# The Evolution Of "manmukh"



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 7, 2013)

First of all, I want to say that it was not my intention to offend anyone or cause an uproar. But since I seem to have done both, I apologize.

That said, I am disappointed at the suspicion held towards me for bringing up Islam. In my first thread, when I mentioned that I was also researching Islam, it was met with:

"Can you do that? I can't. Also, holding off on talk of dharma. Don't have that much time to spend on it if we are running up against a da'wah. Hope not!"

And in the last thread, I was accused of setting up for a da'wah, when the truth is I don't have enough knowledge on Islam to defend its position even if I wanted to.

I was also accused of undermining the Sikh Gurus, when all my posts to date show that I hold them in the highest regard. I really do not see how asking a question about their teachings is the same as undermining them.

"The thread is an open invitation to be treated to a da-wah, though it parades under a different mask."

This makes it sound like I have an ulterior motive.

"First Sikhs are put on the defensive, and then naively Sikhs rise to speak to the challenge, never realizing that the entire point of da-wah is to break the spirit through endless rhetoric. What ensues is a thread where no one learns anything new."

This makes it sound like I am a Muslim.

I don't have an ulterior motive, nor am I a Muslim. I am disappointed that instead of the link to the site being taken out and the title changed, it was closed and all I got was accusations.

I realize that the above will probably get deleted as well, I just wanted to get it out there so the admin/mod team could read what I had to say.

Nevertheless, the question:

Is it true that with each successive Guru, Sikhism moved towards the adoption of an ever more narrow and rigid worldview that eventually dichotomised the world into the two bipolar communities of the Gurmukhs and the Manmukhs?

The Sikh Encyclopedia website (link no longer works):

_"Guru Nanak applied the term manmukh to those persons who were egoridden materialistic, and hypocritical. They pose to be religious, but are in reality proud and evilminded [sic]. His successor Gurus, besides the above typology, applied the term to persons who calumniated the Guru, opposed his teachings and doctrines and kept away from the sangat (fellowship of the holy)._
_Bhai Gurdas had the Gurus' calumniators in mind when he discoursed on manmukhs in his Vars. After the institution of the Khalsa, those kesadharis who did not receive pahul were, in a sense, considered to be manmukhs like those who took pahul but then did not abide by stipulated conduct. Apart from this latter day usage, the term in its original conceptual signification refers to one who believes in duality (dvaitbhava) and who led by his self will refuses the Guru`s guidance and wantonly indulges his impulses."_


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 7, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> Is it true that with each successive Guru, Sikhism moved towards the adoption of an ever more narrow and rigid worldview that eventually dichotomised the world into the two bipolar communities of the Gurmukhs and the Manmukhs?
> 
> The Sikh Encyclopedia website (link no longer works):
> 
> ...



Exploring Sikhi ji

That is much better. Now we have material that calls for clarification in a context that is drawn from Sikhism alone. 

I will check on the Sikh Encyclopedia site. It worked for me just a few days ago.


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 7, 2013)

This is the link to "The Sikh Encyclopedia." http://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/ It seems to be working. If you were referring to a different encyclopedia, let me know on the thread and I will check it out.


> MANMUKH, the ego guided person, as opposed to gurmukh`who is Guru guided. The gurmukhmanmukh bipolarity represents the personality typology employed in the Sikh sacred literature. Basically it opposes and contrasts the ocentric and egocentric personality types. The word manmukh is compounded of man (mind, lower self) and mukh (face): thus one who has his face towards his own mind or ego is egocentric.
> 
> `The gurmukh keeps his face towards the Guru for guidance while the manmukh turns away from himgurmukhi sanmukhu manmukhi vemukhid" (GG, l3l).Thus is a manmukh characterised in another verse: "This is of the nature of a manmukh that he cherishes not (the Lord`s) Name and reflects not on (His) Word" (GG, 509). While the gurmukh ever lives in the presence of God, the manmukh remains oblivious of Him. "The manmukh depends upon his own intelligence and calculations (not realizing that) whatever happens is by God`s Will manmukhi ganat ganavam karatd kare su hoi" (GG,60).
> 
> ...



The link to this entry is as follows http://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/philosophy/philosophy/manmukh


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 8, 2013)

> Is it true that with each successive Guru, Sikhism moved towards the  adoption of an ever more narrow and rigid worldview that eventually  dichotomised the world into the two bipolar communities of the Gurmukhs  and the Manmukhs?



well, to answer the question, my own opinion, a clear NO. 

This intimates that the 10 Gurus were on some sort of learning curve, where policies changed, thoughts changed, the message evolved, and what was being preached at the end was in some way different to the preachings at the beginning. 

The message has remained constant throughout. there are no rigid and narrow worldviews, I do not see two bipolar comminities of Gurmukhs and Manmukhs, but lets get away from fancy words and fancy theories. 

Guru Nanakji had a very simple message, free yourself from the bondage of the self and embrace the liberty of serving Creation.No amount of sex, drugs, booze, money, power or Range Rovers will ever fill the dark void that nestles within, you may try, but you will fail, the void remains. This message has been constant throughout, all the tenth Master did was outline a program whereby this could be facilitated, where any person, be they of humble learning, or scholars could find this peace and happiness, its very simple, do this, find enlightenment, peace, meaning, lose your fear, and more importantly fill that dank black void. 

We try and argue, we take bits and pieces, and hope it works, but it is nothing more than those miracle cures they advertise for blown head gaskets, they may work, for a short period, but all the time, in your heart, you know they won't last forever, and then your back to square one. The only surefire way to cure a head gasket problem is strip the engine and change the gasket, but its effort, no one likes effort, everyone is looking for the short cut.

There are no communities of Gurmukhs and Manmukhs, we are all Manmukhs aspiring to be Gurmukhs, some are closer than others, but I have yet to meet one who I would consider to be completely Gurmukh.This is not really surprising, a true Gurmukh does not advertise, a true Gurmukh simply gets on with the job, quietly, spending every day as a slave to Creation, free of desire, lust, anger, and filled with an inner peace and bathed in light. 

The sooner we get away from this automatic bestowing of Gurmukh to all that take Pahul, the better, there is nothing magical about Pahul, Pahul exists to validate and support, not to magically transform without any effort.

There is no evolution of Manmukh, the Manmukh has been around since day 1, and the Manmukh has not changed, greed, lust, pride, ego, it was the same then, and it is the same now, the hope is that the evolution to Gurmukh will take place, and then and only then will the Khalsa rule, not as a Government ruling a land, but as the purity in the hearts of everyone, that was the goal....


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Oct 8, 2013)

hello exploring Sikhi 

i too sometimes find the manner in which this forum  is moderated very disappointing  ,biased   .


Coming back to your question , the Islam-Sikhism Dawah  site you quoted in your post is really a typical Muslim propaganda site .






> Is it true that with each successive Guru, Sikhism moved towards the  adoption of an ever more narrow and rigid worldview that eventually  dichotomised the world into the two bipolar communities of the Gurmukhs  and the Manmukhs?


its 100% false , no one can differentiate  the words of Guru Nanak from Guru Angad Dev ji or Guru Ramdass ji or other Guru Sahibaan . they were ONE Jot . 
the word Gurmukh( one who follow Gurmatt ie Gurus teachings ) and Manmukh( who follow manmatt  ie egoistical path )  appeared more than 500 times in Gurbani , by d various Guru Sahib  but in same sense  and meaning . you can check the link below 

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Search&Param=english

*
Deletion of sinlge tuks  TOS reminder spnadmin*


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 8, 2013)

> i too sometimes find the manner in which this forum  is moderated very disappointing



do not blame the police for the law of the land 

moderators merely enforce the terms of service........


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Oct 8, 2013)

> Deletion of sinlge tuks  TOS reminder spnadmin


appropriate links was provided with each shabad ,  quoting full shabad by each Guru Sahib  ie more than 100 lines will totally divert the thread . 




> do not blame the police for the law of the land


the policing  here is  worst .even worst than  Panjab police  and laws here are Tughlaki  fatwas.


You are entitled to your opinion. Single tuks are not permitted to prove a point. Thank you/spnadmin


----------



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 8, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> the policing here is worst .even worst than Panjab police and laws here are Tughlaki fatwas.


 
Lol I wouldn't know, although I'm sure that's an exaggeration. I think it was just a case of miscommunication, the title probably made it sound like I was trying to give a da'wah but I only used that title because it is what the guy on the other forum used (the thread is still there, undeleted) and also because it was the name of the organization I was linking to. But I am glad I still got the opportunity to ask the question in here, so thank you admin ji 



spnadmin said:


> This is the link to "The Sikh Encyclopedia." http://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/ It seems to be working. If you were referring to a different encyclopedia, let me know on the thread and I will check it out.
> 
> 
> The link to this entry is as follows http://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/philosophy/philosophy/manmukh


 
Yes, that is the one. I was trying to access it from an old url code, sorry for the mistake.


----------



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 8, 2013)

harry haller said:


> well, to answer the question, my own opinion, a clear NO.
> 
> This intimates that the 10 Gurus were on some sort of learning curve, where policies changed, thoughts changed, the message evolved, and what was being preached at the end was in some way different to the preachings at the beginning.
> 
> ...


 
Harry Ji, I agree with what you have said, that the definition of manmukh remained largely, if not completely, the same from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji to the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

I think the argument is whether or not the later Gurus started attaching a lot more importance to themselves, making it seem like they were the only path to "liberation."

I don't want to post full shabads because it would be an eye-sore, but single lines aren't allowed either, so I will just link to the relevant pages. I use the Sri Granth website, when I click "view shabad/paurie/salok", it does not show the relevant one but something different. So I am afraid I can only link to the page number, it may not contain the entire shabad but the highlighted text is the part I was focusing on (you can see highlighted part by scrolling down if not visible when the window opens).

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=233&english=t&id=10194

Okay, so that is Guru Amardas Ji. The people who turn away from the True Guru are evil. Is he referring to himself here? A few lines later he mentions the "Lord God", so I am not sure if "True Guru" is another way to say God. If that is the case, who is the "True Guru"?

And then: 
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1310&english=t&id=56136

Most of this shabad is on the page before the one I linked to, but the relevant part is in the highlight. It is by Guru RamDas Ji. It says that good people should bow and surrender to the Guru if they want good things to happen to them. Isn't the goal of Sikhi to produce good people? If so, why the need to bow to the Guru when you are already a good person?

And as for Bhai Gurdas Ji, he is quoted as saying "Without the Guru's Shabad and sadh-sangat even good persons find no liberation."

(Varan Bhai Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh. Amritsar, 1962, Var #, Pauris, #, V, 7, 10.)


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 8, 2013)

Well jio

Without one entire "eyesore" shabad, it is impossible to know what Guru Sahib ji is saying about a Gurmukh or a manmukh. Acknowledged to be one of the major poets in the north India tradition we are blessed to be able to read his words in many languages. This is one that you linked to by Guru Amardas ji in Raag Ghauree Bhariaagan. 

I am going to give the sense of each line rather than a close translation for reasons of getting to the point rather than to word-smithing a translation. Then you can see whether Guru Amardas has a restrictive definition for a Gurmukh.

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Ik▫oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ ਬੈਰਾਗਣਿ ਮਹਲਾ ੩ ॥
Rāg ga▫oṛī bairāgaṇ mėhlā 3.
Raag Gauree Bairaagan, Third Mehl:

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਜੋ ਮੁਹ ਫੇਰੇ ਤੇ ਵੇਮੁਖ ਬੁਰੇ ਦਿਸੰਨਿ ॥
Saṯgur ṯe jo muh fere ṯe vaimukẖ bure ḏisann.
Those who turn their faces away from the True Guru, are seen to be unfaithful and evil.

First he says that there are those who turn away from the Satgur and in character they are people who are fickle and unperturbed by any wickedness in their own lives. It seems almost a conscious choice for them to avoid any confrontation within themselves in their battle between virtue and vice.

ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਬਧੇ ਮਾਰੀਅਨਿ ਫਿਰਿ ਵੇਲਾ ਨਾ ਲਹੰਨਿ ॥੧॥
An▫ḏin baḏẖe mārī▫an fir velā nā lahann. ||1||
They shall be bound and beaten night and day; they shall not have this opportunity again. ||1||

And as we know, from our own lives and from the great soliloquy by Lady Macbeth in the play Macbeth by Shakespeare, unrepentant souls suffer in this lifetime, "beaten" to use Guru Sahib ji's turn of speech, by an inner war, a relentless battle with shame, guilt followed by rationalizations and excuse-making. It is the recipe for neurosis and a fruitless search for peace. Make your escape now while you can, now that you are hearing this shabad, Guru ji says to us.

ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਰਾਖਹੁ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਧਾਰਿ ॥
Har har rākẖo kirpā ḏẖār.
O Lord, please shower Your Mercy upon me, and save me!

So Guru Amardas ji himself  begs Har the Sat to show mercy upon him, of all people, and save him, Guru Amardas, from the inner hell of that vicious cycle of guilt and rationalization.

ਸਤਸੰਗਤਿ ਮੇਲਾਇ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਹਰਿ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਹਰਿ ਗੁਣ ਸਾਰਿ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Saṯsangaṯ melā▫e parabẖ har hirḏai har guṇ sār. ||1|| rahā▫o.
O Lord God, please lead me to meet the Sat Sangat, the True Congregation, that I may dwell upon the Glorious Praises of the Lord within my heart. ||1||Pause||

The rehao line, as is typical in most shabads, works like a fulcrum on a balance beam. First we are shown the moral problem, and before Guru Sahib proposes the solution, the rehao line offers food for thought. Maybe ... Guru Sahib suggests we think about it... we have taken a wrong turn. So he says ... lead me to the place where I will find the precious mercy of the Sat, of Hari who in his mercy is more reliable than I have ever been in my pursuit of inner peace. So he says "lead me to the 'sat sanghat' where I may learn to immerse myself in praise of you. Being led to the Sat Sangat should be taken to mean to taking refuge in the Sat, the True Guru.

ਸੇ ਭਗਤ ਹਰਿ ਭਾਵਦੇ ਜੋ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਭਾਇ ਚਲੰਨਿ ॥
Se bẖagaṯ har bẖāvḏe jo gurmukẖ bẖā▫e cẖalann.
Those devotees are pleasing to the Lord, who as Gurmukh, walk in harmony with the Way of the Lord's Will.

Now we come to the closing part of the shabad. We have thought about entering into communion with those bhagats/devotees who can help us immerse ourselves in the praise of the Satguru, Waheguru. What will happen if we can do that? Guruji is saying we will become Gurmukh, that means we will live in harmony with the Sat .. specifically "walk within" his will. Then we will overcome this inner battle among the demons within, it will end, and we will find inner harmony, that which we fail to find in our delusional world, our maya.

ਆਪੁ ਛੋਡਿ ਸੇਵਾ ਕਰਨਿ ਜੀਵਤ ਮੁਏ ਰਹੰਨਿ ॥੨॥
Āp cẖẖod sevā karan jīvaṯ mu▫e rahann. ||2||
Subduing their selfishness and conceit, and performing selfless service, they remain dead while yet alive. ||2||

What else will happen if we can walk in harmony with the Sat? How do we become people of virtue?  The verse speaks for itself. Our false selves, our inflated sense of our self-importance dies, we become jivan mukhti. When the old self is subdued a new self emerges, rid of self-ness and given to self-less seva.

ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪਰਾਣ ਹੈ ਤਿਸ ਕੀ ਸਿਰਿ ਕਾਰ ॥
Jis ḏā pind parāṇ hai ṯis kī sir kār.
The body and the breath of life belong to the One - perform the greatest service to Him.

Now lest we think this means scrubbing floors of a gurdwara or forgoing time with our families, it means something much greater and more satisfying. We perform the greatest deeds by understanding that the force of life belongs to the Ik Oankaar alone. This is the Oaankar who pervades all of creation, beggars, the sick, the poor, the victims of war, the rich, the powerful, the lowly forms of life, and the nebula in the sky above us. When we understand this, then..

ਓਹੁ ਕਿਉ ਮਨਹੁ ਵਿਸਾਰੀਐ ਹਰਿ ਰਖੀਐ ਹਿਰਦੈ ਧਾਰਿ ॥੩॥
Oh ki▫o manhu visārī▫ai har rakẖī▫ai hirḏai ḏẖār. ||3||
Why forget Him from your mind? Keep the Lord enshrined in your heart. ||3||


Well why would you want to forget the Oankaar? He is just too wonderful to dismiss from mind. Something so magnificent! It is the logical and natural thing to keep that Har, that Waheguru enshrined, treasured, pocketed inside our hearts where we can know we can find him, where He has found us. and where we are grounded in him.  

ਨਾਮਿ ਮਿਲਿਐ ਪਤਿ ਪਾਈਐ ਨਾਮਿ ਮੰਨਿਐ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
Nām mili▫ai paṯ pā▫ī▫ai nām mani▫ai sukẖ ho▫e.
Receiving the Naam, the Name of the Lord, one obtains honor; believing in the Naam, one is at peace.

There it is! The Oankaar in everyone around us, in all of creation, in the cosmos, everywhere and within us too as individuals ... This is how we become honorable people, this is how we are finally at peace. "Nam mill-ai which means joining ourselves with the Nam, paiai ... obtaining it ... maniai sukh ... taking our thoughts to a place of inner contentment.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਨਾਮੁ ਪਾਈਐ ਕਰਮਿ ਮਿਲੈ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੋਇ ॥੪॥
Saṯgur ṯe nām pā▫ī▫ai karam milai parabẖ so▫e. ||4||
The Naam is obtained from the True Guru; by His Grace, God is found. ||4||

We find this by the grace of the Sat. By the grace of the Sat we obtain and we mingle with the Sat who is Har, who is parabh, the all pervading one himself.

ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਤੇ ਜੋ ਮੁਹੁ ਫੇਰੇ ਓਇ ਭ੍ਰਮਦੇ ਨਾ ਟਿਕੰਨਿ ॥
Saṯgur ṯe jo muhu fere o▫e bẖaramḏe nā tikann.
They turn their faces away from the True Guru; they continue to wander aimlessly.

And those who take a different path, continue with that inner battle, which is a life that chooses not to make contact with something greater than itself.

ਧਰਤਿ ਅਸਮਾਨੁ ਨ ਝਲਈ ਵਿਚਿ ਵਿਸਟਾ ਪਏ ਪਚੰਨਿ ॥੫॥
Ḏẖaraṯ asmān na jẖal▫ī vicẖ vistā pa▫e pacẖann. ||5||
They are not accepted by the earth or the sky; they fall into manure, and rot. ||5||

That life is a life that loses out on the possibility of seeing how it is part of creation, and instead it remains part of a life that rots one from within, a life that becomes a waste-product of its aimless pursuits.

ਇਹੁ ਜਗੁ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਇਆ ਮੋਹ ਠਗਉਲੀ ਪਾਇ ॥
Ih jag bẖaram bẖulā▫i▫ā moh ṯẖag▫ulī pā▫e.
This world is deluded by doubt - it has taken the drug of emotional attachment.

Guru ji is saying here that giving into our attachments, our bharam, makes us addicts, even slaves, to misery of our own creation -- the translation here is not as straightforward as it could be.

ਜਿਨਾ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਭੇਟਿਆ ਤਿਨ ਨੇੜਿ ਨ ਭਿਟੈ ਮਾਇ ॥੬॥
Jinā saṯgur bẖeti▫ā ṯin neṛ na bẖitai mā▫e. ||6||
Maya does not draw near those who have met with the True Guru. ||6||

Living a mundane and ultimately self-destructive life that is mired in maya will ensure that refuge in the Satguru will never take place.

 ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵਨਿ ਸੋ ਸੋਹਣੇ ਹਉਮੈ ਮੈਲੁ ਗਵਾਇ ॥
Saṯgur sevan so sohṇe ha▫umai mail gavā▫e.
Those who serve the True Guru are very beautiful; they cast off the filth of selfishness and conceit.

The balance beam has shifted in altitude very much now. And we come to the conclusion that was foreshadowed in the rehao line. In service to the Satguru we shed our false self, our sense that we are the center of our own lives, our self-centered-ness. Shed that skin, and be reborn into something very beautiful

ਸਬਦਿ ਰਤੇ ਸੇ ਨਿਰਮਲੇ ਚਲਹਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਭਾਇ ॥੭॥
Sabaḏ raṯe se nirmale cẖalėh saṯgur bẖā▫e. ||7||
Those who are attuned to the Shabad are immaculate and pure. They walk in harmony with the Will of the True Guru. ||7||

Walk in harmony with the word/the shabad of the Satguru, and you will become nirmale... immaculate, pure.

ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਦਾਤਾ ਏਕੁ ਤੂੰ ਤੂੰ ਆਪੇ ਬਖਸਿ ਮਿਲਾਇ ॥
Har parabẖ ḏāṯā ek ṯūŉ ṯūŉ āpe bakẖas milā▫e.
O Lord God, You are the One and Only Giver; You forgive us, and unite us with Yourself.

You Har Hari The jewel of wisdom! Parabh the all pervading one!  You are the giver of all this goodness. Join us to yourself.

ਜਨੁ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਸਰਣਾਗਤੀ ਜਿਉ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਿਵੈ ਛਡਾਇ ॥੮॥੧॥੯॥
Jan Nānak sarṇāgaṯī ji▫o bẖāvai ṯivai cẖẖadā▫e. ||8||1||9||
Servant Nanak seeks Your Sanctuary; if it is Your Will, please save him! ||8||1||9||

Finally the concluding thought... Jan Nanak seeks sanctuary, seeks refuge (peace and harmony) in you! If it is your will, then please save Nanak your servant (meaning each of us who prays with Nanak to be morally transformed).


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 8, 2013)

Now to your questions, or some of them, Exploring Sikhi ji


> I think the argument is whether or not the later Gurus started attaching a lot more importance to themselves, making it seem like they were the only path to "liberation."
> 
> 
> Okay, so that is Guru Amardas Ji. The people who turn away from the True Guru are evil. Is he referring to himself here?
> ...



The earlier Gurus, as with all the Guru Sahibhan, were not referring to themselves as the path of liberation. They are clear about this in two ways. First, there is continual reference to Har and parabhu... these are names of 'God' that emphasize the godly qualities of Satguru. Har (often in metaphor called the priceless jewel) illuminates the personal mind with the brilliance of a jewel that is durable, unbreakable and therefore everlasting, and of immeasurable value. Parabhu is the all-pervading, joined with all creation, and all that has ever been or will be created. So Guru Amardas ji is getting at a Satguru that he, Guru Amardas ji, is and is part of, and which is beyond even Guru Amardas ji. Second, the earlier sant tradition of human gurus did consider the sat guru to be the chella's or disciple's human guru, and efforts were made by the disciple to perform selfless service to this human being. It was and is a form of spiritual exploitation because spiritual deliverance in that system depends completely on another person, an imperfect human just like you. Guru Amardas left that tradition because he believed that Guru Nanak was preaching something quite different: No human being can be the priceless jewel or the all-pervadig Har/parabhu.

Is Guru Amardas ji referring to himself? Because this is poetry, and because Guru Amardas ji is truly feeling the spiritual anxiety that resides in the hearts of the common person (even now for things have not changed) he is speaking 'as if' he is you and 'as if' he is me and also for himself because in the shabad Guru Amardas ji never forgets the Gurprasaad. He is speaking for us in his voice. We are in his network, to borrow from facebook. Therefore, we have his protection because he gives sanctuary to us through the shabad. 

The Sat Guru is 

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Ik▫oaŉkār saṯgur parsāḏ.
One Universal Creator God... Ik Oankar is the Satgur who blesses us with his grace .. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

When a shabad begins with these words, it is for a reason. I hope these 2 replies have been helpful. Perhaps someone will discuss the shabad by Guru Ramdas ji later in the thread. Let us see how far this one takes the discussion.

And one last thought. You asked 





> Isn't the goal of Sikhi to produce good people? If so, why the need to bow to the Guru when you are already a good person?


 When someone gives you the keys and owner's papers for a new Mercedes, the least you do is say "Thank you." If you have been around the block a few times, you also have your heart in your mouth because you know that sooner or later you will have repair bills. And repairs on a luxury car are huge, the cost of parts is huge. Sooner or later the giver will want something in return. So when Satguruji  gives you the gift of wisdom, and tells you where to find moral balance and from that sukh, inner peace, then a bow is a very small way of saying, "Thanks." The gift given is given no-strings-attached; and there are no repair bills because the precious jewel is hard and never breaks. Best of all it  has been given to you, but everyone else can have it too.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 9, 2013)

> I think the argument is whether or not the later Gurus started attaching  a lot more importance to themselves, making it seem like they were the  only path to "liberation."



liberation is not the end goal, it is merely a by product of living by the truth, the most important aspect of Sikhism, in my view, is living by the truth, the truth is not exclusive to Sikhism, many religions at their most purest advocate similar philosophies, the problem is the impurity takes one away from this, towards deityism and pointless ritual, aspects of which are already penetrating deep into the quom. The Gurus were like political spin doctors, in that the story was not about them, once they became the story, they would have failed, the story was about Akal Purakh, they were the publicity agents. In that respect, attracting any attention at all. and deviating attention from Akal Purakh was simply not in their make up. 



> The people who turn away from the True Guru are evil



Evil is defined as 
*1. * Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
*2. * Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
*3. * Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
*4. * Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
*5. * Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
_n._*1. * The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
*2. * That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
*3. * An evil force, power, or personification.
*4. * Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

_adv._ _Archaic_  In an evil manner.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evil

Let us look at morally bad or wrong, so evil does not have to be going round killing babies, it is also when your moral compass is so out that you justify acting on inner impulses, say for instance, thinking of the self only, say having an affair if your wife is ill, or lying, cheating, making your income through fraud, bouncing cheques, gambling with others money, driving while drunk, taking drugs and acting on the base, treating people badly, corrupting others,the list goes on, one can be truly evil without killing a single baby.The true Guru, as Adminji has already pointed out is Akal Purakh, aka known as 'The Truth' Satnam, the true way of living, when your moral compass is tuned to show the truth, and you follow it to the letter. 






> It says that good people should bow and  surrender to the Guru if they want good things to happen to them. Isn't  the goal of Sikhi to produce good people? If so, why the need to bow to  the Guru when you are already a good person?



Actually it does not say that at all, Sikhs do not wish good things to happen to them, they wish everything to happen to them and percieve it all as good. Sikhism is not an Abrahamic religion where we wish rewards and good things, bigger cars, better sex lives, fancy cars, although I am not a great lover of either translations, the translation is actually 
If a good person seeks goodness for himself, he should bow low in humble surrender to the Guru.


 



Goodness is the ability to be a slave to Creation, to help all, to love all, to give, to wear a uniform, to stand tall and be at the beck and call of those that suffer evil, to banish evil, to clean hearts, to set an example, in this context, to seek goodness is to seek Khalsa, to reflect the truth.



> Without the Guru's Shabad and sadh-sangat even good persons find no liberation."



To do good for the right reasons is liberating, to do good for the wrong reasons does not, you may ask how can one do good for the wrong reasons? 

some examples

Charity work for the sole purpose of self image
To give in order to recieve
To be good in order to balance the bad one does

just being good is not, pardon the pun, good enough, it is no better than a vigilante walking the streets pretending to be a policeman, and then of course, one must know what is good before one can be good, is it good to give a beggar money that they may use for drink? is it good to give a child everything they want? Is it good to spend money raised by animal loving people on pointless court cases?

A truly good person lives by the eternal truth and is then blessed with peace, there are plenty misguided souls who believe they are good, but are nothing of the sort.


----------



## angrisha (Oct 9, 2013)

I just want to start of by saying that IMO we are all considered Manmukh, the only one that can tell us any different is satguru ji. 

.


> Harry Ji, I agree with what you have said, that the definition of  manmukh remained largely, if not completely, the same from the time of  Guru Nanak Dev Ji to the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
> 
> I think the argument is whether or not the later Gurus started attaching  a lot more importance to themselves, making it seem like they were the  only path to "liberation."



I think it would be beneficial to see what you are meaning, as I have never felt that was the case in anything I have read. In SSGS, there are only the works of the first 5 Guru's and the 9th Guru included. So im not certain as to what you are referring too. I also have never had the interpretation that any of our Guru's were calling themselves the path to liberation, but rather it has been repeatedly stated that there is no set path, and the only one that can offer liberation is Sat GuruJi. 

So some examples would help.




> And then:
> http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gur...ish=t&id=56136
> 
> Most of this shabad is on the page before the one I linked to, but the  relevant part is in the highlight. It is by Guru RamDas Ji. It says that  good people should bow and surrender to the Guru if they want good  things to happen to them. Isn't the goal of Sikhi to produce good  people? If so, why the need to bow to the Guru when you are already a  good person?
> ...




There's a couple things with the question you ask about good ppl.... who determines that you are good? We are all human so none of us has that type of perspective to define 'good' in any greater sense than what we think a good person should be. So then the question is are we really good or fulfilling a role which you think a good person should fill? 

If you read from the start of the Shabad,  the line you have highlighted seems to make more sense. Guruji is telling us to 'bow' to Satguru so we can be lifted up and carried by his grace. The second part of the translation that is important is 'if a good person seeks GOODNESS FOR HIMSELF', taken in context to me maybe this shabad is surrendering to satguru's hukum and moving further into grace.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Oct 9, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> I think the argument is whether or not th*e later Gurus* started attaching a lot more importance to themselves, making it seem like they were the only path to "liberation."



exploring Sikhi ji 

there is NO change regarding importance of Guru from Guru Nanak  to later Guru Sahib .shabad below is by Guru Nanak ,its no different from Guru Amar Dass ji or Guru Ramdass ji 

 ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
Sirīrāg mėhlā 1.
Siree Raag, First Mehl:

ਨਾਨਕ ਬੇੜੀ ਸਚ ਕੀ ਤਰੀਐ ਗੁਰ ਵੀਚਾਰਿ ॥
Nānak beṛī sacẖ kī ṯarī▫ai gur vīcẖār.
O Nanak, the Boat of Truth will ferry you across; contemplate the Guru.

ਇਕਿ ਆਵਹਿ ਇਕਿ ਜਾਵਹੀ ਪੂਰਿ ਭਰੇ ਅਹੰਕਾਰਿ ॥
Ik āvahi ik jāvhī pūr bẖare ahaŉkār.
Some come, and some go; they are totally filled with egotism.

ਮਨਹਠਿ ਮਤੀ ਬੂਡੀਐ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸਚੁ ਸੁ ਤਾਰਿ ॥੧॥
Manhaṯẖ maṯī būdī▫ai gurmukẖ sacẖ so ṯār. ||1||
Through stubborn-mindedness, the intellect is drowned; one who becomes Gurmukh and truthful is saved. ||1||

ਗੁਰ ਬਿਨੁ ਕਿਉ ਤਰੀਐ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਇ ॥
Gur bin ki▫o ṯarī▫ai sukẖ ho▫e.
Without the Guru, how can anyone swim across to find peace?

ਜਿਉ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਿਉ ਰਾਖੁ ਤੂ ਮੈ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਦੂਜਾ ਕੋਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Ji▫o bẖāvai ṯi▫o rākẖ ṯū mai avar na ḏūjā ko▫e. ||1|| rahā▫o.
As it pleases You, Lord, You save me. There is no other for me at all. ||1||Pause||

ਆਗੈ ਦੇਖਉ ਡਉ ਜਲੈ ਪਾਛੈ ਹਰਿਓ ਅੰਗੂਰੁ ॥
Āgai ḏekẖ▫a▫u da▫o jalai pācẖẖai hari▫o angūr.
In front of me, I see the jungle burning; behind me, I see green plants sprouting.

ਜਿਸ ਤੇ ਉਪਜੈ ਤਿਸ ਤੇ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਸਚੁ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ॥
Jis ṯe upjai ṯis ṯe binsai gẖat gẖat sacẖ bẖarpūr.
We shall merge into the One from whom we came. The True One is pervading each and every heart.

ਆਪੇ ਮੇਲਿ ਮਿਲਾਵਹੀ ਸਾਚੈ ਮਹਲਿ ਹਦੂਰਿ ॥੨॥
Āpe mel milāvahī sācẖai mahal haḏūr. ||2||
He Himself unites us in Union with Himself; the True Mansion of His Presence is close at hand. ||2||

ਸਾਹਿ ਸਾਹਿ ਤੁਝੁ ਸੰਮਲਾ ਕਦੇ ਨ ਵਿਸਾਰੇਉ ॥
Sāhi sāhi ṯujẖ sammlā kaḏe na vesāra▫o.
With each and every breath, I dwell upon You; I shall never forget You.

ਜਿਉ ਜਿਉ ਸਾਹਬੁ ਮਨਿ ਵਸੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੇਉ ॥
Ji▫o ji▫o sāhab man vasai gurmukẖ amriṯ pe▫o.
The more the Lord and Master dwells within the mind, the more the Gurmukh drinks in the Ambrosial Nectar.

ਮਨੁ ਤਨੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਤੂ ਧਣੀ ਗਰਬੁ ਨਿਵਾਰਿ ਸਮੇਉ ॥੩॥
Man ṯan ṯerā ṯū ḏẖaṇī garab nivār same▫o. ||3||
Mind and body are Yours; You are my Master. Please rid me of my pride, and let me merge with You. ||3||

ਜਿਨਿ ਏਹੁ ਜਗਤੁ ਉਪਾਇਆ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣੁ ਕਰਿ ਆਕਾਰੁ ॥
Jin ehu jagaṯ upā▫i▫ā ṯaribẖavaṇ kar ākār.
The One who formed this universe created the creation of the three worlds.

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਚਾਨਣੁ ਜਾਣੀਐ ਮਨਮੁਖਿ ਮੁਗਧੁ ਗੁਬਾਰੁ ॥
Gurmukẖ cẖānaṇ jāṇī▫ai manmukẖ mugaḏẖ gubār.
The Gurmukh knows the Divine Light, while the foolish self-willed manmukh gropes around in the darkness.


ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਤਰੀ ਬੂਝੈ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੪॥
Gẖat gẖat joṯ niranṯrī būjẖai gurmaṯ sār. ||4||
One who sees that Light within each and every heart understands the Essence of the Guru's Teachings. ||4||

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਜਿਨੀ ਜਾਣਿਆ ਤਿਨ ਕੀਚੈ ਸਾਬਾਸਿ ॥
Gurmukẖ jinī jāṇi▫ā ṯin kīcẖai sābās.
Those who understand are Gurmukh; recognize and applaud them.

ਸਚੇ ਸੇਤੀ ਰਲਿ ਮਿਲੇ ਸਚੇ ਗੁਣ ਪਰਗਾਸਿ ॥
Sacẖe seṯī ral mile sacẖe guṇ pargās.
They meet and merge with the True One. They become the Radiant Manifestation of the Excellence of the True One.

ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮਿ ਸੰਤੋਖੀਆ ਜੀਉ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਪਾਸਿ ॥੫॥੧੬॥
Nānak nām sanṯokẖī▫ā jī▫o pind parabẖ pās. ||5||16||
O Nanak, they are contented with the Naam, the Name of the Lord. They offer their bodies and souls to God. ||5||16||
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=20&g=1&h=0&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0





 the wider question is :what/Who is GURU according to Sikhi ?


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 9, 2013)

harmanpreet jio

Thanks for adding a shabad from the first Guru, Guru Nanak Dev ji, one that expands on the ideas in the thread so far so well.

It would be very interesting to see shabads from Guru Ram Das and Guru Arjan Dev at this point. A unity of ideas would emerge. I am not sure if either Guru Angad Dev or Guru Teg Bahadur have shabads specifically mentioning "manmukh" but they do look at the matter of deliverance from bondage.


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 9, 2013)

Yes, on Ang 138 the state of the ਮਨਮੁਖਿ is part of a shabad by Guru Angad dev ji. There are 4 for ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ.  For Guru Arjan Dev ji there are about 25 mentions of ਮਨਮੁਖਿ. However the sri granth search engine shows nothing for Guru Teg Bahadur looking for ਮਨਮੁਖਿ. There are 4 for ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ. So it is possible to look very systematically across all Gurus to establish their unity of thinking.


----------



## angrisha (Oct 10, 2013)

For Guru Teg Bahadur I havent been able to find anything on Manmukh specifically, but he does mention Gurmukh at times. Which I think, is consistent with what is said with the earlier Guru's as well. 

Here an example (Page 219)

ੴ[/FONT] ਸਤਿਗੁਰ[/FONT] ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Ik▫oaŉkār   saṯgur parsāḏ.[/FONT] [/FONT]
One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਰਾਗੁ[/FONT] ਗਉੜੀ[/FONT] ਮਹਲਾ[/FONT] ੯[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Rāg   ga▫oṛī mėhlā 9.[/FONT] [/FONT]
Raag Gauree, Ninth Mehl[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਸਾਧੋ[/FONT] ਮਨ[/FONT] ਕਾ[/FONT] ਮਾਨੁ[/FONT] ਤਿਆਗਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Sāḏẖo   man kā mān ṯi▫āga▫o.[/FONT] [/FONT]
: Holy Saadhus: forsake the pride of your mind.[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਕਾਮੁ[/FONT] ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ[/FONT] ਸੰਗਤਿ[/FONT] ਦੁਰਜਨ[/FONT] ਕੀ[/FONT] ਤਾ[/FONT] ਤੇ[/FONT] ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ[/FONT] ਭਾਗਉ[/FONT] ॥[/FONT]੧॥[/FONT] ਰਹਾਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Kām   kroḏẖ sangaṯ ḏurjan kī ṯā ṯe ahinis bẖāga▫o. ||1|| rahā▫o.[/FONT] [/FONT]
Sexual desire, anger and the company of evil people - run away from   them, day and night. ||1||Pause||[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਸੁਖੁ[/FONT] ਦੁਖੁ[/FONT] ਦੋਨੋ[/FONT] ਸਮ[/FONT] ਕਰਿ[/FONT] ਜਾਨੈ[/FONT] ਅਉਰੁ[/FONT] ਮਾਨੁ[/FONT] ਅਪਮਾਨਾ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Sukẖ   ḏukẖ ḏono sam kar jānai a▫or mān apmānā.[/FONT] [/FONT]
One who knows that pain and pleasure are both the same, and honor and   dishonor as well,[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਹਰਖ[/FONT] ਸੋਗ[/FONT] ਤੇ[/FONT] ਰਹੈ[/FONT] ਅਤੀਤਾ[/FONT] ਤਿਨਿ[/FONT] ਜਗਿ[/FONT] ਤਤੁ[/FONT] ਪਛਾਨਾ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT]੧॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Harakẖ   sog ṯe rahai aṯīṯā ṯin jag ṯaṯ pacẖẖānā. ||1||[/FONT] [/FONT]
who remains detached from joy and sorrow, realizes the true essence in   the world. ||1||[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਉਸਤਤਿ[/FONT] ਨਿੰਦਾ[/FONT] ਦੋਊ[/FONT] ਤਿਆਗੈ[/FONT] ਖੋਜੈ[/FONT] ਪਦੁ[/FONT] ਨਿਰਬਾਨਾ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Usṯaṯ   ninḏā ḏo▫ū ṯi▫āgai kẖojai paḏ nirbānā.[/FONT] [/FONT]
Renounce both praise and blame; seek instead the state of Nirvaanaa.[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਜਨ[/FONT] ਨਾਨਕ[/FONT] ਇਹੁ[/FONT] ਖੇਲੁ[/FONT] ਕਠਨੁ[/FONT] ਹੈ[/FONT] ਕਿਨਹੂੰ[/FONT] ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ[/FONT] ਜਾਨਾ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT]੨॥੧॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Jan   Nānak ih kẖel kaṯẖan hai kinhūŉ gurmukẖ jānā. ||2||1||[/FONT] [/FONT]
O servant Nanak, this is such a difficult game; only a few Gurmukhs   understand it! ||2||1||[/FONT] [/FONT]


And (Page 219)


ਗਉੜੀ[/FONT] ਮਹਲਾ[/FONT] ੯[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Ga▫oṛī   mėhlā 9.[/FONT] [/FONT]
Gauree, Ninth Mehl:[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਸਾਧੋ[/FONT] ਗੋਬਿੰਦ[/FONT] ਕੇ[/FONT] ਗੁਨ[/FONT] ਗਾਵਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Sāḏẖo   gobinḏ ke gun gāva▫o.[/FONT] [/FONT]
Holy Saadhus: sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord of the Universe.[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਮਾਨਸ[/FONT] ਜਨਮੁ[/FONT] ਅਮੋਲਕੁ[/FONT] ਪਾਇਓ[/FONT] ਬਿਰਥਾ[/FONT] ਕਾਹਿ[/FONT] ਗਵਾਵਉ[/FONT] ॥[/FONT]੧॥[/FONT] ਰਹਾਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Mānas   janam amolak pā▫i▫o birthā kāhi gavāva▫o. ||1|| rahā▫o.[/FONT] [/FONT]
You have obtained the priceless jewel of this human life; why are you   uselessly wasting it? ||1||Pause||[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਪਤਿਤ[/FONT] ਪੁਨੀਤ[/FONT] ਦੀਨ[/FONT] ਬੰਧ[/FONT] ਹਰਿ[/FONT] ਸਰਨਿ[/FONT] ਤਾਹਿ[/FONT] ਤੁਮ[/FONT] ਆਵਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Paṯiṯ   punīṯ ḏīn banḏẖ har saran ṯāhi ṯum āva▫o.[/FONT] [/FONT]
He is the Purifier of sinners, the Friend of the poor. Come, and enter   the Lord's Sanctuary.[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਗਜ[/FONT] ਕੋ[/FONT] ਤ੍ਰਾਸੁ[/FONT] ਮਿਟਿਓ[/FONT] ਜਿਹ[/FONT] ਸਿਮਰਤ[/FONT] ਤੁਮ[/FONT] ਕਾਹੇ[/FONT] ਬਿਸਰਾਵਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT]੧॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Gaj ko   ṯarās miti▫o jih simraṯ ṯum kāhe bisrāva▫o. ||1||[/FONT] [/FONT]
Remembering Him, the elephant's fear was removed; so why do you forget   Him? ||1||[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਤਜਿ[/FONT] ਅਭਿਮਾਨ[/FONT] ਮੋਹ[/FONT] ਮਾਇਆ[/FONT] ਫੁਨਿ[/FONT] ਭਜਨ[/FONT] ਰਾਮ[/FONT] ਚਿਤੁ[/FONT] ਲਾਵਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Ŧaj   abẖimān moh mā▫i▫ā fun bẖajan rām cẖiṯ lāva▫o.[/FONT] [/FONT]
Renounce your egotistical pride and your emotional attachment to Maya;   focus your consciousness on the Lord's meditation.[/FONT] [/FONT]
ਨਾਨਕ[/FONT] ਕਹਤ[/FONT] ਮੁਕਤਿ[/FONT] ਪੰਥ[/FONT] ਇਹੁ[/FONT] ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ[/FONT] ਹੋਇ[/FONT] ਤੁਮ[/FONT] ਪਾਵਉ[/FONT] [/FONT]॥[/FONT]੨॥੫॥[/FONT] [/FONT]
   Nānak   kahaṯ mukaṯ panth ih gurmukẖ ho▫e ṯum pāva▫o. ||2||5||[/FONT] [/FONT]
Says Nanak, this is the path to liberation. Become Gurmukh, and attain   it. ||2||5||[/FONT] [/FONT]


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Oct 10, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> I think the argument is whether or not the later Gurus started attaching a lot more importance to themselves, making it seem like *they were the only path to "liberation."*


hi exploringSikhi ji ,

Sikh Guru sahib never claimed "they were only path to liberation ",  they never said things like " we are only Son/Sons of God " or "We are the last Prophets " ,No.



liberation is   associated with GURU  but GURU is a  general term meaning "Teacher" . 

there might be numerous perfect Gurus/Teachers  before Sikh Gurus , there might  be  numerous perfect Gurus/Teachers   after Sikh Gurus . Sikhs have no issue with them , Sikhs respect  others faith  but  Sikhs follow Shabad Guru sahib sri Guru Granth Sahib ji  as their GURU .


----------



## aristotle (Oct 11, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> And as for Bhai Gurdas Ji, he is quoted as saying "Without the Guru's Shabad and sadh-sangat even good persons find no liberation."
> 
> (Varan Bhai Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh. Amritsar, 1962, Var #, Pauris, #, V, 7, 10.)
> 
> [/SIZE][/SIZE]



ExploringSikhi Ji,
I shall post the whole _Pauri _by Bhai Gurdas,



> ਜਤ ਸਤ ਸੰਜਮ ਹੋਮ ਜਗ ਜਪੁ ਤਪੁ ਦਾਨ ਪੁੰਨ ਬਹੁਤੇਰੇ।
> *Hypocrisy by and large enters into the praxis of continence, burnt offerings, feasts, penances and gifts.*
> 
> ਰਿਧਿ ਸਿਧਿ ਨਿਧਿ ਪਾਖੰਡ ਬਹੁ ਤੰਤ੍ਰ ਮੰਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅਗਲੇਰੇ।
> ...



Bhai Gurdas Ji has made a fitting satire on the society's definition of a _good person_.
Mere ritualism in the name of paying alms and offerings and outwardly appearing to be a religious person does not make someone_ good_. It is only through the _Shabad_ of the Guru and the cleansing of one's mind that someone gets any virtue.
There is absolutely no contraindication in this.


----------



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 15, 2013)

harmanpreet singh said:


> exploring Sikhi ji
> 
> 
> the wider question is :what/Who is GURU according to Sikhi ?


 
Very very good question Harmanpreet Ji, and this brings me to my next point.



angrisha said:


> There's a couple things with the question you ask about good ppl.... who determines that you are good? We are all human so none of us has that type of perspective to define 'good' in any greater sense than what we think a good person should be. So then the question is are we really good or fulfilling a role which you think a good person should fill?
> 
> If you read from the start of the Shabad, the line you have highlighted seems to make more sense. Guruji is telling us to 'bow' to Satguru so we can be lifted up and carried by his grace. The second part of the translation that is important is 'if a good person seeks GOODNESS FOR HIMSELF', taken in context to me maybe this shabad is surrendering to satguru's hukum and moving further into grace.


 
Yes, I realize reading from the beginning is important.

As for the truth bit, that is what stumps me. Is truth relative or objective? If it is the latter, then only God has the authority to decide what that truth is, no? If this is the case, then going by the first thread I started on here (that Guru Nanak Dev JI wasn't actually "talking" to anything divine), then do the Sikh Gurus still have the right to be the judges of what is true and what is not?



harry haller said:


> Let us look at morally bad or wrong, so evil does not have to be going round killing babies, *it is also when your moral compass is so out that you justify acting on inner impulses*, say for instance, thinking of the self only, say having an affair if your wife is ill, or lying, cheating, making your income through fraud, bouncing cheques, gambling with others money, driving while drunk, taking drugs and acting on the base, treating people badly, corrupting others,the list goes on, one can be truly evil without killing a single baby.The true Guru, as Adminji has already pointed out is Akal Purakh, aka known as 'The Truth' Satnam, the true way of living, *when your moral compass is tuned to show the truth, and you follow it to the letter*.


 
Who is to say that we are ALL born with a moral compass, an inherit ability to distinguish between right and wrong? I would argue that this is not the case, there are people out there who are mentally programmed in such a way that killing their fellow man brings about great pleasure for them. Who get off on the idea of causing pain and suffering,





> Goodness is the ability to be a slave to Creation, to help all, to love all, to give, to wear a uniform, to stand tall and be at the beck and call of those that suffer evil, to banish evil, to clean hearts, to set an example, in this context, to seek goodness is to seek Khalsa, to reflect the truth


.

Is "goodness" not defined by the society within which we live? What is "good" today is vastly different to what it was in the past. As little as 50 years ago, there were separate washrooms and water fountains for colored and white people, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus.

For hundreds of years, Europeans and Americans would go to Africa and round up the darkies, bring them back to shore and sell them into slavery. The Islamic "Barbary Pirates" would do similar things with non-Muslims. All of this went on for hundreds of years.

Even something like rape has an evolutionary basis, I'm sure it was quite common thousands of years ago, maybe even encouraged for reproductive purposes.

On the flipside, something like homosexuality, which has become increasingly mainstream in the modern world, has historically been frowned upon by most, if not all socieities round the world (at least those that I am aware of). But once again, this depends on where you live, in a lot of areas around the world, there is still racism, there is still rape, there is still some form of slavery.

If truth is relative, then who's to say that we are more "good" than our ancestors? 




> A truly good person lives by the eternal truth and is then blessed with peace, there are plenty misguided souls who believe they are good, but are nothing of the sort.


 
Or, as you seem to imply here, if truth is objective, then do you believe that only God him/her/itself has the right to decide what is right and what is wrong?



> To do good for the right reasons is liberating, to do good for the wrong reasons does not...


 
Do you believe that it is possible to "do good for the right reasons" without being a Sikh?



spnadmin said:


> And one last thought. You asked When someone gives you the keys and owner's papers for a new Mercedes, the least you do is say "Thank you." If you have been around the block a few times, you also have your heart in your mouth because you know that sooner or later you will have repair bills. And repairs on a luxury car are huge, the cost of parts is huge. Sooner or later the giver will want something in return. *So when Satguruji gives you the gift of wisdom, and tells you where to find moral balance and from that sukh, inner peace, then a bow is a very small way of saying, "Thanks."* The gift given is given no-strings-attached; and there are no repair bills because the precious jewel is hard and never breaks. Best of all it has been given to you, but everyone else can have it too.


 
This brings up another great point that I have been meaning to ask.

In a lot of places in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it will say something like "without the Guru's Shabad/Bani, peace is not obtained" or something along those lines.

Who is this "Guru"? Is it the human Sikh gurus? Or the SatGuru (God)? 

If the former, then is this not implying that the Sikhi is actually the only path to God?

If the latter, then is this not implying that the Shabad/Bani, and consquently the entire Guru Granth Sahib, is the literal word of God, since it is God's poetry?



aristotle said:


> ExploringSikhi Ji,
> I shall post the whole _Pauri _by Bhai Gurdas,
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thank you, that makes a lot more sense.

Where did you get those translations of the Vaars from? I have just found them here http://searchgurbani.com/bhai_gurdas_vaaran/vaar/5/pauri/7 The meaning is largely the same, but the wording is a bit different.


Lastly, why does the Sikh Encyclopedia article say that "manmukh" eventually included all non-Sikhs?

Thank you


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 15, 2013)

Exploring Sikhi ji

Are you exploring Sikhi because you may want to become a Sikh and are trying to find out where you stand in relation to Sikh teachings.

or

Are you exploring Sikhi because you enjoy positioning apparent contradictions in Sikh teachings so that you can wind the forum up? I say positioning because the claims you are making are put there by you. They are your starting assumptions and not necessarily based on anything but your own rhetorical needs.

example



> In a lot of places in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it will say something like "without the Guru's Shabad/Bani, peace is not obtained" or something along those lines.
> 
> Who is this "Guru"? Is it the human Sikh gurus? Or the SatGuru (God)?
> 
> If the former, then is this not implying that the Sikhi is actually the only path to God?



Haven't we had this conversation before? You said it was a miscommunication.


----------



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 16, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Exploring Sikhi ji
> 
> Are you exploring Sikhi because you may want to become a Sikh and are trying to find out where you stand in relation to Sikh teachings.


 
*Yes.* 



> or
> 
> Are you exploring Sikhi because you enjoy positioning apparent contradictions in Sikh teachings so that you can wind the forum up?


 
No, and I fail to see how I have done anything of the sort.



> I say positioning because the claims you are making are put there by you. They are your starting assumptions and not necessarily based on anything but your own rhetorical needs.


 
I do not see what is wrong with my question that you quoted. Please expand.




> Haven't we had this conversation before? You said it was a miscommunication.


 
LOl admin ji, I think there has been a double misundestanding. I was talking about my deleted thread, by the way you responded to it, it made me think that you felt I was trying to give a da'wah.

I do not recall having this conversation before.


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 16, 2013)

I think then Exploring Sikhi ji that you need to ask more questions and make fewer declarative statements that are based on personal assumptions. If you have questions, don't pose them as givens or assumptions that other content depends upon. Ask simple questions. 

Because if I and other readers interpret your words to suggest you already have the answers ---- and this has been the case --- then it is logical to ask what you want from us.

If you already know, why bother?


----------



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 16, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> I think then Exploring Sikhi ji that you need to ask more questions and make fewer declarative statements that are based on personal assumptions. If you have questions, don't pose them as givens or assumptions that other content depends upon. Ask simple questions.
> 
> Because if I and other readers interpret your words to suggest you already have the answers ---- and this has been the case --- then it is logical to ask what you want from us.
> 
> If you already know, why bother?


 
I do not know, which is why I am asking.

With regards to the question you quoted, I was referring to Shabads such as these:

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=19&L=15

and

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=229&L=2

"Without the word of the shabad, people wander lost in reincarnation."

"Without the Guru's shabad, no one is emancipated."

etc etc...

All I was asking was, who is the "Guru" to whom the shabad belongs? Is it the human Gurus or God him/her/itself?

How does this tie into the belief that Sikhi does not claim to be the only path to liberation?


----------



## aristotle (Oct 16, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> All I was asking was, who is the "Guru" to whom the shabad belongs? Is it the human Gurus or God him/her/itself?


ExploringSikhi Ji,
If the word Guru referred to human Gurus then it would be that the Gurus were offering their own faculties. Consequently then, there wouldn't have been a tradition of the _Shabad_ Guru. Sikhi does vouch for the belief that the Ten Gurus had a continuum of a single _Jyot_, and even if all of them did not reveal Gurbani, they represented the virtues and embodiment of the Shabad or the Word. The Guru ultimately is the Shabad itself, that was the logic behind the Guruship of Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj.

Contrast this with the Abrahamic faiths, who even while revering their respective Book to be the Word of God, don't believe the Word to be the Prophet. The whole concept, you will realise, is different from Sikhi.



> How does this tie into the belief that Sikhi does not claim to be the only path to liberation?



We have been raised to see 'salvation' in the Abrahamic sense and 'liberation' in the Buddhist/Hindu sense. While Sikhi may compile some points of these philosophies in itself, it does not subscribe to the way these faith traditions view the world. Sikhi does not even claim to 'describe' God like other faiths do, who is referred to with epithets of unsurmountability and unknowability in the Gurbani. 
Sikhi's concept of savation and liberation is not of heaven, renunciation of the worldly, Nirvana or Moksha, but that of _Jeevan Mukt_, lierally the one who has freed himself from the five vices in his dealings of life.

Liberation in Sikhi is not a destination, but a constant path, you have to always be deliberate in this, renunciation or achievement of a 'higher state' once and for all does  not equal 'Liberation'.


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 17, 2013)

The name of the true Guru is 'the eternal truth' , no one has a monopoly on the truth


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 17, 2013)

> Who is to say that we are ALL born with a moral compass, an inherit  ability to distinguish between right and wrong? I would argue that this  is not the case, there are people out there who are mentally programmed  in such a way that killing their fellow man brings about great pleasure  for them. Who get off on the idea of causing pain and suffering,



, all those who get off in such a way are clearly aware that such is wrong, unless we are talking mental imbalance. We all do things that we know are wrong, it brings to mind an old joke

a man is sitting next to a woman at a dinner party, and asks for a kiss for £10, she agrees, so he if she will sleep with him for £30, 'what kind of woman do you think I am' she says, 'that has already been established, now we are just bartering over the price' he replies, 

That thought you had yesterday, you know, the one where you passed a young woman in tight jeans and boots, the one you think no one knows about, the one you know is wrong, but you cannot help yourself can you, or that feeling leaving a takeout with a full bag of tasty food, and walking past a beggar, yes, lets just ignore it, unless you have a mental condition, wrong and right is clearly engrained in us, how can we define it? easy, right brings you closer to Creator, wrong takes you further away, what you do on a daily basis depends on how much you value your connection to Creation, and such applies to Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics with equality.



> Is "goodness" not defined by the society within which we live? What is  "good" today is vastly different to what it was in the past. As little  as 50 years ago, there were separate washrooms and water fountains for  colored and white people, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus.
> 
> For hundreds of years, Europeans and Americans would go to Africa and  round up the darkies, bring them back to shore and sell them into  slavery. The Islamic "Barbary Pirates" would do similar things with  non-Muslims. All of this went on for hundreds of years.
> 
> ...



Clearly we are moving towards the light, the shadows that cover the eternal truth are lifting, it takes more people to stand up for the truth, to be honest with themselves, each other, to think of the beggar rather than ones own stomach, soon even these concepts will be commonplace, in time, when the eternal truth rules, the world will be a better place, your own argument confirms this. 



> Or, as you seem to imply here, if truth is objective, then do you  believe that only God him/her/itself has the right to decide what is  right and what is wrong?



God decides nothing, we decide everything, the truth is not objective, the truth needs to be seen through clear lenses, gravity is gravity, the earth turns, smoking gives you cancer, there is no bearded goddy figure keeping all this going, simply truths that need to be accepted, or rejected, if you have the time



> Do you believe that it is possible to "do good for the right reasons" without being a Sikh?



if you have to ask this then you have misunderstood everything I have written, I then have to ask myself what your agenda actually is, learning? or just boredom


----------



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 17, 2013)

harry haller said:


> , all those who get off in such a way are clearly aware that such is wrong, unless we are talking mental imbalance. We all do things that we know are wrong, it brings to mind an old joke
> 
> a man is sitting next to a woman at a dinner party, and asks for a kiss for £10, she agrees, so he if she will sleep with him for £30, 'what kind of woman do you think I am' she says, 'that has already been established, now we are just bartering over the price' he replies,
> 
> That thought you had yesterday, you know, the one where you passed a young woman in tight jeans and boots, the one you think no one knows about, the one you know is wrong, but you cannot help yourself can you, or that feeling leaving a takeout with a full bag of tasty food, and walking past a beggar, yes, lets just ignore it, unless you have a mental condition, *wrong and right is clearly engrained in us, how can we define it? easy, right brings you closer to Creator, wrong takes you further away*, what you do on a daily basis depends on how much you value your connection to Creation, and such applies to Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics with equality.


 
How are you so sure that "right and wrong" are ingrained in us? How do you know that they are not dependant on our upbringing/societal values, and that this "moral compass" is actually inherent? That we are born with it? I'd argue that it is not, otherwise the morality of our predecessors would not have been so diametrically opposed to our morality today.

Please do not shrug this off, but if the Gurus did not literally speak to anything divine, how do you know for sure what the "Creator" wants and doesn't want? 



> Clearly we are moving towards the light, the shadows that cover the eternal truth are lifting, it takes more people to stand up for the truth, to be honest with themselves, each other, to think of the beggar rather than ones own stomach, soon even these concepts will be commonplace, in time, when the eternal truth rules, the world will be a better place, your own argument confirms this.


 
I think rape/homophobia/racism etc... are all bad because that is the way I have been raised by my (non-religious) parents.

You are forgetting something very important: if you think that society today is more tolerant, more "moral" than societies of the past, then this is not because of religion, this is inspite of religion. These values are a product of secular western philosophy and thought.

Which then begs the question, if we are able to become more "moral" without religion, what is the need for religion in the first place?




> God decides nothing, we decide everything, *the truth is not objective*, the truth needs to be seen through clear lenses, gravity is gravity, the earth turns, smoking gives you cancer, there is no bearded goddy figure keeping all this going, simply truths that need to be accepted, or rejected, if you have the time


 
See, you also said this:



harry haller said:


> The name of the true Guru is *'the eternal truth'* , no one has a monopoly on the truth


 
Which to me sounds like an objective truth, unless I have interpreted it wrong, in which case, please explain. 




> if you have to ask this then you have misunderstood everything I have written, I then have to ask myself what your agenda actually is, learning? or just boredom


 
Asking questions is the best way to learn. I would appreciate it if my motives were not questioned simply because I demanded clarity on an issue.

Thank you.


----------



## ExploringSikhi (Oct 17, 2013)

aristotle said:


> ExploringSikhi Ji,
> If the word Guru referred to human Gurus then it would be that the Gurus were offering their own faculties. Consequently then, there wouldn't have been a tradition of the _Shabad_ Guru. Sikhi does vouch for the belief that the Ten Gurus had a continuum of a single _Jyot_, and even if all of them did not reveal Gurbani, they represented the virtues and embodiment of the Shabad or the Word. The Guru ultimately is the Shabad itself, that was the logic behind the Guruship of Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj.
> 
> Contrast this with the Abrahamic faiths, who even while revering their respective Book to be the Word of God, don't believe the Word to be the Prophet. The whole concept, you will realise, is different from Sikhi.


 
Thank you aristotle ji, I appreciate it. And I agree with you, I have found that a lot of people in the Abrahamic faiths almost revere their prophets, even in Islam where Allah is the most supreme, having conversed with many Muslims, it seems to me like most of them worship the ground that Muhammad walked upon. They treat him like a God, wipe their butts the way he did, shake hands the way he did and so forth.

What I like most about Sikhi is that the emphasis is on the message, not so much as who revealed it.

One thing I want to know about the jyot is, the Gurus having the same jyot, is that literal or metaphorical? Do Sikhs believe that when Guru Nanak Dev Ji died, that a light actually left his body and entered Guru Angad Dev Ji, and then the 8 proceeding Gurus, and is now in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, or is it a more poetic way of saying that they all spread the same message?




> We have been raised to see 'salvation' in the Abrahamic sense and 'liberation' in the Buddhist/Hindu sense. While Sikhi may compile some points of these philosophies in itself, it does not subscribe to the way these faith traditions view the world. Sikhi does not even claim to 'describe' God like other faiths do, who is referred to with epithets of unsurmountability and unknowability in the Gurbani.
> Sikhi's concept of savation and liberation is not of heaven, renunciation of the worldly, Nirvana or Moksha, but that of _Jeevan Mukt_, lierally the one who has freed himself from the five vices in his dealings of life.
> 
> Liberation in Sikhi is not a destination, but a constant path, you have to always be deliberate in this, renunciation or achievement of a 'higher state' once and for all does not equal 'Liberation'.


 
So when it says that there is no peace/the cycle of reincarnation is not ended without the "Guru's Shabad", is that a translation error? Because it does make it sound like the two are separate, that the latter belongs to the former.

Also, why no peace without Shabad Guru? What about Buddhists or Jains who have become "jeevan mukhti" through the teachings of their religion and without the Sikh Shabad Guru, do they not count? Or Atheists, there are lots out there who are humanists and serve humanity without expecting anything in return, they don't follow the teachings of any teacher or any Guru, are they not "jeevan mukhti"?

Thank you.


----------



## aristotle (Oct 17, 2013)

> One thing I want to know about the jyot is, the
> Gurus having the same jyot, is that literal or
> metaphorical? Do Sikhs believe that when Guru Nanak Dev Ji died, that a light actually left his body and entered Guru Angad Dev Ji,



No, it was no such physical light which entered the successive Guru's body, it is a metaphorical symbol used in Silh literature.



> So when it says that there is no peace/the cycle of reincarnation is not ended without the "Guru's Shabad", is that a translation error?



Rather than a translation error, I would say it is an error in the way we view the Shabad. Gurbani is intended to take spirituality to the masses, and the imagery used relates to the masses, while some Gurbani authors talk about Mukti and breaking the cycle of reincarnation, Baba Farid uses the metaphor of Malik-ul-maut (Isalmic angel of death), it is all about taking hold of substance of the Shabad. 



> Also, why no peace without Shabad Guru? What about Buddhists or Jains who have become "jeevan mukhti" through the teachings of their religion and without the Sikh Shabad Guru, do they not count? Or Atheists, there are lots out there who are humanists and serve humanity without expecting anything in return, they don't follow the teachings of any teacher or any Guru, are they not "jeevan mukhti"?



Exploring Sikhi Ji,
As I mentioned earlier, the understanding of Sikhi on the topic of Mukti or Jeevan Mukt is not identical to other faiths. But, I get the point you are raising here.
Some Bhagats who have contributed to Gurbani actually lived and died years before Guru Nanak Sahib was even born, and they are considered Jeevan Mukt. Sikhi doesn't have the concept of 'only path to liberation' or 'the only right way'. Sikhi offers its own understanding of a virtuous life and its own unique spiritual discourse to offer, but it does not claim any monopoly on spirituality. 
Moreover, Jeevan Mukt is not just about donating or doing social work, it is about constantly confronting the Five Vikaars and ending on top of them. There isn't any set criterion or parametres to Jeevan Mukti, but it is not for any spiritual title the Sikh shall vie for, fulfilling the Sikhi ideals on a daily basis is the only thing we consider equals the so-called liberation of other faiths for us. If done for the greed of heaven, Moksha or breaking the reincarnation cycle, even good work and spirituality are nothing but products of _Houmai_ and falsehood (see how well this connects with Pauri from Vaaran Bhai Gurdas that was earlier quoted.)


----------



## angrisha (Oct 18, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> How are you so sure that "right and wrong" are ingrained in us? How do you know that they are not dependant on our upbringing/societal values, and that this "moral compass" is actually inherent? That we are born with it? I'd argue that it is not, otherwise the morality of our predecessors would not have been so diametrically opposed to our morality today


.

Im not sure what you are referring too here... there are varying degrees of what we constitute as moral or not moral... Hence why Ethics is a considered philosophy.... I dont think there is any opposition in morality, for me I feel as if we as a human race have stayed pretty constant. The only difference now, is we are more connected.




> I think rape/homophobia/racism etc... are all bad because that is the way I have been raised by my (non-religious) parents.
> 
> You are forgetting something very important: if you think that society  today is more tolerant, more "moral" than societies of the past, then  this is not because of religion, this is inspite of religion. These  values are a product of secular western philosophy and thought.


Again morality is relative, and they vary. So judging something is more or less moral is relative to what you believe. The question becomes, how do your actions make you feel after, do they lead to greater unhappiness or do they give you joy. If we break it down to a basic level then everyone has these basic attributes. You bring up a valid point, in how we were raised and what we seen plays a role on how we perceive the world. However, we all have the value of free will too make different decisions as we grow up. 




> Which then begs the question, if we are able to become more "moral"  without religion, what is the need for religion in the first place?


I am unsure how religion is related to morality.... Maybe your thinking more along the lines of Abrahmic religions and the 10 commandments? 

Religion serves a purpose for those involved and those who participate with in it... what, and how that participation manifest in your life is your decision. Some ppl will join for a sense of belonging, others will join because the message provides an opportunity to transcend. The need is individual.... 





> Please do not shrug this off, but if the Gurus did not literally speak to anything divine, how do you know for sure what the "Creator" wants and doesn't want?


I don't recall any of our Guru's saying that they had any idea of what our creator wanted? I also dont know what you mean by literally speaking to the divine? How would the divine speak back? 

I think for alot of the basic questions you ask, if you did a little more reading you would probably benefit. Please see this link as a basic starting point for a lot of the basic questions you bring up.



http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page




One more quick thought, Guru Shabad that is mentioned through out Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, doesn't specifically limit to only the Shabad contained within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It actually to me means any word of god which we believe to be true... it can come from anywhere really, as long as it proves true for you.


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Oct 19, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> Very very good question Harmanpreet Ji, and this brings me to my next point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


sat sri akaal exploring Sikhi ji ,


Shabad/Word/Bani  is the GURU .   in "Siddh Goshat -dialouge between Guru Nanak and Siddhas of Himalyas" ,Siddhas asked Guru Nanak a question


ਤੇਰਾ ਕਵਣੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਜਿਸ ਕਾ ਤੂ ਚੇਲਾ ॥
Ŧerā kavaṇ gurū jis kā ṯū cẖelā.
Who is your guru? Whose disciple are you?

Guru Nanak replied 


ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਧੁਨਿ ਚੇਲਾ ॥
Sabaḏ gurū suraṯ ḏẖun cẖelā.
The Shabad is the Guru, upon whom I lovingly focus my consciousness; I am the chaylaa, the disciple.


http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=942&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0



there are many other shabads in Guru Granth Sahib which says "Bani/ShabaWord is the GURU and GURU is Bani/shabad" 

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=982&punjabi=t&id=42105#l42105



> If the latter, then is this not implying that the Shabad/Bani, and  consquently the entire Guru Granth Sahib, is the literal word of God,  since it is God's poetry?


ya it imply  , but not in Abrahmic sense .


blessings ..


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 19, 2013)

> How are you so sure that "right and wrong" are ingrained in us? How do  you know that they are not dependant on our upbringing/societal values,  and that this "moral compass" is actually inherent? That we are born  with it? I'd argue that it is not, otherwise the morality of our  predecessors would not have been so diametrically opposed to our  morality today.


How I would behave if I were fighting for survival is markedly different to how I behave sitting in my warm shop surrounded by chocolate and lucozade. Sometimes we do the right thing for the right reason, in the past we may have done the wrong thing for the right reason, to act in a way that embraces the wrong thing for the wrong reason takes either a complete lack of normal intelligence or a desire to be as bad as possible. Did Genghis Khan offer himself up as a good role model, a figure or truth and justice? no, he did not, all 'bad' people know they are bad, revel in that badness, if you can show me a bad person who thought they were good from history, I would be interested. 

Of course then there is doing the right thing for the wrong reason, Mother Teresa is classic example of this, to millions she was a saint, but to the hundreds who knew her, she was not, yet, to her mind, she was good. 

We can all delude ourselves, but whether it was today, or a million years ago, what is right and what is wrong is there, where we sit in balance depends on our circumstances, how desperate we are, how ready we are to turn away from the light and step into the darkness for personal gain, or even to survive. 



> Please do not shrug this off, but if the Gurus did not literally speak  to anything divine, how do you know for sure what the "Creator" wants  and doesn't want?


In order to answer this, one must clarify Creator. Creator is not the Abrahamic God that is worshipped by those of the book, I must also stress that this is my own personal definition of Creator that I hold dear, others may have different views,. Creator is formless, eternal and in everything. Therefore, I attribute Creator to a life energy that is in all, it does not have opinions, it does not grimace or smile, it has no feelings, it exists and it represents the eternal truth. Our truth hangs those today and then puts them on pedestals later, the eternal truth represents the end game all along. 

The Gurus did not speak to Creator, they were in tune with Creator, they were in consonance with Creation, they were in step, in tune, aligned with Creator, and from that, they knew how the world operated, how humankind operated, they could see through the whole game and see what the game was about, and how to play it, how to live. They did not pass on elaborate rituals and prayers, just a code of life, a way of living. If you align yourself with Creation you will discover the same.  



> I think rape/homophobia/racism etc... are all bad because that is the way I have been raised by my (non-religious) parents.


So if you had not been raised in such a way, would you not think they were bad?



> You are forgetting something very important: if you think that society  today is more tolerant, more "moral" than societies of the past, then  this is not because of religion, this is inspite of religion. These  values are a product of secular western philosophy and thought.


I think society is more true, and I am not a great fan of any religions. 



> Which then begs the question, if we are able to become more "moral"  without religion, what is the need for religion in the first place?


I agree, Sikhism is more a way of life than a religion. When I hear people say they are 'religious' it makes me laugh, why would anyone want to laud themselves for being ritualistic and for worshipping idols, be they statues or a tree that the tenth master may have touched, or a stone with a handprint on it, for chanting words they do not understand, for praying to enhance their own lives, if this is religion, they are welcome to it. I agree with you, there is no need for religion period, it is self serving and nothing else. Be it the desire to go to heaven, the fear of hell, the need to please 'God', its all pretty self serving. Sikhs do not fear God, or Creation, they love Creation, they wish to have the facets of Creator, to be brave, to assist, to love, not to please Creation, but to be in consonance with Creation, because when your dead, your dead, no rewards, no punishments, you do it because it is the true way to live. Anyone can live like a Sikh, be they Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim etc



> Asking questions is the best way to learn. I would appreciate it if my  motives were not questioned simply because I demanded clarity on an  issue.


I apologise, an old friend came to stay, it sometimes makes me short.


----------



## Luckysingh (Oct 19, 2013)

ExploringSikhi said:


> One thing I want to know about the jyot is, the Gurus having the same jyot, is that literal or metaphorical? Do Sikhs believe that when Guru Nanak Dev Ji died, that a light actually left his body and entered Guru Angad Dev Ji, and then the 8 proceeding Gurus, and is now in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, or is it a more poetic way of saying that they all spread the same *message*?


 
Do you think that the jyot is a literal 50watt light ?
What message are you referring to here ?
There are no poetic ways or excuses of explaining a message as you mentioned.

The 'JYOT' is the light of God. 
The same light mentioned in other faiths, the same noor mentioned in your other interest-Islam.
The jyot is BOTH of Form and Formless (Nirgun and Sargun). 
Both these aspects of Nirgun and Sargun make up the Nirankar(of no form)
The sargun aspects or the form that is revealed to us is the Shabad or the Word which was uttered by the gurus and is now in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.
There are other threads bout Nirgun and Sargun and it may be worthwhile getting your head around these first !eacesign:


----------



## Harry Haller (Oct 19, 2013)

> Do you think that the jyot is a literal 50watt light ?
> What message are you referring to here ?
> There are no poetic ways or excuses of explaining a message as you mentioned.



ahh he has gone to stay with you lol lol lol lol


----------

