRY BABY* you have picked my name and Surinder bhenji's to exclude as you are "upset" like a cry baby with us and picked 2 names and underlined them to praise.

A Sikh doesnt want or need praises from anyone except Akal Purakh. A Sikh especially one on the path to Gursikhi is also not a coward or is afraid of anyone. The only being he/she is afraid of is Akal Purkh ji.

I am posting my feedback here as this thread is a sticky and has my name on it.

 Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru ji Ki Fateh


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 5, 2007)

> I do know that you are engaged to a Sikh girl and therefore in your own strange way has made an attempt in at least posting in a Sikh forum. BUT as I can see NO ATTEMPT has been made to learn about Gurbani.



kaur-1 ji did he told you that he is engaged to a sikh girl?because as far as i know he never said it on spn that he is engaged to a sikh girl.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 5, 2007)

"Sikh Philosophy Network" and Sikhi is for ALL whoever wants to walk on this panoramic path.

I went through the complete thread and this made a nice reading with lot of food for thoughts.

Regards, Arvind.


----------



## kaur-1 (Jul 5, 2007)

kds1980 said:


> kaur-1 ji did he told you that he is engaged to a sikh girl?because as far as i know he never said it on spn that he is engaged to a sikh girl.


Someone else informed me when I inquired about him. Only women can spot cry babies a mile away. he he.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 5, 2007)

kaur-1 said:


> Someone else informed me when I inquired about him. Only women can spot cry babies a mile away. he he.



if this is true then all the nadeem's preaching of tolerance is hypocracy.muslims like makkanz and nadeem are on sikh sites preaching sikh's about tolerance just because they have sikh girlfriends.on the other hand their own people are highly intolerant.they should
first visit muslim sites and see the amount of tolerance muslims have.sometimes back i posted a link of ummah.com about a muslim girl wants to marry a sikh guy.the muslim administraters don't even allow any type of advice apart from converting sikh guy to islam
or leaving him.all the other type of advice is deleted by moderators.this type of tolerance their co-religionists have.

         If i am living in joint family of 20 people where 16 out 20 persons pick up useless fights with neighbours and in retaliation some neighbours also hate me for belonging to that family.In that case i don't have any right to preach tolerance to my neighbours instead i should told my family members not to engage in useless fights.this is the right way to preach tolerance.


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 5, 2007)

Kaur-1 

What you report below happens too often and you are completely justified in your reaction -- not that you need me to say this. 

... you have picked my name and Surinder bhenji's to exclude as you are "upset" like a cry baby with us and picked 2 names and underlined them to praise.

More than once I have observed this pattern. One or two people get singled out as the villains. One or two people get singled out as angels. In any other discussion (at the dinner table, at a meeting at work) this would be viewed as an obvious attempt to divide and manipulate in order keep bad blood flowing. To give the person who is doing this divisive thing momentary control of the conversation. WHAT IS GAINED BY THAT?

On a larger scale, this is how political and religious and cultural animosity escalate into catastrophes on the world stage. On our _smaller_ stage we can be _bigger people._ 

And a final word regarding Surinder and Kaur-1. Let us ask ourselves in complete candor-- Do you want someone/anyone to tell you what you want to hear, or someone to make you think?


----------



## Nadeem (Jul 5, 2007)

*kaur-1 claims that upon reading my various postings  "there** is **NO sign of learning or asking question in relation to learning about Gur Sikhi". I am wondering if Kaur-ji really believes this statement or if she actually thinks a non-Sikh can really attempt to understand Sikhism while they are being called names like "cry baby" and "is engaged to a Sikh girl"? If I intend to understand Gur Sikhi at least I now know where NOT to go. Many Thanks Kaur-ji and a few sympathizers. *


At least I know I cannot get side-tracked by some of the poseur postings in this thread; as a non-Sikh  interested in Sikh philosophy I need not pretend that the formula:  *Ik ōaṅkār sat nām kartā purkh nirbha'u nirvair akāl mūrat ajūnī saibhaṃ gur prasād * encompasses anything sectarian as oddly suggested by a very small minority in this thread. The words 'Niravairu' (without hate) are basic requirements and yet for some minds exceedingly difficult to obtain. However, this point cannot be properly understood without the requisite mental attitude which, unfortunately, remains solely the responsibility of their owners and is not a reflection of Sikhism under the pristine Guidance of the Guru!


----------



## kaur-1 (Jul 6, 2007)

Dear Nadeem ji, 
There are plenty of non-Sikhs and new to GurSikhi members here genuinely trying to learn Gur Sikhi.  You are most welcome here.

There are plenty of links here for all of us to discuss and learn from. Life is too short so stop winning and start learning.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 6, 2007)

*Is Sikh Philosophy Only for Sikhs?*

Interesting topic. Captivating discussion. Some with the benefit of the doubt. Some with the grain of salt. Some listen. Some talk. Some loving. Some caustic. Some understanding. Some condescending. Some with a chip on the shoulder. Some with the ears and eyes wide open. Some disdainful. Some drenched with passion. Some non- chalant. Some totally focused. Some peeking out from the dogmatic walls. Some trying to get a glance inside the compounds surrounded by those same walls. Some into religions. Some into a way of life. Some fearful of death. Some welcome it with open arms. Some ready to savour life. Some too scared to come out of the fetal position. Some wait for miracles. Some make miracles by using goodness as the only ingredient. Some in cages. Some soaring like free birds.Some ready to embrace. Some quick to discard.

Ah! the facets of a Sikh, who is the amalgam of all the above. Afterall a student, a learner, a seeker- a Sikh, is always open to learning. That’s his/her duty- Dharam.

Is Sikh a Philosophy?

Yes. It is. A philosophy constructed without dogmatic walls. A philosophy where Spiritual and Temporal are like Ying & Yang. One can not exist without the other but rather compliment each other. A philosophy based on Objective reality. Not on Subjective Truths.

Is it only for the Sikhs?


According to Sikhi, All of those who are ready to learn are Sikhs. That’s why one is not born a Sikh but becomes one.

And how do we do that?

Gurbani says:

Gaviei, sunihiei man rakheei bhao, Dukh bhar ghar sukh ghar lei jaie.(SGGS Page2)

By singing together, listening to each other and contemplating on what is being said so that the message can be put into practice. Only by doing this we shed ignorance and overcome the sufferings in order to become the Peace Warriors- Sant Sipahis.
The duty for every Sikh is to convert this beautiful poetry into prose and enjoy the metamorphosis- the journey of a Sikh.

Sikhi is not a relgion but a way of life. A way of life needs no dogmas but a willingness to learn.

For a Sikh, All are children of ONE SOURCE- IK ONG KAAR. None is of a lesser god.

My 2 cents.
Tejwant


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 6, 2007)

VaheguruSeekr,

Once again on the verge of tears (so far only Surinder has been able to move me to tears) your essay is poetry -- especially moving is the idea of turning poetry into the prose of everyday life.

Thanks from us.


----------



## roopsidhu (Jul 7, 2007)

Dear Aman ji,
All the wise heads should respect to the views expressed by you. Really the way you think,  shall surely take the message of our beloved Gurus to the masses. Keep it up Aman ji. Perfect philosophies should not shy away from debates or discussion. Narrow mindedness is the product of the fear and the open mindedness is a proof of our trust in our philosophy. A soft touch of a key is always the better option than a blow of a hammer to open a closed lock.
Roop Sidhu


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jul 16, 2007)

Tejwant,

Interesting, but perhaps you could also post my brief 2 cents worth.  I
 feel compelled to raise two matters -- very briefly:

First is the statement that Sikhism is not a religion but a way of
 life.  I have heard this before not only pertaining o Sikhi but also in
 defining Hindui tradition. I would thing that every philosophhy, when it
 becomes a guiding way for its followers, becomes a way of life.  If a
 religion talks about how it expects its followers to behave and cnduct
 their lives, then is it not a way of life?  Or am I missing something
 here?

the second matter stems from the title of the thread:  Is Sikh
 philosophy only for Sikhs?  Once again, if I beleive  the captalist or
 socialist philosophy, I would cast my lifestyle and mold my life according to
 that philosophy, and that woulkd make me a capitalist or a socialist
 etc.  True that I may see my lifestyle not entirely capitalist or
 socialist and may see large chinks between what I believe and what I practice.
  Nevertheless the label -- capitalist or socialist -- would still
 apply to me.

I see similar logic in the religious lable trhat we wear.

So a Sikh is one who hears and believes the Sikh philosophy, and tries
  to mold hhis lifestyle according to Sikh philosophy. Any one who then
 adopts the sikh philosophy is no longer a non-Sikh.  

I think this should provoke some discussion.

All the best
Inder
I.J. Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Jul 16, 2007)

Vaheguru ji,

These are some very interesting statements you have made. I wanted to react to them.

"If a religion talks about how it expects its followers to behave and cnduct their lives, then is it not a way of life? Or am I missing something
here?" You are not missing anything. All religions impose a moral imperative on their followers. Religions may do this more or less. But is there any religion that does not also lay out a moral course of action?  A moral imperative causes us to think about our accountability, to what and to whom. The journey of  the Soul, particularly in Sikhism, does not absolve anyone, even a sadhu, from considering personal moral obligations in a serious way. To value seva, as an example, is to value  one important path to serve and realize God -- so Sikhs do seva.

S. Ragjbir Singh even argued that Sikhs court martyrdom. He was not suggesting that Sikhs run like a horde of lemmings over the edge of a cliff without concern for their material well-being. He was arguing that in living the life of a Sikh there will be times when one must take a stand even when it is very likely that the result will be uncomfortable or dangerous or even deadly. And one must encourage others to do likewise.

"Once again, if I beleive the captalist or
socialist philosophy, I would cast my lifestyle and mold my life according to
that philosophy, and that woulkd make me a capitalist or a socialist
etc. " Not only does this statement make sense, this is what happens when we think about the decisions we make and values we espouse-- assuming that we spend some time reflecting about this. For example, a person might ask, "Why is it that I object to having my taxes spent on services for schools and colleges with religious affiliations?" (This is true in the US, perhaps not elsewhere). The fact someone asks this question is a reflection of his/her political values. So if I don't ask, "Well where do I stand on social or moral issues related to the values of Sikhism?" I may be living with a label but not living in an identity. Kind of a hollow life-style. Suggests that I may not have made a conscious decision about my values or my choices in life. And moral choices are necessarily conscious choices-- if they are not conscious and deliberate, then they are just habits. And we don't deserve any special credit for our habits here on earth or after death.

Thanks for a chance to chime in. Hoping that this discussion moves onward.


----------



## gsang (Jul 18, 2007)

NO! sikh Philosophy is for all people.


----------

