# The Gurus Were Not "chosen"



## Truthsikher31 (Mar 17, 2018)

We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc.  And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood.  For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc.  To me that seems a bit Monarchist.  Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins.  But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family.  I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will.  To continue the teachings of their predecessors.

History is pretty clear that religious history (Sikh, Hindus, Muslim, Jewish, Christians) was male dominated.  But then again, most of history was.  

My timings might be off but when Guru Gobind declared that there shall be no other physical Guru, and that what was in the SGGS was final, was that after or before he lost his sons.  The reason I ask this is because, was his decision to end the line of Gurus because the didn't have anyone he "trusted" that was blood related to pass the "torch" to? Or did he for-see something else.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 17, 2018)

[


Truthsikher31 said:


> We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc.  And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood.  For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc.  To me that seems a bit Monarchist.  Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins.  But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family.  I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will.  To continue the teachings of their predecessors.
> 
> History is pretty clear that religious history (Sikh, Hindus, Muslim, Jewish, Christians) was male dominated.  But then again, most of history was.
> 
> My timings might be off but when Guru Gobind declared that there shall be no other physical Guru, and that what was in the SGGS was final, was that after or before he lost his sons.  The reason I ask this is because, was his decision to end the line of Gurus because the didn't have anyone he "trusted" that was blood related to pass the "torch" to? Or did he for-see something else.



Some questions are probably better off not asked, your asking why the Gurus did what they did, how can anyone answer this? How can I say, yeah sure he saw something else, and this is what it was, I don't know, no one knows, however questioning the judgement of a Sikh Guru, is probably not going to win you any fans, they were perfect, so we have to assume they had their reasons, any debate that ends with the conclusion that an action of a Guru was wrong throws the whole foundations of Sikhism open, some topics I guess are too holy for questions, I would say this is one of them, there are plenty of other good questions, I would lie if I were to say I had never had the same thoughts and questions, but tread carefully, your now directly questioning the reasoning and logic of the Gurus, some things I guess we just have to accept, it is a fact that the tenth Guru decided to convey the future Guruship to the SGGS, for me it stops there, thats what he did, he must have had his reasons, what those reasons were is unlikely to assist us in our search for the truth as it is impossible to answer.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Mar 17, 2018)

This reminds me of mathematics. Every mathematical system begins with axioms, statements accepted as true without proof, and undefined terms. Without these, nothing can be accomplished. With these, whole systems can be developed, everything from Euclidean geometry to analytical algebraic topology of locally Euclidean metrization of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifold. (I don't know what it means, either. It's from a Tom Lehrer song.)  The systems with the fewest axioms and undefined terms are considered "elegant." 

The same is true of Sikhi. The perfection of the Gurus is the underlying axiom of the whole Sikh system. I cannot prove this perfection, but without it, everything falls apart. One of Sikhi's greatest strengths is that it has so few axioms. The only other one that comes to mind off-hand is the Mool Mantar. I am myself so far from being a totally realized, perfect human being that I cannot even begin to guess or to understand the motivations of Gurus. I don't especially like this, but there it is.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Mar 18, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> [
> 
> 
> Some questions are probably better off not asked, your asking why the Gurus did what they did, how can anyone answer this? How can I say, yeah sure he saw something else, and this is what it was, I don't know, no one knows, however questioning the judgement of a Sikh Guru, is probably not going to win you any fans, they were perfect, so we have to assume they had their reasons, any debate that ends with the conclusion that an action of a Guru was wrong throws the whole foundations of Sikhism open, some topics I guess are too holy for questions, I would say this is one of them, there are plenty of other good questions, I would lie if I were to say I had never had the same thoughts and questions, but tread carefully, your now directly questioning the reasoning and logic of the Gurus, some things I guess we just have to accept, it is a fact that the tenth Guru decided to convey the future Guruship to the SGGS, for me it stops there, thats what he did, he must have had his reasons, what those reasons were is unlikely to assist us in our search for the truth as it is impossible to answer.



Thanks Harry,
It was Bibi Bhani, who upon preventing her father - Guru Amar Das's meditation from being disturbed, was given one wish that the Guru would grant.  She asked that the Guru-ship hence forth stay with in the "Sodhi" bloodline.  I'm sure there's plenty of sites that can detail this, but this is one that I found, that tells the story:

Bibi Bhani and the platform | SikhNet

Firstly to me the "platform" story seems like a nice bedtime story, it could be real - I don't know. But I do find it hard to believe a person (Guru) can be so deep in meditation (trying to be one with God), that you don't feel your own daughter's hand being pressed/cut open.  He can feel and connect with God, but can't detect his daughters pain.  Interesting.  To me stories like these are told to provide how great the Gurus were, how much devoted they were to their "faith".  But what about another story like "Baba Deep Singh", really?!?!  As kids we were all told the story of Baba Deep Singh.  Oh his love for the Guru was so great that he would only die at the feet of the Guru.  In the meant time he picks up his severed head and battles on through.  I don't think this is one of those stories that - "oh its told like this but really it happened this way or just has a hidden meaning".  I think, as part of Sikh History, that most Sikhs believe this really happened, they even have paintings of his bravery.  If the meaning or truth behind it is different, then why paint such a portrait. 

But back to the Guru's bloodline.  Even Guru Amar Das warned his daughter of such a wish, that it could lead to conflicts and suffering.  Now he probably really thought the Sodhi's had the strength to carry this responsibility, but as we all know, the Guru's that were the successors each had families of their own, each had multiple kids.  Of which did create jealousy and hate amongst the siblings and other relatives alike.  I'm aware that the next chosen Guru had to prove themselves with obedience, dedication, all the requirements to being a Guru/Leader.  But please think what I'm about to say next.  Most of the Guruship was passed down to their son's (Guru Teg Bahadur might be the exception).  So now if you're the Guru, and here you have your son's in front of you.  And you know at some point you must choose your successor.  But what if the "choice" was the not the best choice, but rather the best of what was given to them.  So say all the son's for one guru were not really qualified, but he still has to choose within the family (so kinda like lesser of two evils?).  And now most of you will argue that the choices were good, because those Guru's that were selected did good, were good, etc.  But what if there was someone better, someone outside the bloodline.  You had plenty of followers who were just as devoted.  But with all the Guru's grand vision, they couldn't look outside their own family.  Isn't that the meaning of a Monarchy.  To rule, and to pass that Rule down the bloodline?

In today's world, majority of the world don't believe in or follow Monarchies (ok N. Korea but come on, its own people hate their leader).  But still could you imagine, if today's political leaders kept passing the torch within their families, and as a society we could never have the opportunity to make a change?  

Harry you said the Guru's were perfect.  If they were perfect, and thus so should their bloodlines, but yet some of the family members were consumed by jealousy, greed, power hungry.  So then how can someone who's pure and perfect create imperfections.  Was it their wives faults?  The Guru's never even considered their daughters to be leaders. Why not?  Prolly b/c those times were pretty sexist, and not truly equal among the sexes.

The Gurus were not God chosen, or it was destiny.  They were selected by simple human men, who sought to keep it within the family.  And who knows by doing so maybe provided security for the generations to come.  Being a Guru or a member of the Guru's family must have had it's share of perks.  You probably had a comfortable life.  Even has kids, they probably had servants, personal military/combat trainers, and not to forget the public who would serve the bloodline.  Is it wrong for me to say the Guru's lived a luxury and king-like lifestyle.  

Why is it now, in today's time it's some what acceptable to question Sikhi (teachings, rules - 5ks, definition of a sikh, etc.) but its like blasphemy to question those who created it?  If you disagree, great. But bring different thoughts (go outside the box). Try not giving textbook answers.  That's what reading is for lol.  After all, if "God" gave us this perfect body, then the mind would be such a waste if we never question, would it not.  

P.S. This last part wasn't directed at you Harry, I just want to hear more from the rest of SPN.  Seems like its the same responders in each posts/threads.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 18, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> It was Bibi Bhani, who upon preventing her father - Guru Amar Das's meditation from being disturbed, was given one wish that the Guru would grant. She asked that the Guru-ship hence forth stay with in the "Sodhi" bloodline. I'm sure there's plenty of sites that can detail this, but this is one that I found, that tells the story:
> 
> Bibi Bhani and the platform | SikhNet



I would not take anything on this site too seriously, Sikhnet is owned by the 3HO corporation, which has a slightly distorted version of Sikhism, this is their website, 3HO Foundation

see how many times you can see the word Sikh



Truthsikher31 said:


> Firstly to me the "platform" story seems like a nice bedtime story, it could be real - I don't know. But I do find it hard to believe a person (Guru) can be so deep in meditation (trying to be one with God), that you don't feel your own daughter's hand being pressed/cut open.



I agree, use your own intellect and logic to discern what is true, and what is not, we have a common saying on this website, does it pass the litmus test? The litmus test means does it back up with Sikh philosophy, on that basis, as far as I can see, no Guru had multiple marriages, no Guru had earings, (as is commonly depicted), no Guru performed miracles, and so forth, these are my own opinions, as a non Sikh, but looking at it from a clear head, it would appear a lot of the Sakhis have been spun a line, but then, how could they not be, they are very old stories, and if each person only changed one minute detail when passing it on, you are left with very little of the original.



Truthsikher31 said:


> To me stories like these are told to provide how great the Gurus were, how much devoted they were to their "faith"


Yes, I suppose they encourage people to have faith in their faith, or maybe they did, a long time ago, unfortunately the world is now full of people like me and you, who question and question, we look at the emperor, and exclaim loudly, 'he is not wearing any clothes' while everyone else argues about the finery and style of the outfit.



Truthsikher31 said:


> But what about another story like "Baba Deep Singh", really?!?! As kids we were all told the story of Baba Deep Singh. Oh his love for the Guru was so great that he would only die at the feet of the Guru. In the meant time he picks up his severed head and battles on through. I don't think this is one of those stories that - "oh its told like this but really it happened this way or just has a hidden meaning". I think, as part of Sikh History, that most Sikhs believe this really happened, they even have paintings of his bravery. If the meaning or truth behind it is different, then why paint such a portrait.



Well, if we were to use common sense and logic, close your eyes, and go back to that time, I would imagine he suffered quite a serious neck wound, but carried on fighting, which over time, changed into the story that is currently about. Now before we congratulate ourselves on our wisdom and discretion, we should not forget that we cannot possibly know the truth, but on balance, the probability is that he had a deep neck wound. And here we get to the interesting point, it is human nature to exclaim loudly and shout from the rooftops that people are believing nonsense, and that my friend is why I am now a non Sikh, not because I do not love Sikhism, but because I love Sikhism so much that it is not for me to cast doubt, or change opinion, who the hell am I, a man that has danced with the devil all his life, to question paintings and history, in my heart, I have an idea of Sikhism, but it is so far fetched from the what passes that I do not have the energy or the time to argue and debate, however, I am happy to chat to a likeminded soul. Also you are not taking into account a lot of factors of the time, the Sikhs were having the shit kicked out of them, we needed heroes, we needed stories, we needed inspiration, maybe we even needed paintings, its easy for us to sit here in our warm houses behind a keyboard postulating this and that, but the reality is we cannot even comprehend what life was like then for Sikhs.



Truthsikher31 said:


> But back to the Guru's bloodline. Even Guru Amar Das warned his daughter of such a wish, that it could lead to conflicts and suffering. Now he probably really thought the Sodhi's had the strength to carry this responsibility, but as we all know, the Guru's that were the successors each had families of their own, each had multiple kids. Of which did create jealousy and hate amongst the siblings and other relatives alike. I'm aware that the next chosen Guru had to prove themselves with obedience, dedication, all the requirements to being a Guru/Leader. But please think what I'm about to say next. Most of the Guruship was passed down to their son's (Guru Teg Bahadur might be the exception). So now if you're the Guru, and here you have your son's in front of you. And you know at some point you must choose your successor. But what if the "choice" was the not the best choice, but rather the best of what was given to them. So say all the son's for one guru were not really qualified, but he still has to choose within the family (so kinda like lesser of two evils?). And now most of you will argue that the choices were good, because those Guru's that were selected did good, were good, etc. But what if there was someone better, someone outside the bloodline. You had plenty of followers who were just as devoted. But with all the Guru's grand vision, they couldn't look outside their own family. Isn't that the meaning of a Monarchy. To rule, and to pass that Rule down the bloodline?



Well, this only holds if the story is true, I did not believe the story to be true, so the question leading from that to me is irrelevant, no, I do not believe that the Gurus chose from within their families to respect a diktat by Guru Amar Das, I think it just panned out that way. If they did, then it starts to upset the litmus test, and as my sister rightly pointed out above, you have to have some faith in foundations, otherwise the whole thing comes crashing down, but that is my personal belief, personal to me.



Truthsikher31 said:


> Harry you said the Guru's were perfect. If they were perfect, and thus so should their bloodlines, but yet some of the family members were consumed by jealousy, greed, power hungry. So then how can someone who's pure and perfect create imperfections. Was it their wives faults? The Guru's never even considered their daughters to be leaders. Why not? Prolly b/c those times were pretty sexist, and not truly equal among the sexes.



hahah, why? my mother and father are pretty perfect, they are good, good people, just really nice people, with no interest in dancing with the devil, in fact, they are so good, that anyone else would have disowned me by now, I did not just dance with the devil, I ran away with him to Gretna Green, and we got married, still, they accept, love, nuture and cherish me, yet I came from their bloodline.....



Truthsikher31 said:


> The Gurus were not God chosen, or it was destiny. They were selected by simple human men, who sought to keep it within the family. And who knows by doing so maybe provided security for the generations to come. Being a Guru or a member of the Guru's family must have had it's share of perks. You probably had a comfortable life. Even has kids, they probably had servants, personal military/combat trainers, and not to forget the public who would serve the bloodline. Is it wrong for me to say the Guru's lived a luxury and king-like lifestyle.



Well, I think we can all safely say that Guru Nanak did not, and as Sikhs believe that the light of Guru Nanak shone through all the Gurus, that they were all in fact the same, then the litmus test says no, I think by the time of the tenth Guru, he felt it important to show the world that Sikhs were not fakirs, or tramps, that they had culture, style, presence, I do not believe they lived like kings, I believe they were humble and did what they had to do to bring about change, in whatever way they felt appropriate, I put any king like stories down to the Sakhi culture, a true king, a proper king serves his people more than he serves himself, a real king would have to be dragged to the throne, because it is a job of responsibility, of nurture, not of gain. Real Kings do not give a toss about finery or luxury, all they care about is the welfare of their subjects. In my opinion all the Gurus were real kings.



Truthsikher31 said:


> Why is it now, in today's time it's some what acceptable to question Sikhi (teachings, rules - 5ks, definition of a sikh, etc.) but its like blasphemy to question those who created it? If you disagree, great. But bring different thoughts (go outside the box). Try not giving textbook answers. That's what reading is for lol. After all, if "God" gave us this perfect body, then the mind would be such a waste if we never question, would it not.



Well, with respect, although you are questioning, you are not questioning those who created it, you are questioning the truth about those who created it, there is a difference, I live by the litmus test, the Gurus were perfect and they had a message to impart to the world, they lived as they preached, so any story that does not run on that road is probably {censored}. However, a great many people believe stories, but that is their right.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 18, 2018)

This Shabad is from Bhatvani in the SGGS, our only Guru, on page 968. ‘The miracle’ is that Guru Amardas broke the tradition of good khandaan, dynasty- the norms of the day till today and married his daughter to Bhai Jetha. He later came to be known as Guru Ramdas, who used to sell Gungniha to make a living. This is the reason we have Gungniha- black chic peas prasad.
Sadly, till today, we look for bloodlines, palmlines and in search of this, we miss the most important line- the Heartline even after our 3rd Guru chose that almost 500 years ago.

The English translation is by Sant Singh Khalsa

ਧੰਨੁ ਧੰਨੁ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਗੁਰੁ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਿਰਿਆ ਤਿਨੈ ਸਵਾਰਿਆ ॥
Ḏẖan ḏẖan Rāmḏās gur jin siri▫ā ṯinai savāri▫ā.
Blessed, blessed is Guru Raam Daas; He who created You, has also exalted You.

ਪੂਰੀ ਹੋਈ ਕਰਾਮਾਤਿ ਆਪਿ ਸਿਰਜਣਹਾਰੈ ਧਾਰਿਆ ॥
Pūrī ho▫ī karāmāṯ āp sirjaṇhārai ḏẖāri▫ā.
Perfect is Your miracle; the Creator Lord Himself has installed You on the throne.

ਸਿਖੀ ਅਤੈ ਸੰਗਤੀ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਕਰਿ ਨਮਸਕਾਰਿਆ ॥
Sikẖī aṯai sangṯī pārbarahm kar namaskāri▫ā.
The Sikhs and all the Congregation recognize You as the Supreme Lord God, and bow down to You.

ਅਟਲੁ ਅਥਾਹੁ ਅਤੋਲੁ ਤੂ ਤੇਰਾ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਪਾਰਾਵਾਰਿਆ ॥
Atal athāhu aṯol ṯū ṯerā anṯ na pārāvāri▫ā.
You are unchanging, unfathomable and immeasurable; You have no end or limitation.

ਜਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਤੂੰ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਭਾਉ ਕਰਿ ਸੇ ਤੁਧੁ ਪਾਰਿ ਉਤਾਰਿਆ ॥
Jinĥī ṯūŉ sevi▫ā bẖā▫o kar se ṯuḏẖ pār uṯāri▫ā.
Those who serve You with love - You carry them across.

ਲਬੁ ਲੋਭੁ ਕਾਮੁ ਕ੍ਰੋਧੁ ਮੋਹੁ ਮਾਰਿ ਕਢੇ ਤੁਧੁ ਸਪਰਵਾਰਿਆ ॥
Lab lobẖ kām kroḏẖ moh mār kadẖe ṯuḏẖ saparvāri▫ā.
Greed, envy, sexual desire, anger and emotional attachment - You have beaten them and driven them out.

ਧੰਨੁ ਸੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਥਾਨੁ ਹੈ ਸਚੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਪੈਸਕਾਰਿਆ ॥
Ḏẖan so ṯerā thān hai sacẖ ṯerā paiskāri▫ā.
Blessed is Your place, and True is Your magnificent glory.

ਨਾਨਕੁ ਤੂ ਲਹਣਾ ਤੂਹੈ ਗੁਰੁ ਅਮਰੁ ਤੂ ਵੀਚਾਰਿਆ ॥
Nānak ṯū lahṇā ṯūhai gur amar ṯū vīcẖāri▫ā.
You are Nanak, You are Angad, and You are Amar Daas; so do I recognize You.

ਗੁਰੁ ਡਿਠਾ ਤਾਂ ਮਨੁ ਸਾਧਾਰਿਆ ॥੭॥
Gur diṯẖā ṯāŉ man sāḏẖāri▫ā. ||7||
When I saw the Guru, then my mind was comforted and consoled. ||7||


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 10, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> This Shabad is from Bhatvani in the SGGS, our only Guru, on page 968. ‘The miracle’ is that Guru Amardas broke the tradition of good khandaan, dynasty- the norms of the day till today and married his daughter to Bhai Jetha. He later came to be known as Guru Ramdas, who used to sell Gungniha to make a living. This is the reason we have Gungniha- black chic peas prasad.
> Sadly, till today, we look for bloodlines, palmlines and in search of this, we miss the most important line- the Heartline even after our 3rd Guru chose that almost 500 years ago.
> 
> The English translation is by Sant Singh Khalsa
> ...



Guru Amardas might have broken the norm of marrying his daughter to an "outsider", but what did the Gurus after him do.  This was a monarchy.  

I ask you all, because I couldn't find and confirm the dates, but when and really why did Guru Gobind stop the continuation of physical gurus.  Was it that there was no more male members in the families to pass the "torch".  Before he made this decision, had his sons already been captures or killed?

And if someone disagrees that this wasn't a Monarch, I would like to hear your argument.   A lot of us are taught about the existence about God when we are little children, and as we grow, we learn about the gurus, and 5ks, etc.  Along the way never really questioning, and if you do, most likely you got a angry response that you can't disrespect or question the Gurus or their teachings.

Religion requires you to follow it blindly, but I'm sorry I only have this one life.  No one will ever ever prove that Reincarnation exists or that Heaven/Hell exists.  So while I'm here, I want to know that a lived a true life, and did good by my family and people around me.  And if in my search to find some truth, my questions seems a little offensive, then so be it.  Maybe most Sikhs never think this way (how I do), they could be brainwashed into thinking that Sikh teachings are only the best, and no one can question it - but isn't that Pride or Ego, anyhow.


----------



## Original (Apr 11, 2018)

Truthsikher31 - Good morning,

I hope you'd allow me the liberty to make few preliminary inquiries:

the name truthsikher is interesting, what kind of truth in particular would you be seeking/sikhing ? By that I mean there are number of different truths, for example, arithmetical, geometrical, logical, metaphysical, etc ?
what do you understand by the term Guru as used in Sikh Faith/literature ?
Thank you


----------



## Simranjit (Apr 11, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc.  And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood.  For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc.  To me that seems a bit Monarchist.  Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins.  But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family.  I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will.  To continue the teachings of their predecessors.
> 
> History is pretty clear that religious history (Sikh, Hindus, Muslim, Jewish, Christians) was male dominated.  But then again, most of history was.
> 
> My timings might be off but when Guru Gobind declared that there shall be no other physical Guru, and that what was in the SGGS was final, was that after or before he lost his sons.  The reason I ask this is because, was his decision to end the line of Gurus because the didn't have anyone he "trusted" that was blood related to pass the "torch" to? Or did he for-see something else.


Thanks a lot for bringing here this question, I have been wondering the same, but never took the time and space to ask properly.


----------



## FilledToTheBrim (Apr 11, 2018)

According to Bhai Gurdas Ji in Vaaran 1 Pauri 48 , sikhs had asked Guru Hargobind how many gurus would come after him. 

ਜੁਗਿ ਜੁਗਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਧਰੇ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ॥੪੮॥

Jougi Jougi Satiguru Dharay Avataaree ॥48॥

Four more Gurus will come to earth (yuga 2, yuga 2 i.e. 2+2=4)

From Punjabi teeka ਪਰੰਤੂ ਹੋਰ ਅਵਤਾਰ ‘ਜੁਗ ਜੁਗ’ (ਦੋ ਦੂਣੀ ਚਾਰ ਯਾ ੨+੨=੪) ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਧਾਰਨ ਕਰਨਗੇ।

One definition of jug is 2 or a pair. Also Guru Har Rai and Guru Har Krishan are a pair. Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh are a pair (father and son).


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 11, 2018)

FilledToTheBrim said:


> According to Bhai Gurdas Ji in Vaaran 1 Pauri 48 , sikhs had asked Guru Hargobind how many gurus would come after him.
> 
> ਜੁਗਿ ਜੁਗਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਧਰੇ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ॥੪੮॥
> 
> ...



I'm sorry I don't get your response.  Are you saying that Guru Hargobind should get the credit for stopping at 10 gurus, and not Guru Gobind Singh? Ok fine.  But that's not what I've been posting.  You still prove my point that the Gurus weren't really chosen.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 11, 2018)

Original said:


> Truthsikher31 - Good morning,
> 
> I hope you'd allow me the liberty to make few preliminary inquiries:
> 
> ...



Pretty much from childhood to my college years, and even into my own marriage/family life, I've always questioned myself the existence of God.  Some of my cousins are Amritari, and I would have conversations with them as they are quite involved in Sikhi, and often teach the youth at our Gurdwara.  I never really got the answer I would seek, and mostly would get an explanation that was taught to them.  But being in Punjabi/Sikh community, I never took my questions/curiousity to the next level.  Just getting the basic answers and not thinking twice.  But I believe once I started my career, and getting the chance to work with people of different backgrounds (religion, sexuality, beliefs, etc.) I really started to think of my faith, religion, and what do I really believe in.  This really kicked in more, when we had our son last year.  Do I teach him the same path that I've grown up with?  My feeling towards religion and God has changed quite a bit in the last 10 yrs.  These days, I'm leading towards Atheism, but I wanted to make sure what I was leaving behind was true or false.

Most of you probably already know that 10+ years ago, information was not easily obtained or shared.  Tech/Internet has made the world smaller than our parents generations.  Up til now I've mostly lived under my parents rule, and been influenced by the Sikh community. So what ever questions we had, we sought to these "sources".  Even if the answer was not to our satisfaction.  And depending on your family circle, you couldn't properly question/criticize anything related to Sikhi or the Gurus.  
We each have this one life, and I don't want to waste it or that of my kids in something that doesn't exist (God), or is not needed and creates more separation that unity (Religion).

Gurus in the Sikhi, to me means a teacher, and a *student *at the same time.  Each Guru applied some new rule to follow, that was accepted according to the time they were living in.  Almost like how Presidents/Gov't create new laws or change out-dated ones, with what's trending or  accepted.  But it's almost like the Gurus were improving or leaving their mark in History by introducing something new. 
But to me I see it like this. We claim that the Guru's are God-like.  We worship them as such.  Nothing bad is ever mentioned about them.  Almost as if they are perfect.  Some people on this site have claimed that Sikhi is perfect and that what the Gurus did was perfect.  So how is that each Guru contributed something new?  Shouldn't what Guru Nanak had started been perfect from the beginning? If Sikhi needed changes or improvements, then each Guru by definition cannot be perfect, and should open to criticism.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 11, 2018)

Simranjit said:


> Thanks a lot for bringing here this question, I have been wondering the same, but never took the time and space to ask properly.



Thanks Simran, 

What is your view on this?


----------



## Simranjit (Apr 12, 2018)

I am wondering what means "to be perfect". It might seem a silly question, but I cannot even imagine how someone can be perfect. It is not that I don't think that a human being can be perfect, it is that I don't understand what attributes would make a person "perfect".

And,  how is that that some people (the Gurus and maybe others) are perfect and others are not. Aren't all of us perfect? Why not? Are we perfect as newborns or we are not perfect even then?Are animals and plants perfect?

I, of course, understand that some people act in ways that tend to bring more joy to other people than others. These are what we usually call "good people". And, of course, there are people that are more connected to their own  feelings and inner nature than others. And people that are wiser. And others that a more acknowledgeable. But....even if someone is a good person, very well connected, wiser and acknowledgeable.. does it mean that this person is "perfect". Why is this "perfection"? Or the attributes that made the Gurus "perfect" are others?


----------



## Simranjit (Apr 12, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Thanks Simran,
> 
> What is your view on this?



I'd love to share it as soon as I have the time. Thanks for asking!


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 12, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Pretty much from childhood to my college years, and even into my own marriage/family life, I've always questioned myself the existence of God.



you crack on mate, I think its people like you asking these questions that make others question their own comfortable answers



Truthsikher31 said:


> Some of my cousins are Amritari, and I would have conversations with them as they are quite involved in Sikhi, and often teach the youth at our Gurdwara. I never really got the answer I would seek, and mostly would get an explanation that was taught to them


yes, that is the trouble with learning off our elders, we propagate this to our own kids, and nothing new ever gets learned. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> But being in Punjabi/Sikh community, I never took my questions/curiousity to the next level. Just getting the basic answers and not thinking twice. But I believe once I started my career, and getting the chance to work with people of different backgrounds (religion, sexuality, beliefs, etc.) I really started to think of my faith, religion, and what do I really believe in. This really kicked in more, when we had our son last year. Do I teach him the same path that I've grown up with? My feeling towards religion and God has changed quite a bit in the last 10 yrs. These days, I'm leading towards Atheism, but I wanted to make sure what I was leaving behind was true or false.



but why do you need an eism period? even as an atheist you need a God not to believe in. The whole concept of God is quite personal, down to how you view God, how you communicate with God, and even those that feel God has given them their own special journey in life, which is to convert others to that view, we are all different. How can you possibly know what is true or false? how can anyone know? up until the point of death we have to have an open mind and use our brains, I personally see it a large jigsaw puzzle, rather than allow it have any affect on my life, its interesting, but at the end of the day, I wake up, I live, I go to sleep, and that's it. If your motivation is what to teach your kids, just teach them to be honest good human beings, you don't need God to tell you that, or validate it. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> Most of you probably already know that 10+ years ago, information was not easily obtained or shared. Tech/Internet has made the world smaller than our parents generations. Up til now I've mostly lived under my parents rule, and been influenced by the Sikh community. So what ever questions we had, we sought to these "sources". Even if the answer was not to our satisfaction. And depending on your family circle, you couldn't properly question/criticize anything related to Sikhi or the Gurus.
> We each have this one life, and I don't want to waste it or that of my kids in something that doesn't exist (God), or is not needed and creates more separation that unity (Religion).



It would be naive for us to assume that any religion, as it stands today, is an honest and accurate reflection of how it came to be, and how it was when it was conceived, there are too many with their own agenda, and that agenda is to control others. Allow your kids to the freedom to make their own decision based on the wisdom that you can impart on them, it is quite arrogant to assume that you take responsibility for their faith, all you can do is give them the facts and allow them to make their own decisions, sounds freaky eh, but you seem like the sort of guy I could say that to. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> Gurus in the Sikhi, to me means a teacher, and a *student *at the same time. Each Guru applied some new rule to follow, that was accepted according to the time they were living in. Almost like how Presidents/Gov't create new laws or change out-dated ones, with what's trending or accepted. But it's almost like the Gurus were improving or leaving their mark in History by introducing something new.



I find all the Gurus were singing from the same song sheet myself, changing environments brought about changing circumstances, but if you could give me one example where one Guru contradicted another Guru, I would be interested in that. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> But to me I see it like this. We claim that the Guru's are God-like.


nope, there is a growing sentiment that they were ordinary human beings with no powers that showed us the best of mankind, and the pinnacle of what a human being could be. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> We worship them as such.


They were quite specific in this regard, they said it was wrong to do such



Truthsikher31 said:


> Nothing bad is ever mentioned about them. Almost as if they are perfect.


yes, they were perfect human beings



Truthsikher31 said:


> Some people on this site have claimed that Sikhi is perfect and that what the Gurus did was perfect.


Sikhis in its current state is far from perfect, but if we come on to something close to my heart, universal truth, then in my mind they had discovered what the universal truth was, and lived by it, acted by it. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> So how is that each Guru contributed something new?


as the environment changed, so did their contribution, however, the message was the same from the start. again, show an example of this change



Truthsikher31 said:


> Shouldn't what Guru Nanak had started been perfect from the beginning?


it was, again, show an example of contradiction





Truthsikher31 said:


> If Sikhi needed changes or improvements, then each Guru by definition cannot be perfect, and should open to criticism.



your choice of words does not need to be so harsh as to invite disapproval, you are on a Sikh forum, and you seem quite intelligent, did you expect to be able to get away with that one and not cause ripples, it shows your own lack of humility and your big ego, you could have chosen understanding, which shows you are asking from a humble point of view, a genuine desire to learn, rather than a troll, I do not think you are a troll, but your communication skills are a bit lacking on such a sensitive subject. Show me one instance where a Guru has u turned, and we can go from there, 

criticism
ˈkrɪtɪsɪz(ə)m/
_noun_

*1*.
the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.
understanding
ʌndəˈstandɪŋ/
_noun_

*1*.
the ability to understand something; comprehension.


----------



## Original (Apr 12, 2018)

Truthsikher 31


Thank you for the lovely response, much appreciated.

I think the starting point in your case would be to differentiate between philosophical and non philosophical questions and to ask what the words "God" and "religion" mean. This will help pave way to discuss questions of whether argument and evidence are even possible when we are talking about specific religious beliefs.

The history of religion is as old as the history of humankind itself. Even the most primitive [cavemen] of times there is evidence to suggest that there was some form of worship. In a way, religion bestows *meaning* and *purpose *on human existence. It defines what is true [not your tables n chairs] and absolute and "how" it can be realised.

A talking point for us I guess could be found from within the pages of SGGSJ. Take for example the verse* "ਪਹਿਲਾ ਪਾਣੀ ਜੀਉ ਹੈ ਜਿਤੁ ਹਰਿਆ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਇ"* [472, SGGSJ, meaning: life started in water]. If that'd be correct then isn't that what Charles Darwin is saying in the Origin of Species by Natural Selection ?

Have a think and lets explore true Sikhism.

speak soon !


----------



## Original (Apr 12, 2018)

Hi Simranjit,
Hope all is well at your end !


Simranjit said:


> I am wondering what means "to be perfect".


..abstract thinking will give you a perfect thing, but not the natural world; a circle drawn with a compass will give you a 360' circle [perfect] and crude oil with drops of water [h2o] will produce circles measuring 360'. Otherwise, perfection lives north of the North Pole.



Simranjit said:


> It might seem a silly question, but I cannot even imagine how someone can be perfect


Its not a silly question, depends more on the context within which it is framed. Take you for example, wanting a perfect partner who has the following: handsome, kind, chivalrous, brave, intelligent, generous, faithful, etc. It is possible to find someone having those qualities.



Simranjit said:


> It is not that I don't think that a human being can be perfect, it is that I don't understand what attributes would make a person "perfect".


..it'll have to be those attributes that would make Simranjit go up the path [in that they serve her needs] as oppose to those that lead her down the path [in that they go against her needs]. The needs are biological n psychological ingrained into what we call, human condition.


Simranjit said:


> And, how is that that some people (the Gurus and maybe others) are perfect and others are not. Aren't all of us perfect? Why not? Are we perfect as newborns or we are not perfect even then?Are animals and plants perfect?


The word perfect doesn't do justice if we consider the Sikh Gurus to be mere mortals, which they were, however, the word used in Sikh scriptures is not "perfect" but "wholesome" [puran].


Simranjit said:


> But....even if someone is a good person, very well connected, wiser and acknowledgeable.. does it mean that this person is "perfect". Why is this "perfection"?


..it is because of our insatiable quest that has made us who we are as humans - hungry for knowledge. The deeper the dive [thinking] the higher the transformation [perfection]. From a spiritual perspective, yes, there is a state of perfect Being.



Simranjit said:


> Or the attributes that made the Gurus "perfect" are others?


..no they are doable and achievable.

I think the concept "guru" might be worth exploring because that will put you in a good stead to navigate your way around with the rest of the Sikh tenets.

Hope it helps !


----------



## charanjeet Kour (Apr 18, 2018)

We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc. And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood. For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc. To me that seems a bit Monarchist. Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins. But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family. I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will. To continue the teachings of their predecessors.
Hello dear I have read about historical books of Guru's Life and i came across answer to your first question according to me is that...

When Guru Nanak was born he was not like common child who weeps and all... He smiled and had known about all the languages by birth ( Like we know about " Baabay Nu Parhan Bithaya Baaba Parha k AYA Takhti ty Likhiya EK AUNKAR"). AND same, other Guru's had something unique about there character. 
I think God had given a sort of mixture and a very Good message in very short lifetime and belief on only 10 Guru's (Like other religions has so many prophets we saw in muslims hindus christian etc).
In history there was blood relation on passing the torch but Sikhism is different.
You tell me if u had torch than whether you would pass it on your son or whether to someone else??? I think you would pass it to your son right?? if this torch you pass to someone else you must be jaelous and other ills will be there...I hope u understand my thoughts.
Now What Guru's Has done they teach us that Torch they have passed to someone else who was Guru made by God and not of their own.(and their was no jaelousy, no social ills etc.)
This was first teaching to us from God side.
Now u said that rest were in bloodline.. So brother this is according to me another teaching for us that Guru Gobind Singh's father (Guru Teg Bahadar sahib Ji) has Given life on asking of his son. (When Guru Teg bahadar ji asked for life of Strong men for saving Hindu religion than Guru Gobind Singh tell him that who can be more brave than you?)
So tell me if you and I were in that place ? than would u or I could offer the life of our's father for someone else religion safty?? NO WE CAN NEVER BCX WE HAVE NO TORCH WE ARE NOT PERFECT WE THINK FOR OURSELF FIRST AND THAN FOR OTHERS.
That was another message from God side to us that normal man can't make such offers.
Now come towards that why torch was passed on to SGGS? It was because that I think that God wants us to remember him through our prophets right? and not the prophets who show miracles and all that to the people and than tell them to remember me and i will give you fruits for it.( As in Hinduism you will get special thing from unique devi and devtas, In Islam you will remember God but you are still incomplete in your eman till belief in lakhs of prophets).
Now Sikhism teach us not to bow down your head to any picture, any mizar etc except SGGS. 

Reasons:

SGGS is jagti Jot, it has power. Its very true we find many examples and had seen it and feel it. Whenever i have done pray in early time i have sensed smell of Karha Parshad.
All the teachings in SGGS is onli about God, Like believe in God, God has all power, remember him and many many his praises only.
SO WE SHOULD BOW DOWN ONLY TO THAT SAYINGS AND NOT BY CONSIDERING IT BOOK.
There is so much details realy.
Thanks i hope it helps.


----------



## charanjeet Kour (Apr 18, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Pretty much from childhood to my college years, and even into my own marriage/family life, I've always questioned myself the existence of God.  Some of my cousins are Amritari, and I would have conversations with them as they are quite involved in Sikhi, and often teach the youth at our Gurdwara.  I never really got the answer I would seek, and mostly would get an explanation that was taught to them.  But being in Punjabi/Sikh community, I never took my questions/curiousity to the next level.  Just getting the basic answers and not thinking twice.  But I believe once I started my career, and getting the chance to work with people of different backgrounds (religion, sexuality, beliefs, etc.) I really started to think of my faith, religion, and what do I really believe in.  This really kicked in more, when we had our son last year.  Do I teach him the same path that I've grown up with?  My feeling towards religion and God has changed quite a bit in the last 10 yrs.  These days, I'm leading towards Atheism, but I wanted to make sure what I was leaving behind was true or false.
> 
> Most of you probably already know that 10+ years ago, information was not easily obtained or shared.  Tech/Internet has made the world smaller than our parents generations.  Up til now I've mostly lived under my parents rule, and been influenced by the Sikh community. So what ever questions we had, we sought to these "sources".  Even if the answer was not to our satisfaction.  And depending on your family circle, you couldn't properly question/criticize anything related to Sikhi or the Gurus.
> We each have this one life, and I don't want to waste it or that of my kids in something that doesn't exist (God), or is not needed and creates more separation that unity (Religion).
> ...


Dear  Brother!
I can understand your feelings. Its not actually your fault its because lack of knowledge with the parents. Your parents had less knowledge to teach you enough about Sikhism.
If you really want to do something right in ur life than i will say please please follow Sikhism. Follow that religion in which you are born. if you were muslim i would have suggest you to go on way what islam teach u. Our Guru Nanak teach us that Religions are only ways ( KOI BOLAY RAM RAM KOI KHUDAYE KOI SAWAY GUSSAEYAN KOI ALLAH E).
BELIEVE IN GOD IS FIRST THING IN ANY RELIGION. HOW YOU CAN REFUSE ABOUT HIS EXISTANCE THERE ARE MANY THINGS THIS WORLD PLANETS LIFE ON EARTH IS PROOF OF HIS EXISTANCE.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 18, 2018)

charanjeet Kour said:


> We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc. And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood. For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc. To me that seems a bit Monarchist. Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins. But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family. I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will. To continue the teachings of their predecessors.
> Hello dear I have read about historical books of Guru's Life and i came across answer to your first question according to me is that...
> 
> When Guru Nanak was born he was not like common child who weeps and all... He smiled and had known about all the languages by birth ( Like we know about " Baabay Nu Parhan Bithaya Baaba Parha k AYA Takhti ty Likhiya EK AUNKAR"). AND same, other Guru's had something unique about there character.
> ...



errr I think this is the sort of thing that he was protesting against in the first place............


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 19, 2018)

charanjeet Kour said:


> We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc. And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood. For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc. To me that seems a bit Monarchist. Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins. But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family. I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will. To continue the teachings of their predecessors.
> Hello dear I have read about historical books of Guru's Life and i came across answer to your first question according to me is that...
> 
> When Guru Nanak was born he was not like common child who weeps and all... He smiled and had known about all the languages by birth ( Like we know about " Baabay Nu Parhan Bithaya Baaba Parha k AYA Takhti ty Likhiya EK AUNKAR"). AND same, other Guru's had something unique about there character.
> ...


*
I guess my point in this topic is that, the History books, the lessons, people such as yourself believe that the Gurus were selected by some divine being (God).  And that the selection was not up to the Gurus.
I disagree, and I don't believe there was any God involvement, if fact it took a female human being (Bibi Bhani) to forever change the selection process.*


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 19, 2018)

charanjeet Kour said:


> Dear  Brother!
> I can understand your feelings. Its not actually your fault its because lack of knowledge with the parents. Your parents had less knowledge to teach you enough about Sikhism.
> If you really want to do something right in ur life than i will say please please follow Sikhism. Follow that religion in which you are born. if you were muslim i would have suggest you to go on way what islam teach u. Our Guru Nanak teach us that Religions are only ways ( KOI BOLAY RAM RAM KOI KHUDAYE KOI SAWAY GUSSAEYAN KOI ALLAH E).
> BELIEVE IN GOD IS FIRST THING IN ANY RELIGION. HOW YOU CAN REFUSE ABOUT HIS EXISTANCE THERE ARE MANY THINGS THIS WORLD PLANETS LIFE ON EARTH IS PROOF OF HIS EXISTANCE.



I want to make sure I understand you.  It's not my fault, its my parents.  But what am I wrong about? or what are they wrong about?  Just because I question Sikhi, the Gurus, and how it all came to be, and still...if in the end I don't agree with it all, then am I wrong?  To me it seems you're no different than any other Sikh person I've met in real life.  It seems your knowledge and experience, is based on what you've been taught, or read from books.  But let me ask you this, do you follow everything you've been taught about the Sikh religion blindly, or have you ever questioned anything ever?

"If I want to do something right in my life, then I should follow Sikhism" - again, so if I don't follow it, then I must be wrong.  Since I was born into a Sikh family, I must and only follow Sikhism.  OR, if I was born a muslim then follow Islam.  So we don't have a choice at all, is what you're saying.  Isn't this an old-way of thinking?

The last part of your comment is about God again.  God is a whole other topic.  This post was about the Gurus.  If you want to debate over God, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on a different post.


----------



## sukhsingh (Apr 26, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> [
> 
> 
> Some questions are probably better off not asked, your asking why the Gurus did what they did, how can anyone answer this? How can I say, yeah sure he saw something else, and this is what it was, I don't know, no one knows, however questioning the judgement of a Sikh Guru, is probably not going to win you any fans, they were perfect, so we have to assume they had their reasons, any debate that ends with the conclusion that an action of a Guru was wrong throws the whole foundations of Sikhism open, some topics I guess are too holy for questions, I would say this is one of them, there are plenty of other good questions, I would lie if I were to say I had never had the same thoughts and questions, but tread carefully, your now directly questioning the reasoning and logic of the Gurus, some things I guess we just have to accept, it is a fact that the tenth Guru decided to convey the future Guruship to the SGGS, for me it stops there, thats what he did, he must have had his reasons, what those reasons were is unlikely to assist us in our search for the truth as it is impossible to answer.


All questions asked should be answered .


----------



## sukhsingh (Apr 26, 2018)

All the gurus after guru ram das ji were related.. But I don't think it holds true that their existed nepotism.. That may well be a valid question but also one that requires a deep dive to suggest that it is or was something wrong


----------



## Admin (Apr 26, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> if fact it took a female human being (Bibi Bhani) to forever change the selection process



Its a fake Saakhi (parable), holds no merit infront of the litmus test of Gurmat principles.


----------



## sukhsingh (Apr 26, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> Its a fake Saakhi (parable), holds no merit infront of the litmus test of Gurmat principles.


Can you please share some evidence of that assertion ?


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Apr 26, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Guru Amardas might have broken the norm of marrying his daughter to an "outsider", but what did the Gurus after him do.  This was a monarchy.
> 
> I ask you all, because I couldn't find and confirm the dates, but when and really why did Guru Gobind stop the continuation of physical gurus.  Was it that there was no more male members in the families to pass the "torch".  Before he made this decision, had his sons already been captures or killed?
> 
> ...


Well, us Sikh's don't believe in heaven or hell. I just feel that if our religion promoted an afterlife people who just do good deeds on the sake of making it to heaven, but in our religion Guru Nanak, never mentioned that there is heaven or hell, and that we get a reward. He is just saying that we should just do good deeds, and just leave a good mark on this world, and after that we just merge into god. Like a water droplet in an ocean, I mean for me I don't believe in the afterlife, the only thing I believe is that we just get reborn in order to fix our mistakes. For the Guru lineage, I just think that Guru Nanak didn't care if he wanted to have a lineage, and wanted different believe, but I think after Guru Amar Das something fishy happened. For me I just think that in this modern era, people only care about the later Gurus who were more militaristic.  Well, Guru Nanak didn't say he represented God, he said that he was just a humble servant god who was just wanted to seek the mysteries of god. I just think that if Guru Nanak was here, and just saw the Guru lineage, I just think he might've opposed it, in my opinion. Sorry if I was late


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Apr 26, 2018)

The issue is with people thinking that the Guru's of being godlike, is with the people, the Guru's never said that they were godmen, infact when I do Chapuai Sahib they say that, I don't have the exact quote, but it says that Prophet Mohammed, Vedas, Shiva, think they are representatives of god, but we shouldn't accept with it. The issue is that we are doing the things that Guru Nanak told us not, such as Idol worship. We keep photos of our Ten Guru's in our homes such as mine, and we bow down to them, which I think is a form of idol worship. We should only worship to god, which I often thought to myself, we can bow to any direction we want. Like Guru Nanak who was in Mecca, he was praying in a different direction then how Muslim's do. One of them asked why did Guru Nanak did such as a thing because he said that God was everywhere. Let me tell you I ain't some old guy, I am the younger generation I am a 15 year old humble Gursikh who is even though he is a Mona and has a jatt last name, I am trying to remove that. I am trying to be a true sick, and try to get out of this superstition and such. I just want to be reconnected with Sikhi, and not worship to a bunch of godmen or portraits. I just want to worship with God. I am the same thing as you TruthSiker31, I have often doubted things such as God, but for some reason. I could never conclude I was an Atheist, which is why I consider myself an Agnostic Panentheist or Theist. Whenever I just prayed and just prayed for something good, they always come true, sure it could be coincidence, but they are just real. I just say that the Universe is just so beautiful, how are we this lucky? Most of them you hear of distance planets being destroyed and such by meteor's, dwarf stars, and etc, but for earth we are lucky. Every time we have close calls with solar flares, and meteors passing near us, how do we survive. 

One last thing, I just don't know why people think that the Guru's were superheros? They are just regular old people who were the humble servants of God, trying to liberate them selves. Honestly, it just drives me bonkers, like how people say that wearing a Kara give's you superpowers, or how people walk around the Guru Granth, I just feel that it is ritualism.


----------



## Admin (Apr 26, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> Can you please share some evidence of that assertion ?



SGGS, Page 1. Pauri 1 states. Hukam rajai chalna, nanak likheya naal... so, giving somebody a boon (varr/sharaap) is not gurmat. Period.


----------



## Dalvinder Singh Grewal (Apr 27, 2018)

Q. 'what happened during their reign, etc'
Did the Gurus reign? Were they kings? A new shocker. As far as I know they were spiritual luminaries par excellence.

Q. 'after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood'.  May be that Bibi Bhani's request being granted but no where it is mentioned that all the later gurus were to be selected from among blood relations. If we study the qualitative aspects all the following gurus are found equally capable in spiritual excellence, however genealogy was not strictly followed.  There were others in succession from among blood relations like Pirthi Chand who were left out since they did not meet the qualitative requirements.
Q. To say that Guru Gobind Singh opted for Sabd Guru because he lost all his sons also appears to be misnomer. There were other Sodhis among the blood relations who could have been chosen instead. The selection of Sabd guru as the eternal guru was well thought out well before from the time of the earlier guru who have been giving the importance not to the physical aspect but to the written words.


----------



## Original (Apr 27, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> Its a fake Saakhi (parable),


..analytical statements need "plausible" explanations to deem them true/false. What's yours ?


----------



## Admin (Apr 27, 2018)

Original said:


> ..analytical statements need "plausible" explanations to deem them true/false. What's yours ?



Read my response at post # 30 - it is clear enough as an explanation.


----------



## Original (Apr 27, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> Read my response at post # 30 - it is clear enough as an explanation.


..is it really ? how is* "...Hukam rajai chalna, nanak likheya naal..."* relevant to Bibi Bhani Ji' asking her father/guru to bequeath gurgadi to her offspring's ?


----------



## Admin (Apr 28, 2018)

If you still don't understand the relevance, then you may never understand it, no matter how hard anybody tries...


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 30, 2018)

dalvindersingh grewal said:


> Q. 'what happened during their reign, etc'
> Did the Gurus reign? Were they kings? A new shocker. As far as I know they were spiritual luminaries par excellence.
> 
> Q. 'after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood'.  May be that Bibi Bhani's request being granted but no where it is mentioned that all the later gurus were to be selected from among blood relations. If we study the qualitative aspects all the following gurus are found equally capable in spiritual excellence, however genealogy was not strictly followed.  There were others in succession from among blood relations like Pirthi Chand who were left out since they did not meet the qualitative requirements.
> Q. To say that Guru Gobind Singh opted for Sabd Guru because he lost all his sons also appears to be misnomer. There were other Sodhis among the blood relations who could have been chosen instead. The selection of Sabd guru as the eternal guru was well thought out well before from the time of the earlier guru who have been giving the importance not to the physical aspect but to the written words.



It may not be mentioned anywhere that the Gurus HAD to be selected from blood relations, but that's what happened didn't it.  So then wouldn't that give Bibi Bhani's request some truth.  You said though they were of blood relations, it didn't affect their ability to be of spiritual excellence.  Here's my argument.  The title of this post is that the Guru's were not "chosen".  And when I say chosen, I mean chosen by God.  We put the Guru's on a God Like platform, and connect everything they did (taught lessons, performed miracles, etc.) to God.  Truth is the Guru's were personally selected by each Guru for their predecessor, and they chose that of blood relation, and to me that is a form of Monarchy.  How can anyone argue that our religion was not created from a form of Monarchism.

Other individuals may have contributed to verses or scripts in the Guru Granth Sahib, but you never hear of them that much.  They don't have their birth or death celebrated or remembered.  Yet each Guru is remembered individually.  So my thinking was, before I keep committing myself, and my kids future to Sikhi, I wanted to know the History.  At first I didn't know that the majority of the Guru's were related.  I knew Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Gobind were father/son, but didn't know the others were to.  So how is this equality.  A monarchy is no way a fair or equal system in which to live in.  The people couldn't decide if the Guru's selections was correct or not.  Who gave the Guru's the power to select ... God? Really?  Doesn't seem like it, at least not to me.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Apr 30, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> If you still don't understand the relevance, then you may never understand it, no matter how hard anybody tries...



You claim the story of Bibi Bhani to be false.  Instead of hiding behind quotes, just give real facts or examples to support your claim. 
Found this on a website:

******Soche Soch Na Hovai Je Sochi Lakh Var
Chupe Chup Na Hovai Je Lai Raha(n) Liv Tar
Bhukhia(n) Bhukh Na Utari Je Banna(n) Puria(n) Bhar
Sahas Sianpa Lakh Hohi Ta Ik Na Chale Nal
Kiv Sachiara Hoiai Kiv Kurai Tute Pal
Hukam Rajai Chalna Nanak Likhiya Nal*

Thinking does not reach belief, if one thinks a million times
Prolonged silence and meditation does not quieten the mind
Hunger (Greed) cannot be satisfied even with loads of food (wealth)
At the time of death intellectual smartness also stays behind
How can then we realize the Truth and destroy fibs
Says Nanak live with His Divine Will

Guru Nanak lays emphasis on living a life based on Truth.  Guru Nanak's Hukam Razai Chalna is placed in the Japji Sahib as the First Commandment. This commandment implies total surrender of oneself to the Supreme. This commandment of surrender is given after Guru Nanak introduces the fallacy of performing cursory rituals.*******

So are you saying "live a life based on Truth".  Fine, that's nice and all, but how are you proving that Bibi Bhani story is false.  And if it is truly false, then why was it told.  If you're going to say Sikh history also contains fables, myths, falsehoods then how is Sikhism different from religions like Hinduism or Christianity.  If the word of God, or whats written in Guru Granth Sahib is final and perfect, then why the need for your fables like Bibi Bhani or Baba Deep Singh.  Why twist words and create unnecessary conflicts and debates.  Is the story of Guru Nanak squeezing the two rotis where one produced milk and the other blood, also false?  After all the Guru's did perform types of miracles right, so this could be true to (like Jesus creating Wine outta water).  Or is it all B.S.

If you or others alike are going to say this was false, or this meant something else, then Sikhi becomes no different than any other religion.  To me it seems like you're defending the Guru's decisions on selecting Gurus, by discrediting a part of history.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 25, 2018)

What is your point?

So what if Guru Ram Das ji onwards Gurgaddi was passed within the family? Even Guru Tegh Bahadur ji was from the same family, he was the son of Guru Hari Gobind ji.

Guru Gobind Singh ji did not pass on the Gurgaddi to his sons since they were martyred.  So what if he didn't? He decided to pass the Gurgaddi to the word of the Saints. So what if he did?

What are you trying to say?


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 25, 2018)

FilledToTheBrim said:


> According to Bhai Gurdas Ji in Vaaran 1 Pauri 48 , sikhs had asked Guru Hargobind how many gurus would come after him.
> 
> ਜੁਗਿ ਜੁਗਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਧਰੇ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ॥੪੮॥
> 
> ...



We must be careful here and pay attention to the grammar.

The word here is not Jug or Yug but Yuge.
ਜੁਗਿ Yuge means in the Yug, in the age, in the era.

ਜੁਗਿ ਜੁਗਿ yuge yuge - in each age, in each era... 

So Guru Hari Gobind ji is not giving the number of Gurus that will be follow him. In fact he is saying the Gurus will constantly arrive on this earth in each and every age.

And he is not just referring to Sikh Gurus, but the arrival of all kinds of Spiritual Masters all over the world.

This is the Order that God has revealed to the Saints.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (May 27, 2018)

BhagatSingh said:


> What is your point?
> 
> So what if Guru Ram Das ji onwards Gurgaddi was passed within the family? Even Guru Tegh Bahadur ji was from the same family, he was the son of Guru Hari Gobind ji.
> 
> ...



My title for the post is that they weren't chosen.  "Chosen" being not chosen by God.  But yet me make out everything that the Guru's did was because of God's will.  You're saying whats the big deal, if they did take it upon themselves?  The gurus weren't just teachers, or priest-like.  They were leaders, military leaders.  People followed them, listened to them, gave their lives to the gurus.  If you take out God and religion from this, then what do you have - a Monarchy.  But then everyone is going to claim, so what if it was "monarchistic".  They guru's were virtuous , they taught the truth, all was goody-goody.  So lets take today's current world.  Are any of you okay with the concept of a Monarch gov't.  You mean to tell me, in the times of the Gurus there were no other true-righteous persons who could have taken the "throne".  

Guru Hargobind by passes his own son (Guru Tegh Bahadur) and choose his grandson Guru Har Rai.  Guru Har Rai was 14 when he took over, and Guru Teg Bahadur during that year was 23 years old.  And reason why Guru Tegh Bahadur was not 'chosen" because he wasn't ready to lead men, probably lead for battle.  Yet a 14 yr old is ready, quite interesting.  Then at the age of 31 Guru Har Rai declares his youngest son (Guru Harkrishan) to be the next guru at the age of 5. FIVE!!! Amazing.  A five a year old was chosen.  Tell me was that God's will or a desperate father's choice to keep it within the family, because his older son (13 yrs of age) was excommunicated from Sikhi. 

If you believe a monarch system is wrong, then the Guru's were wrong to.


----------



## BhagatSingh (May 27, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> My title for the post is that they weren't chosen.  "Chosen" being not chosen by God.  But yet me make out everything that the Guru's did was because of God's will.  You're saying whats the big deal, if they did take it upon themselves?  The gurus weren't just teachers, or priest-like.  They were leaders, military leaders.  People followed them, listened to them, gave their lives to the gurus.  If you take out God and religion from this, then what do you have - a Monarchy.  But then everyone is going to claim, so what if it was "monarchistic".  They guru's were virtuous , they taught the truth, all was goody-goody.  So lets take today's current world.  Are any of you okay with the concept of a Monarch gov't.  You mean to tell me, in the times of the Gurus there were no other true-righteous persons who could have taken the "throne".
> 
> Guru Hargobind by passes his own son (Guru Tegh Bahadur) and choose his grandson Guru Har Rai.  Guru Har Rai was 14 when he took over, and Guru Teg Bahadur during that year was 23 years old.  And reason why Guru Tegh Bahadur was not 'chosen" because he wasn't ready to lead men, probably lead for battle.  Yet a 14 yr old is ready, quite interesting.  Then at the age of 31 Guru Har Rai declares his youngest son (Guru Harkrishan) to be the next guru at the age of 5. FIVE!!! Amazing.  A five a year old was chosen.  Tell me was that God's will or a desperate father's choice to keep it within the family, because his older son (13 yrs of age) was excommunicated from Sikhi.
> 
> If you believe a monarch system is wrong, then the Guru's were wrong to.


*Gurgaddi within the family*
Bibi Bhani ji did immense seva for Guru Amar Das ji and she requested that the Gurgaddi remain within the family. He granted her that, and so did the later Gurus.

There are both pros and cons to this approach and to the merit-based approach of the previous gurus. 

So it is true that Guru Hari Gobind ji, Guru Hari Rai ji, Guru Hari Krishan ji and Guru Gobind SIngh ji were all very young when they obtained Gurugaddi. 

They got mentoring from the elders who were attached to the Guru's families. E.g. Guru Gobind Singh ji learned from Pandit Kripa Ram ji. His family was very attached to the Gurus from a long time, and so he mentored Guru sahib throughout his life.

*About Monarchy*
Even heaven is a monarchy, with the Father and King, Akal Purakh sahib at the top.

I don't believe monarchy is inherently wrong, just like I don't believe democracy is inherently right.

These are different systems of governance that each have their pros and cons.

*Chosen by God*

Kavi Kalya ji ki bani from Guru Granth Sahib - 

ਸਤਜੁਗਿ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ ਛਲਿਓ ਬਲਿ *ਬਾਵਨ* ਭਾਇਓ ॥
In Satyug, You enjoyed deceiving and liberating King Bali in the Vaman avtar.

ਤ੍ਰੇਤੈ ਤੈ ਮਾਣਿਓ *ਰਾਮੁ ਰਘੁਵੰਸੁ *ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥
In Treta, You loved being called King Ram, of the Raghu Dynasty.

ਦੁਆਪੁਰਿ *ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮੁਰਾਰਿ* ਕੰਸੁ ਕਿਰਤਾਰਥੁ ਕੀਓ ॥
In Dwapar, You, Krishan Murari, killed Kans and saved everyone.

ਉਗ੍ਰਸੈਣ ਕਉ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਭੈ ਭਗਤਹ ਜਨ ਦੀਓ ॥
You granted Kingship to Ugrasain and elevated your devotees.

ਕਲਿਜੁਗਿ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਣੁ *ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰੁ ਅੰਗਦੁ ਅਮਰੁ* ਕਹਾਇਓ ॥
In Kaliyug, You came as Guru Nanak Dev, Guru Angad Dev and Guru Amar Das.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਰਾਜੁ ਅਬਿਚਲੁ ਅਟਲੁ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖਿ ਫੁਰਮਾਇਓ ॥੭॥
The rule of Guru Sahibs is unchanging, unmovable, by the very command of the Primal Being.


----------



## Sikhilove (May 28, 2018)

OP- You don't understand the concept of Karma.

And you dont respect Gods will.

Why put a donkey on a throne when you can crown a King. Blood doesn't matter, Nanaks family proved that from the beginning.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (May 29, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> OP- You don't understand the concept of Karma.
> 
> And you dont respect Gods will.
> 
> Why put a donkey on a throne when you can crown a King. Blood doesn't matter, Nanaks family proved that from the beginning.



There's so many conflicts with your response, not sure where to begin.
Let's see I don't respect "God's" will and I don't get the concept of karma.  Sounds more like a threat from God
Karma - what goes around comes around.  And according to you since I'm being disrespectful to Gods choices, something bad is going to happen to me?  But isn't God all good?  So if he is true and I'm just an idiot rambling on,  then he's going to punish me? Interesting. Is he gonna take me away from me or my kids away from me, or something worse? That would be a {censored} move on his end, no?  Or maybe you can help me understand.

Why put a donkey on the throne when you can put a king.  Very interesting.  So  who decided who was the donkey and who was king.   And very interesting you used the word "king".  Kinda helps me prove my point about being a monarchy.  Back to the donkey part.  We're the gurus families and bloodlines pure and the rest of the people were jackasses? Guess so, since they must be fools.  But wait doesn't sikhi preach all are equal, including women?  So then how is a family of gurus more worthy? The women that wed into the families must be pure to then, since they give birth to these gurus. And what about those womens parents? Meaning the gurus in-laws were they all Sikhs? Were they worthy?
Help me to understand who the donkeys and kings were. 
Blood doesn't matter, well according to history it did.  If it didn't matter, why were some gurus kids when they were chosen.  Why not some more qualified adult who wasn't family.
Nanaks family proves blood doesn't matter? That's a poor example to use since he started sikhi.  But after the third guru, is where choosing the gurus system gets flawed .

My point is God didn't personally choose these gurus. Nor did God communicate to each guru which to choose next.   These were man made choices , just like how all religions are man made up.
I find it ironic that when given the name Singh, and being called Lions, that most people become like sheeps the moment something not so nice is questioned about sikhi.
Let's say for a second o agree with you that there is a God.  And as Sikhs we dont cut our hair because God gave us that hair.  And we perfect and beautiful in his image and creation.   So is the brain,  the mind.  It's a beautiful gift we posses.  So then why do you disrespect that gift,  by giving up so lazily.
Oh a natural disaster just occured, killing thousands and damaging unimaginable.   Why did that happen,  oh its Gods plan. 
Thousands of children die at or before birth, was that Gods plan?  Was that his will? Ya none of us can prove the (Whys), but then is God still all good? 
You talk about Karma,  is that Gods game?  Love me endlessly or be punished?

Someone else posted even if the Gurus selection was like a monarchy,  what's the big deal? Everything was "all good".  So that makes it okay? But who decides what they did, what they taught was "right".  Other religions at the time didn't agree with them, not all.  Ans yet, most Sikhs will still say the Guru's were right and good, because its their pride talking.  Chances are when your born in to a religion, you'll think your religion is the best and can't do no wrong.  

Before you start to get all defensive, and try to scare with empty threats, think about what you just said.


----------



## Ishna (May 29, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> There's so many conflicts with your response, not sure where to begin.
> Let's see I don't respect "God's" will and I don't get the concept of karma.  Sounds more like a threat from God
> Karma - what goes around comes around.  And according to you since I'm being disrespectful to Gods choices, something bad is going to happen to me?  But isn't God all good?  So if he is true and I'm just an idiot rambling on,  then he's going to punish me? Interesting. Is he gonna take me away from me or my kids away from me, or something worse? That would be a {censored} move on his end, no?  Or maybe you can help me understand.
> 
> ...



Erm.. actually, @Sikhilove has made an astute observation.  "What goes around, comes around" is really nothing like any of the definitions of karma I've ever seen in the Sikh framework.  It's a common Western oversimplification of a complex idea or (because I'm feeling charitable tonight) cosmic mechanism governing rebirth.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea of threats from and this idea of god punishing you - it seems like you may want to check your own defensiveness and what you're reading in to other's words.

You said "My point is God didn't personally choose these gurus."  I'm sorry but you can't know that.  Period.

The rest of your post is off-topic and betrays your complete lack of basic understanding about Sikhi.  Before we can go any further, if you'd like to have some reasonable discussion about the points you're questioning, it might benefit you to do some study.  I suggest having a read of Gurbani itself at www.srigranth.org and there are some articles here including introductions Sikh Missionary Society(U.K.) - Online Publications Library (       Sikhism eBooks ) and even www.sikhiwiki.org (with a pinch of salt) can start you on a path to better understanding if you so choose.

I invite others to please share their favourite intro websites, too, please.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 29, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> OP- You don't understand the concept of Karma.



What is  Karma as per Sikhi?
What is  Karma as per Hinduism and Buddhism?
How is it understood in Sikhi?
Is it different than what Karma is in Hinduism and Buddhism?
I know everyone nowadays, especially in the west, parrot the word Karma many a time a day without understanding what it entails.



Sikhilove said:


> And you dont respect Gods will.



Although I admire your passionate arrogance, how do you know about the OP's behaviour, "you dont respect Gods will?"
Are you pretending to play god now because only Ik Ong Kaar knows which milestone each of us is at? Neither you, I nor anyone else can find that out.
What does "God's Will" even mean in Sikhi?
"God's Will" is a term used by the religions who believe their god is a personified deity, hence it is "His Will."
Sikhi rejects this notion of God.
Would you be kind enough to quote the full Shabads with your own understanding of "God's Will" from the SGGS, our only Guru?



Sikhilove said:


> Why put a donkey on a throne when you can crown a King. Blood doesn't matter, Nanaks family proved that from the beginning.


 
Wow!
Who is a donkey in your post?


----------



## Sikhilove (May 30, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> There's so many conflicts with your response, not sure where to begin.
> Let's see I don't respect "God's" will and I don't get the concept of karma.  Sounds more like a threat from God
> Karma - what goes around comes around.  And according to you since I'm being disrespectful to Gods choices, something bad is going to happen to me?  But isn't God all good?  So if he is true and I'm just an idiot rambling on,  then he's going to punish me? Interesting. Is he gonna take me away from me or my kids away from me, or something worse? That would be a {censored} move on his end, no?  Or maybe you can help me understand.
> 
> ...



It's not a threat, it's the Truth, but you have a lack of understanding. The remedy= Learn. 

My use of the word King pertained to a King in a spiritual sense. One who has put his head on the ground as lowest of the low in this world, and so is deemed as highest of the high in Truth. 

If you know a King who publicly deems himself to be lowest of the low and a lowly worm, let me know. What makes a Real King, a Sache Patshah, is Humility. Mankinds definitition of a King is twisted.

If the Gurus didn't practice Truth and Humility to the levels that they did, they wouldn't have been crowned Spiritual Kings. 

The Jyot passed between each one of them, a concept you fail to consider. This wasn't a mortal kingship, it was and still is immortal, it's beyond what your eyes can see.


----------



## Sikhilove (May 30, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> What is  Karma as per Sikhi?
> What is  Karma as per Hinduism and Buddhism?
> How is it understood in Sikhi?
> Is it different than what Karma is in Hinduism and Buddhism?
> ...



It's not arrogance, I just spoke the truth. It's a pill many find difficult to swallow. I used to be the same. 

Read Gurbani and you'll get the answers to the questions you asked. 

How better to learn that to learn on your own, with Gods Grace.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 30, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> It's not arrogance, I just spoke the truth. It's a pill many find difficult to swallow. I used to be the same.
> 
> Read Gurbani and you'll get the answers to the questions you asked.
> 
> How better to learn that to learn on your own, with Gods Grace.




Please firstly, answer the questions asked.

I want to learn from you. Please give me the page number of the SGGS you want me to study. so we can interact with it and hence all of us can learn.
Thanks


----------



## Truthsikher31 (May 31, 2018)

Sikhilove said:


> It's not a threat, it's the Truth, but you have a lack of understanding. The remedy= Learn.
> 
> My use of the word King pertained to a King in a spiritual sense. One who has put his head on the ground as lowest of the low in this world, and so is deemed as highest of the high in Truth.



So that's how you're correcting yourself, you were referring Kings and Donkeys in a "spiritual" sense.  Why is it so hard to talk in a literal sense.  Regardless, you refer to the Gurus as King-like, worthy of the crown.  But you say that now, because it's been done.  They are part of history, been selected and did their deeds.  So now, after you've learned who the Gurus were, what they did, how they suffered, and so forth, you just accept that each were worthy.  But just for a second put yourself back in the 1500s.  Say you were a loyal servant to the Sikhi faith.  You served not just the Guru but the people with out any ego.  And say some thought you were worthy of next in line, but you werent of blood.  And so, you get overlooked and a 5 yr old is chosen to be next in line.  Do you think that is right. 

In today's time, would you let a 5 yrs or teen, lead the Sikh people.  Oh but wait, it was different back then.  That was a more spiritual time.  The 1500s were time before people actually had common sense, before most could think for themselves.  It was a "special time" right.  Humans been around for so long prior to 1500, yet it was only during that period, God intervened with a small family in India, and told them how to be Gurus, how to lead people.  Whats so different about now vs 500 yrs ago.  Was magic and spiritual powers a real thing.  But got lost when the Guru's left this world?  Or were people just naive and believed what they couldnt understand.

Who is worthy to be King-like and not, could you decide that.  According to yourself and others like you, you'll argue that the Guru's were worthy enough to select their successor.  But thats all good now because its been done.  But who says they were right, you? Others who share your feelings?  Why?  Why do you believe they were right.  Because you were born into a Sikh family?  Some convert to Sikhism, so why do they believe the Gurus.  What was wrong about the religion they were born into.  Do they believe the Gurus because their teachings comfortably fit in, with what they believe in.  

Let me ask this, and its not just for you.  Guru Hargobind, does not choose his own son (Guru Tegh Bahadur age 23 at the time) but instead chooses his grandson (Guru Har Rai age 14).  Because he felt Tegh Bahadur wasnt ready to lead.  Then Har Rai chooses his 5 yr old son, and before he passes away, chooses Tegh Bahadur.  Was Guru Tegh Bahadur really ready or was it that there were no other living male blood relatives still alive?  Guru Har Krishan's grandfather Baba Gurditta passed away before his birth, as did his other Great-uncles Baba Atal and Baba Ani Rai.  

Atal dies at the age of 9 (obviously no kids)
Baba Ani - could not find much info
Guru Harkrishan's brother - was disowned by their father
Guru Tegh Bahadur only had one child, but was born after Harkrishan passed away.

So being that at the age of 8, with only 1 living male family member, was the decision for Guru Tegh Bahadur because "God" chose him, or that Harkrishan saw Tegh Bahadur "worthy"? His own father didnt think Tegh Bahadur could lead.  Why now.  Or was it just simply they needed to keep the Guruship within the Bloodline no matter what.

Even with facts like this, you're argument might still be "so what".  Gurus were good, they taught nice things, all's good.  Here's my issue.  I don't think they were special.  Each one had their own legacy, with each being remembered for something they did or introduced.  But why didnt each's predecessor come up with the same thoughts/concepts.  For example, Guru Gobind comes up with the Khalsa, the 5ks.  Why didnt any of  the previous 9 Gurus think of it?  They are God-send after all.  They're very spiritual, worthy, and all knowing.  My point is, I believe anyone could have done similar to what they accomplished and never know might have done it better.  But we'll never know that because the people weren't viewed as equals, not deemed worthy right?  They were considered "donkeys".  Your words not mine. 

And if you look closer to the dates (the births and deaths), you might see what I've been trying to point out.  That the bloodline seemed more important than actually choosing a proper "chosen one"


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 31, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> So that's how you're correcting yourself, you were referring Kings and Donkeys in a "spiritual" sense.  Why is it so hard to talk in a literal sense.  Regardless, you refer to the Gurus as King-like, worthy of the crown.  But you say that now, because it's been done.  They are part of history, been selected and did their deeds.  So now, after you've learned who the Gurus were, what they did, how they suffered, and so forth, you just accept that each were worthy.  But just for a second put yourself back in the 1500s.  Say you were a loyal servant to the Sikhi faith.  You served not just the Guru but the people with out any ego.  And say some thought you were worthy of next in line, but you werent of blood.  And so, you get overlooked and a 5 yr old is chosen to be next in line.  Do you think that is right.
> 
> In today's time, would you let a 5 yrs or teen, lead the Sikh people.  Oh but wait, it was different back then.  That was a more spiritual time.  The 1500s were time before people actually had common sense, before most could think for themselves.  It was a "special time" right.  Humans been around for so long prior to 1500, yet it was only during that period, God intervened with a small family in India, and told them how to be Gurus, how to lead people.  Whats so different about now vs 500 yrs ago.  Was magic and spiritual powers a real thing.  But got lost when the Guru's left this world?  Or were people just naive and believed what they couldnt understand.
> 
> ...



I will not dissect your post this time because I did not get any response for my previous post from another thread which is fine with me but it seems a bit weird when you write and question in your long posts, and when challenged you get mum for the reasons only known to you. I will give you the general thought about what you have been talking about, which is, in reality, meaningless whining, to put it mildly.

You seem to be more concerned about the Sikh history that our visionary Gurus decided not to write by choice although they had all the means to do so. The reason for this purposeful omission along with the absence of their self-portraits in my view is because they were all about One-ism rather than Me-ism.

You seem to claim better thought process than our Gurus'. Thanks for showing your humility.

It does not bother me a bit if you keep on questioning and second-guessing our Gurus. What saddens me a bit is that you are not even curious about the message of our Gurus for equality and justice which brings self-betterment.

Why don't we discuss the message through which all of us can become better?
Would you care to try that or would you keep on putting walls around your own thought process so nothing valuable can penetrate itself in your psyche?


----------



## Truthsikher31 (May 31, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> I will not dissect your post this time because I did not get any response for my previous post from another thread which is fine with me but it seems a bit weird when you write and question in your long posts, and when challenged you get mum for the reasons only known to you. I will give you the general thought about what you have been talking about, which is, in reality, meaningless whining, to put it mildly.
> 
> You seem to be more concerned about the Sikh history that our visionary Gurus decided not to write by choice although they had all means to do so. The reason for this purposeful omission along with the absence of their self-portraits in my view is because they were all about One-ism rather than Me-ism.
> 
> ...



But you have to start with History.  If for example you major in Religion in school, you would learn about other Religion's history, how they started, what influenced them, what are they about, etc.  So as Sikh boy, and probably like most Sikh youths, you're born into a Sikh family, go to Gurdwara, taught to bow before Guru Granth Sahib, langar/seva.  You might attend a little Punjabi sunday school where you learn punajbi language, and stories about the Guru's and other iconic figures in the religion.  But we're never taught the true history (I'm not saying I've mastered it, I'm still looking for sources).  I didn't know til recently how all the Gurus were tied together.  And I have a strong feeling that most Sikh youths don't either.  Why am I focusing on this, I believe it gets overlooked.  I don't consider Sikhism to be any more special and supreme over the next religion.  I think all religions are equally false.  

You said lets discuss the message that the Gurus gave, sure that's fine.  But let me ask you this.  What make Sikhism that much more different than the other major religions.  And I'm not referring to the Idols, or the Jesus', or Gurus.  The scriptures in Guru Granth Sahib, Bible, Qur'an.  What's the end message.  You can live your life as Sikh and practice its rules, or follow the rules of the Qur'an, or Bible, but in the end isn't it all the same?


----------



## Ishna (May 31, 2018)

> I think all religions are equally false.



Does that mean you've discarded Sikhi in its entirety, and you're mission is not to reveal to everyone just how 'false' it it?  Did you set this thread up as a straw man to demonstrate your point?

The last part of your post probably deserves its own thread.  Would you like to make one?  I think it would be fun to discuss!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 31, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> But you have to start with History.  If for example you major in Religion in school, you would learn about other Religion's history, how they started, what influenced them, what are they about, etc.  So as Sikh boy, and probably like most Sikh youths, you're born into a Sikh family, go to Gurdwara, taught to bow before Guru Granth Sahib, langar/seva.  You might attend a little Punjabi sunday school where you learn punajbi language, and stories about the Guru's and other iconic figures in the religion.  But we're never taught the true history (I'm not saying I've mastered it, I'm still looking for sources).  I didn't know til recently how all the Gurus were tied together.  And I have a strong feeling that most Sikh youths don't either.  Why am I focusing on this, I believe it gets overlooked.  I don't consider Sikhism to be any more special and supreme over the next religion.  I think all religions are equally false.
> 
> You said lets discuss the message that the Gurus gave, sure that's fine.  But let me ask you this.  What make Sikhism that much more different than the other major religions.  And I'm not referring to the Idols, or the Jesus', or Gurus.  The scriptures in Guru Granth Sahib, Bible, Qur'an.  What's the end message.  You can live your life as Sikh and practice its rules, or follow the rules of the Qur'an, or Bible, but in the end isn't it all the same?



All your questions have been answered by many members of this forum but sadly you keep on asking them again and again.
It is about time you stopped being argumentative.
If you have anything to add, please be our guest here. But mind you, adding is not by questioning repeatedly what has been answered already.
If you do not change your stance to learning, we will be compelled to take your TOS violations seriously.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (May 31, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> All your questions have been answered by many members of this forum but sadly you keep on asking them again and again.
> It is about time you stopped being argumentative.
> If you have anything to add, please be our guest here. But mind you, adding is not by questioning repeatedly what has been answered already.
> If you do not change your stance to learning, we will be compelled to take your TOS violations seriously.



Why are you so threatened?  You said lets discuss the messages Sikhi delivers, and I replied with a question which you still failed to answer, with no answer at all.  Just because I have different opinions, I'm being argumentative.  Well ya, what else are these forums for.  You talk about Learning? How does anyone learn without questioning.  So what I'm supposed to become a sheep because you've been a member on this site for 10+ years, and what you call learning is change my stance, and just agree with you?

If you want to block me that is your choice, but seems like you're the one who's failing to discuss.

Stop arguing?
Change my stance?
Threaten with violations?
I could say the same to you - why don't you change you stance and just agree with me.  But then nothing is learned or truly experienced. But because you're in a senior position on this website, you feel you have power to block anyone who doesn't agree with you.  If that's how you run this site, I guess I don't have much control over that

But, please explain me what was wrong with my last reply.  You asked why I focus on history, I explained why.  You said lets discuss the "messages", and I asked you a question about it.  Yet you didn't answer.  You claim others have answered my questions.  What's the answer, forget everything I posted, sit down and read gurbani, and all my questions will be answered?  Is that it?  Thats like when people ask why did such n such natural disaster kill so many, or why did family member have to die.  Oh its God's will or its his plan.  So answer to all is - it's God Will, any questions you have, you'll find answers in Guru Granth Sahib, and going forward we can shut our brains down, because we no longer need to think.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 31, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Why are you so threatened?


I have no reason to be threatened. Your repeated questioning of the same thing is just tiresome.



Truthsikher31 said:


> You said lets discuss the messages Sikhi delivers, and I replied with a question which you still failed to answer, with no answer at all.


I am sorry if I missed your question. Please ask again.



Truthsikher31 said:


> Just because I have different opinions, I'm being argumentative.


Your different opinions are respected as everyone else's is.  Disagreements are part and parcel of the learning process in Sikhi.



Truthsikher31 said:


> Well ya, what else are these forums for.  You talk about Learning? How does anyone learn without questioning


You are not questioning. You have been making an attempt to impose your view rather than respecting the others' views.  Everyone has an opinion. Despite your opinion been answered, you keep on repeating the same again and again. Please give others a fair chance too.



Truthsikher31 said:


> So what I'm supposed to become a sheep because you've been a member on this site for 10+ years, and what you call learning is change my stance, and just agree with you?


That would be your own decision.



Truthsikher31 said:


> If you want to block me that is your choice, but seems like you're the one who's failing to discuss.


Let's try to be honest here. No one threatened to block you. I just warned you for the TOS violation.



Truthsikher31 said:


> Stop arguing?
> Change my stance?
> Threaten with violations?


Yes!



Truthsikher31 said:


> I could say the same to you - why don't you change you stance and just agree with me.


Oh, so is that your objective here that everyone must agree with you?



Truthsikher31 said:


> But then nothing is learned or truly experienced. But because you're in a senior position on this website, you feel you have power to block anyone who doesn't agree with you.  If that's how you run this site, I guess I don't have much control over that.


LOL. You love making things up now. Your mind is playing games with you. I have the same position as yours here in the forum. This is the way SPN functions.



Truthsikher31 said:


> But, please explain me what was wrong with my last reply.  You asked why I focus on history, I explained why.  You said lets discuss the "messages", and I asked you a question about it.  Yet you didn't answer.


You are repeating the same thing again and again.



Truthsikher31 said:


> You claim others have answered my questions.  What's the answer, forget everything I posted, sit down and read gurbani, and all my questions will be answered?  Is that it?  Thats like when people ask why did such n such natural disaster kill so many, or why did family member have to die.  Oh its God's will or its his plan.  So answer to all is - it's God Will, any questions you have, you'll find answers in Guru Granth Sahib, and going forward we can shut our brains down, because we no longer need to think.


Same repetitions. Time to move on to another subject.


----------



## Sikhilove (Jun 1, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> So that's how you're correcting yourself, you were referring Kings and Donkeys in a "spiritual" sense.  Why is it so hard to talk in a literal sense.  Regardless, you refer to the Gurus as King-like, worthy of the crown.  But you say that now, because it's been done.  They are part of history, been selected and did their deeds.  So now, after you've learned who the Gurus were, what they did, how they suffered, and so forth, you just accept that each were worthy.  But just for a second put yourself back in the 1500s.  Say you were a loyal servant to the Sikhi faith.  You served not just the Guru but the people with out any ego.  And say some thought you were worthy of next in line, but you werent of blood.  And so, you get overlooked and a 5 yr old is chosen to be next in line.  Do you think that is right.
> 
> In today's time, would you let a 5 yrs or teen, lead the Sikh people.  Oh but wait, it was different back then.  That was a more spiritual time.  The 1500s were time before people actually had common sense, before most could think for themselves.  It was a "special time" right.  Humans been around for so long prior to 1500, yet it was only during that period, God intervened with a small family in India, and told them how to be Gurus, how to lead people.  Whats so different about now vs 500 yrs ago.  Was magic and spiritual powers a real thing.  But got lost when the Guru's left this world?  Or were people just naive and believed what they couldnt understand.
> 
> ...




Lol I cannot reason with you so I wont even try.

You still don't understand Gods Will and karam.... read up on it then we can talk.

Be open to learning and to other possibilities. None of us are perfect or have all of the answers.


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Jun 3, 2018)

Truth, if you are that conflicted, why don't you become an atheist? I a mean I ain't part of this arguement, but if have issues with Sikhism than you can leave it. Heck, I am what of an Agnostic Theist but I am a devout, practicing, Sikh of sorts, I am just saying.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Jun 3, 2018)

Jasdeep118 said:


> Truth, if you are that conflicted, why don't you become an atheist? I a mean I ain't part of this arguement, but if have issues with Sikhism than you can leave it. Heck, I am what of an Agnostic Theist but I am a devout, practicing, Sikh of sorts, I am just saying.



Hi Jasdeep
Its funny,  "become an atheist". How does that really happen, I mean there isn't a clear initiation or a some sort of atheist baptism ceremony.  Not that I know of.  I even find it funny when atheists congratulate each other when declaring they've converted.  Ya I get it my comments make me more anti, but where else could I turn to.  I was born into a sikh family and been living mostly a blind sikh my entire life. I don't know the rituals or or full teachings of other religions, only what I've been brought up with.  So I could only turn to a Sikh site.  this site caught my eye because they had Hard topics and active responses.  But it seems some feel threatened with different POVs, or feel they have the answers but are never clear with what they say (always a different meaning), or just want you to change your belief or where your stance is and just agree with them.  So if I am considered an atheist, can I not be part of this sites discussions? Because if I can't then I don't want to waste others time.


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Jun 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Hi Jasdeep
> Its funny,  "become an atheist". How does that really happen, I mean there isn't a clear initiation or a some sort of atheist baptism ceremony.  Not that I know of.  I even find it funny when atheists congratulate each other when declaring they've converted.  Ya I get it my comments make me more anti, but where else could I turn to.  I was born into a sikh family and been living mostly a blind sikh my entire life. I don't know the rituals or or full teachings of other religions, only what I've been brought up with.  So I could only turn to a Sikh site.  this site caught my eye because they had Hard topics and active responses.  But it seems some feel threatened with different POVs, or feel they have the answers but are never clear with what they say (always a different meaning), or just want you to change your belief or where your stance is and just agree with them.  So if I am considered an atheist, can I not be part of this sites discussions? Because if I can't then I don't want to waste others time.


 
I wasn't even criticising you friend. I even said I am an Agnostic Theist myself, I was in the same boat as you 3 years ago when I was into that doubting god phase, I mean I had hard time believe in god, but for some reason I just believe that there is a higher being out there and whenever I pray to that higher power a lot of good things happened to me, but it could be a giant coincidence.  I still have my doubts here and there which is why I now consider myself an Agnostic Theist or something like that. I mean I don't know why I called you an Atheist, I mean you never said your standpoint on God, but I think you said you had your doubts. I also understand trying to learn Sikhi. I am just saying, just look deeper into Sikhism and find some sort of meaning. Sorry if I was a {censored} to you friend, I don't know why I called you an Atheist, I understand your hard questions, heck I said the same shit a couple of years ago, regarding caste and such.


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Jun 3, 2018)

Also, everyone has their own point of views, I mean regarding the Guru business, they are humans, they are flawed.


Truthsikher31 said:


> Hi Jasdeep
> Its funny,  "become an atheist". How does that really happen, I mean there isn't a clear initiation or a some sort of atheist baptism ceremony.  Not that I know of.  I even find it funny when atheists congratulate each other when declaring they've converted.  Ya I get it my comments make me more anti, but where else could I turn to.  I was born into a sikh family and been living mostly a blind sikh my entire life. I don't know the rituals or or full teachings of other religions, only what I've been brought up with.  So I could only turn to a Sikh site.  this site caught my eye because they had Hard topics and active responses.  But it seems some feel threatened with different POVs, or feel they have the answers but are never clear with what they say (always a different meaning), or just want you to change your belief or where your stance is and just agree with them.  So if I am considered an atheist, can I not be part of this sites discussions? Because if I can't then I don't want to waste others time.



Also, don't allow anyone's point of view change your's. We all have our unique perspectives and such, don't let anyone bully you too Truthsikher31.


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Jun 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Hi Jasdeep
> Its funny,  "become an atheist". How does that really happen, I mean there isn't a clear initiation or a some sort of atheist baptism ceremony.  Not that I know of.  I even find it funny when atheists congratulate each other when declaring they've converted.  Ya I get it my comments make me more anti, but where else could I turn to.  I was born into a sikh family and been living mostly a blind sikh my entire life. I don't know the rituals or or full teachings of other religions, only what I've been brought up with.  So I could only turn to a Sikh site.  this site caught my eye because they had Hard topics and active responses.  But it seems some feel threatened with different POVs, or feel they have the answers but are never clear with what they say (always a different meaning), or just want you to change your belief or where your stance is and just agree with them.  So if I am considered an atheist, can I not be part of this sites discussions? Because if I can't then I don't want to waste others time.


One last thing, for the Guru's not chosen fiasco. For me I just think that Guru Nanak wanted different people to be selected, but maybe some of the Guru's chose one of their bloodlines and it trickled down from here, but if Guru Nanak's intentions was to have someone else to be initiated? For all of these questions, they are healthy TruthSikher31, they help you give wisdom and they help you understand Sikhism more and more.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Jun 3, 2018)

Jasdeep118 said:


> I wasn't even criticising you friend. I even said I am an Agnostic Theist myself, I was in the same boat as you 3 years ago when I was into that doubting god phase, I mean I had hard time believe in god, but for some reason I just believe that there is a higher being out there and whenever I pray to that higher power a lot of good things happened to me, but it could be a giant coincidence.  I still have my doubts here and there which is why I now consider myself an Agnostic Theist or something like that. I mean I don't know why I called you an Atheist, I mean you never said your standpoint on God, but I think you said you had your doubts. I also understand trying to learn Sikhi. I am just saying, just look deeper into Sikhism and find some sort of meaning. Sorry if I was a {censored} to you friend, I don't know why I called you an Atheist, I understand your hard questions, heck I said the same shit a couple of years ago, regarding caste and such.



Lol I guess there's lil miscommunication on both sides (the beauty of online discussions).  I'm not mad or accusing you of calling me an Atheist.  I wasn't offended by it, it was the phrase "become an Atheist".  Like some might say to be a true sikh, you must take Amrit.  And for Amrit there is a ritual of baptism.  So, I just thought it funny, when someone becomes or declares themselves an Atheist, is there a like a proper method or something.  You're good, no apologies needed.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Jun 3, 2018)

Jasdeep118 said:


> One last thing, for the Guru's not chosen fiasco. For me I just think that Guru Nanak wanted different people to be selected, but maybe some of the Guru's chose one of their bloodlines and it trickled down from here, but if Guru Nanak's intentions was to have someone else to be initiated? For all of these questions, they are healthy TruthSikher31, they help you give wisdom and they help you understand Sikhism more and more.



What I don't understand, is why others don't find questions like this or when it comes to the credibility of Sikhi important.  They're end answer is always the same.  Didn't matter how the Guru's came to be, etc.  Just that Guru Granth Sahib is all that matters, read it, learn from it, and all else doesn't matter.  But the Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of all the Guru's teachings, as well as inputs from other individuals.  But still the creation of Guru Granth Sahib, the credit goes to the Gurus.   So I wanted to focus on the history of Sikhi.  I even tried reading the reign of Sikhism after the death of Guru Gobind Singh ji.  Like what came after and how it kinda led to where we are now.  Not sure if I asked this already, but to those reading this discussion, do you believe in the Christianity (Jesus), Islam (Mohammed), Hinduism (All their gods).  Do you think they are right and real? This is important, because if we don't believe in these "elder" religions, then what credit do they have and those religions who follow after.  And I feel because Sikhism is very young, we are lucky in that we can confirm the existence of the Guru's, their history, and the event that occurred during those times.  All the Hindu gods (seems like the Indian version of Greek Mythology).  Where's the proof those beings existed.  Christians believe so hard that Jesus exists and will return.  I find that to be bogus.  So if those religions aren't as credible, than what gives Sikhism credit.  It seems it becomes very touchy to others when questioning the existence of Sikhi or anything that regards the Gurus.  

Thanks for the reply Jasdeep118


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jun 3, 2018)

I feel compelled to jump in here because of all the deliberate distortions

Truthsikher31, when you came to SPN you put the following question about the same thing in almost all the threads you started.
Here it all began-https://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/if-christianity-can-be-proven-wrong-then-what-makes-sikhism-so-right.50590/
I did respond to you in post#2 -
*"I have news for you provided you know anything about the religions.
Sikhi is not a religion. It has no god as seen in other religions. Sikhi has no mechanical rituals, no hell, no heaven, no judgement day, no reincarnation, no miracles, no prophets hence no prophecies........"*
Now check your response to my post. Rather than asking questions why I thought in this way,  a part of your response was-


> "Wow, you must have already achieved enlightenment, since you know all about religions."



And this has happened constantly in all the threads you started and when responded, not to your fancy, you get upset for the reasons only known to you.

To be honest, I have no idea what your end goal is.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Jun 3, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> I feel compelled to jump in here because of all the deliberate distortions
> 
> Truthsikher31, when you came to SPN you put the following question about the same thing in almost all the threads you started.
> Here it all began-https://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/if-christianity-can-be-proven-wrong-then-what-makes-sikhism-so-right.50590/
> ...




Your response was:


Tejwant Singh said:


> *I have news for you provided you know anything about the religions.*
> Sikhi is not a religion. It has no god as seen in other religions. Sikhi has no mechanical rituals, no hell, no heaven, no judgement day, no reincarnation, no miracles, no prophets hence no prophecies........



Ya you came off sounding like you knew everything already.  Sikhi not being a religion is your opinion.  Its not a fact.  

What's my end game, I dont know if I can answer that fully right now.  But I guess as I'm become more self-aware, and before I devote the rest half of my life to a creator/being - whether it be a bearded man in the sky or some cosmic entity, I want to know if all of this is truly valid.  Or was the concept of religion, God, etc. just a form of control designed by clever men to gain power over simple minded people.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jun 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Your response was:
> 
> 
> Ya you came off sounding like you knew everything already.  Sikhi not being a religion is your opinion.  Its not a fact.
> ...



Oh, the problem of you getting offended for nothing was, 





> "Ya you came off sounding like you knew everything already."


This is a false presumption on your part. If you read my post again, you would notice that.
In case, if you understood the way you said you did, it was based on your questions. You talked about all the religions you knew in a generic way and lumped them all together which is a false assumption when compared to Sikhi. So, shall I repeat the same about yourself? 





> Ya you came off sounding like you knew everything already.





> Sikhi not being a religion is your opinion.


Wrong again. The reasons for not Sikhi being a religion are also given in my post. Please re-read it.



> Its not a fact.


  What is not a fact?


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Jun 3, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Oh, the problem of you getting offended for nothing was, This is a false presumption on your part. If you read my post again, you would notice that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not a fact that Sikhi is not a religion.  To me that's your opinion.  If i'm getting this correct, your claim is, since Sikhi's view or concept of God is different, and because it doesn't believe in rituals and beliefs as others so its not a religion.  But by definition this is what religion means.  "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."  Doesn't Sikhi say God has no shape or form?  So because it doesn't agree with what a God is with the other major religions, then Sikhi is not defined as a religion?  Sikhi has a place of worship, a belief in God, scriptures, shabads, Gurus/Priests.  It's organized, and respected by other religions if it wasn't then it would be just another cult.

This is what another member (Kully) posted in the same Post discussion:
*Me: *My question was, if you didnt understand, is that Sikhism was created by Guru Nanak.

*Kully:* No Sir, Gurmat was revealed by Guru Nanak but created on Wahegurus order. Guru Sahibans say time and time that they act on the instructions of Sri Kaal Purkh only.

Seems clear to me they got the word from God.  Seems like some kind of form communicating with the Gurus.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jun 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> It's not a fact that Sikhi is not a religion.  To me that's your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Jun 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> What I don't understand, is why others don't find questions like this or when it comes to the credibility of Sikhi important.  They're end answer is always the same.  Didn't matter how the Guru's came to be, etc.  Just that Guru Granth Sahib is all that matters, read it, learn from it, and all else doesn't matter.  But the Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of all the Guru's teachings, as well as inputs from other individuals.  But still the creation of Guru Granth Sahib, the credit goes to the Gurus.   So I wanted to focus on the history of Sikhi.  I even tried reading the reign of Sikhism after the death of Guru Gobind Singh ji.  Like what came after and how it kinda led to where we are now.  Not sure if I asked this already, but to those reading this discussion, do you believe in the Christianity (Jesus), Islam (Mohammed), Hinduism (All their gods).  Do you think they are right and real? This is important, because if we don't believe in these "elder" religions, then what credit do they have and those religions who follow after.  And I feel because Sikhism is very young, we are lucky in that we can confirm the existence of the Guru's, their history, and the event that occurred during those times.  All the Hindu gods (seems like the Indian version of Greek Mythology).  Where's the proof those beings existed.  Christians believe so hard that Jesus exists and will return.  I find that to be bogus.  So if those religions aren't as credible, than what gives Sikhism credit.  It seems it becomes very touchy to others when questioning the existence of Sikhi or anything that regards the Gurus.
> 
> Thanks for the reply Jasdeep118


Well, I think there was a quote in the Guru Granth, but I am not sure. I mean every religion has their own ways of meeting through god, some meditate, some go to church, some fast, some whip themselves, some get high to meet god. For Hinduism, they believe in a greater creator called Brahman I think and that all of these gods all come from Brahman, its pretty much Henotheism. They believe in one god, but there are sub god's you know, I mean every religion gets it right. That there are ways of meeting God, but every religion has their own techniques. Another thing that religion has in common is that they always preach the same thing. Be a good citizen, be honest, be kind and respectful for others. I mean all of these prophets and gods I think they are just messengers of God in someway if you get what I am saying. For Jesus and Mohammed there is historical records of them existing, while for the Hindu Gods, there is a lot of wacky theories. I heard is that they are actually Aliens sent by God or are actual Aliens that were helping humanity and we thought of them as Gods. Or another thing was that these Hindu Gods existed during a period but it was destroyed during some big war. I mean one point that Atheists get's right that for Monotheist's that they believe that the Greek Gods, and the other polytheistic gods are myth's, but what about their god? I have the same bias too, when I think about Abrahamic religion, I think its a bit crazy to have an actual heaven and hell and control people, I just think that reincarnation seems better, since it gives everyone another chance, but it is a bias since I was raised in a Dharmic faith (Sikhi), if I was a Christain, Jew, or Muslim I would think that the Dharmic religions are batshit crazy, but at the end I think all religions have something in common which is to appreciate nature and meet god through different ways.


----------



## Jasdeep118 (Jun 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> What I don't understand, is why others don't find questions like this or when it comes to the credibility of Sikhi important.  They're end answer is always the same.  Didn't matter how the Guru's came to be, etc.  Just that Guru Granth Sahib is all that matters, read it, learn from it, and all else doesn't matter.  But the Guru Granth Sahib is a collection of all the Guru's teachings, as well as inputs from other individuals.  But still the creation of Guru Granth Sahib, the credit goes to the Gurus.   So I wanted to focus on the history of Sikhi.  I even tried reading the reign of Sikhism after the death of Guru Gobind Singh ji.  Like what came after and how it kinda led to where we are now.  Not sure if I asked this already, but to those reading this discussion, do you believe in the Christianity (Jesus), Islam (Mohammed), Hinduism (All their gods).  Do you think they are right and real? This is important, because if we don't believe in these "elder" religions, then what credit do they have and those religions who follow after.  And I feel because Sikhism is very young, we are lucky in that we can confirm the existence of the Guru's, their history, and the event that occurred during those times.  All the Hindu gods (seems like the Indian version of Greek Mythology).  Where's the proof those beings existed.  Christians believe so hard that Jesus exists and will return.  I find that to be bogus.  So if those religions aren't as credible, than what gives Sikhism credit.  It seems it becomes very touchy to others when questioning the existence of Sikhi or anything that regards the Gurus.
> 
> Thanks for the reply Jasdeep118


ਸ੍ਵੈਯਾ ॥
Swaiya 

ਪਾਂਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਯੋ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨ ਮਾਨਯੋ ॥ 
Since the day I caught hold of your feet, I have not looked elsewhere; Ram, Rahim, Puranas, Quran many recite but even one does not understand.


ਸਿੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ਰ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹੁ ਭੇਦ ਕਹੈ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਨ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਸਿਪਾਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਕਰਿ ਮੈ ਨ ਕਹਯੋ ਸਭ ਤੋਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਯੋ ॥੮੬੩॥
The Simritis, Shastras and Vedas all describe many mysteries, but I do not know any of them. O sword-wielder God! All here has been described by your Grace; what can I say, it is as you have ordained (863)


ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
Dohra

ਸਗਲ ਦੁਆਰ ਕਉ ਛਾਡਿ ਕੈ ਗਹਯੋ ਤੁਹਾਰੋ ਦੁਆਰ ॥ ਬਾਂਹਿ ਗਹੇ ਕੀ ਲਾਜ ਅਸਿ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਦਾਸ ਤੁਹਾਰ ॥੮੬੪॥
O Lord ! I have abandoned all other venues and have taken your path only. With the Lord's arm sheltering me, this is, Gobind, Your slave. (864)

Here is the last hymns from Chapuai Sahib


----------



## Seeker9 (Jun 19, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc.  And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood.  For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc.  To me that seems a bit Monarchist.  Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins.  But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family.  I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will.  To continue the teachings of their predecessors.
> 
> History is pretty clear that religious history (Sikh, Hindus, Muslim, Jewish, Christians) was male dominated.  But then again, most of history was.
> 
> My timings might be off but when Guru Gobind declared that there shall be no other physical Guru, and that what was in the SGGS was final, was that after or before he lost his sons.  The reason I ask this is because, was his decision to end the line of Gurus because the didn't have anyone he "trusted" that was blood related to pass the "torch" to? Or did he for-see something else.


 

I have only read the first couple of pages on my way to work and thought I would post this quick reply 

My question is why does it matter?Does it change what the Gurus achieved?  What is the outcome that ia sought here that will benefit the Sikh community?

Do we accept it takes a unique individual to do everything the Gurus did? If we accept what they did was remarkable and life changing and no ordinary person could have done this, why is the selection process important at all?

Why does it matter to what we have today I. E SGGS Ji? Can anyone please explain the significance to me as I have obviously missed it


----------



## sukhsingh (Jun 21, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> did what they did, how can anyone answer this? How can I say, yeah sure he saw something else, and this is what it was, I don't know, no one knows, however questioning the judgement of a Sikh Guru, is probably not going to win you any fans, they were perfect, so we have to assume they had their reasons, any debate that ends with the conclusion that an action of a Guru was wrong throws the whole foundations of Sikhism open


I think throw it open.. 
It's a tough space to explore but let's go there.. 
Firstly I think it's important to remember that before Guru Gobind singh ji passed gurgaddi on to SGGSJ he had already established the primacy of the panth.. Before his children were martyred 
Guru Nanak Dev Ji passed on gurgaddi during his lifetime as did Guru Angad dev.. Primacy of the Adi Granth was established and held above all else long before Guru Gobind singh ji articulated Guru Maneyo Granth.. It's a narrow reading in my opinion of seeing it in successionist terms


----------

