# If Christianity Can Be Proven Wrong, Then What Makes Sikhism So Right?



## Truthsikher31 (Feb 24, 2018)

Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions.  Religion is supposed to be the word of God.  Yet science, common sense,  and flat out ignorant teachings  show that Christianity has many flaws or is just wrong and not real.  So then what makes Sikhism so right and real.  The bible and idea of Jesus was created 1000s of years ago,  and is very hard to believe in their so called miracles,  and yet Sikhism is only few hundred years old.  Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back,  and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own,  and then never to be heard from anyone again.  Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God.  And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him,  we' d call them crazy.   
To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion.  There is another post on this site that shows through sikh history how it's a male dominant religion . Just like every other religion, which were created 100s and 1000s of years ago.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 24, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions.  Religion is supposed to be the word of God.  Yet science, common sense,  and flat out ignorant teachings  show that Christianity has many flaws or is just wrong and not real.  So then what makes Sikhism so right and real.  The bible and idea of Jesus was created 1000s of years ago,  and is very hard to believe in their so called miracles,  and yet Sikhism is only few hundred years old.  Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back,  and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own,  and then never to be heard from anyone again.  Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God.  And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him,  we' d call them crazy.
> To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion.  There is another post on this site that shows through sikh history how it's a male dominant religion . Just like every other religion, which were created 100s and 1000s of years ago.



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........


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Feb 24, 2018)

Wow, you must have already achieved enlightenment, since you know all about religions.  According to you I apparently don't know anything.  So Sikhi is not a religion? Really? I forgot its a way of life according to the new definitions.  Was hoping to get an intelligent response but right off the bat, got someone who lives in their own spiritual world, and not in reality.  I must have read some other topics, or different coded language on this site, where Sikhism is referenced as a religion.  

And yah obviously it's different from other religions.  Which one religion is same as the other.  No god as seen in other religions?  So please "enlighten" me on what God do most people who go to Gurdwara pray to.  Really don't feel like responding more to your pathetic attempt to put me down.  Obviously I'm dealing with someone trying to be a hero here, because I apparently pinched a nerve by questioning the validity of a "religion".  

My question was, if you didnt understand, is that Sikhism was created by Guru Nanak.  He had a vision (saw the flaws between Hindus/Muslims) and thus created Sikhism.  And as his teachings and other gurus after him did so in the name of God.  So during that century the concept of God/religion was understood.  But where did the idea of God/religion start or come from.  Well then wouldn't you have to start earlier in Human History, because "if you know anything" about human existence, Sikhi was not created at the beginning of time.  We have World History books that cover events around the world, during the same time Sikhism was created and evolving.  So we would have to go further back in time.  Christianity was created 1000s of years ago, like according to their own religion, the world has only existed for few 1000s of years (which is so pathetic and ignorant).  But still the idea of Jesus and so forth has been around much longer than Sikhism has been around.  

The idea of religion and God is all man made, and really by men, not women.  So, if today's Science can prove that parts of the bible are completely wrong, and thus, doesn't that discredit the Christians proof of God.  The Christian Church has always been a major power in history, and used religion to maintain that power.  So if proven wrong, doesn't that make any attempt for future religions in history to also be wrong.

I'm not a white Christian, in case that's where your mind went when I posted this topic.  I'm a brown "Sikh", have been my whole life.  Kept my kesh even till this day, but have been having questions is all.


----------



## RD1 (Feb 24, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions. Religion is supposed to be the word of God. Yet science, common sense, and flat out ignorant teachings show that Christianity has many flaws or is just wrong and not real. So then what makes Sikhism so right and real. The bible and idea of Jesus was created 1000s of years ago, and is very hard to believe in their so called miracles, and yet Sikhism is only few hundred years old. Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back, and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own, and then never to be heard from anyone again. Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God. And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him, we' d call them crazy.
> To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion. There is another post on this site that shows through sikh history how it's a male dominant religion . Just like every other religion, which were created 100s and 1000s of years ago.




Interesting questions. Its always useful to be critical and reflect on things. 
Overall though I would say, perhaps its best to focus most on the messages that Sikhi gives, on the actual teachings. See how the actual teachings resonate with you.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 24, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Wow, you must have already achieved enlightenment, since you know all about religions. According to you I apparently don't know anything. So Sikhi is not a religion? Really? I forgot its a way of life according to the new definitions. Was hoping to get an intelligent response but right off the bat, got someone who lives in their own spiritual world, and not in reality. I must have read some other topics, or different coded language on this site, where Sikhism is referenced as a religion.



Don't be silly! Read your own post first. You claimed to have the enlightenment when you started it, not me. I never said you did not know anything.  As Sikhi did not stop in time like other religions, it is always evolving and shall be. That is its beauty. It is not about the definition but about the understanding.



Truthsikher31 said:


> And yah obviously it's different from other religions. Which one religion is same as the other. No god as seen in other religions? So please "enlighten" me on what God do most people who go to Gurdwara pray to. Really don't feel like responding more to your pathetic attempt to put me down. Obviously I'm dealing with someone trying to be a hero here, because I apparently pinched a nerve by questioning the validity of a "religion".



Stop being so touchy. I have no idea why you feel so offended.  No one is putting you down. The answers are as straightforward as your questions.



Truthsikher31 said:


> My question was, if you didnt understand, is that Sikhism was created by Guru Nanak. He had a vision (saw the flaws between Hindus/Muslims) and thus created Sikhism. And as his teachings and other gurus after him did so in the name of God. So during that century the concept of God/religion was understood. But where did the idea of God/religion start or come from. Well then wouldn't you have to start earlier in Human History, because "if you know anything" about human existence, Sikhi was not created at the beginning of time. We have World History books that cover events around the world, during the same time Sikhism was created and evolving. So we would have to go further back in time. Christianity was created 1000s of years ago, like according to their own religion, the world has only existed for few 1000s of years (which is so pathetic and ignorant). But still the idea of Jesus and so forth has been around much longer than Sikhism has been around.



One can only answer the above if you define what your concept of god is. Sikhi has no god as other religions see it as mentioned before. Sikhi has no deity, hence no commandments like the Abrahamic god and others.



Truthsikher31 said:


> The idea of religion and God is all man made, and really by men, not women. So, if today's Science can prove that parts of the bible are completely wrong, and thus, doesn't that discredit the Christians proof of God. The Christian Church has always been a major power in history, and used religion to maintain that power. So if proven wrong, doesn't that make any attempt for future religions in history to also be wrong.



Yes, I agree, it is all manmade.



Truthsikher31 said:


> I'm not a white Christian, in case that's where your mind went when I posted this topic. I'm a brown "Sikh", have been my whole life. Kept my kesh even till this day, but have been having questions is all.



It matters naught to me who you are.

Relish your journey. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks


----------



## Kully (Feb 25, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Sikhi has no mechanical rituals, no hell, no heaven,



Gurbani talks about heaven and hell as actual entities. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, it is not a place of permanancy. Gurbani tells us that also the womb is hell, and reincarnation is hell. 



Tejwant Singh said:


> no judgement day



Not in the Abrahamic sense in that there is only one day sometime in the future. For a Sikh everyday is judgement day. 




Tejwant Singh said:


> no reincarnation,



SGGS is very clear on reincarnation of the soul.  It says it in Japji Sahib and Sohila. 



Tejwant Singh said:


> no miracles,



No miracles? The Gurus performed many actions that were miraculous. These miracles were not for their own gains but to remind Man of his reason for this birth. 



Tejwant Singh said:


> no prophets hence no prophecies........



Is this shabad prophetic:

ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ _॥ _
Tilang, First Mehla:
ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ _॥ _
As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo.
ਪਾਪ ਕੀ ਜੰਞ ਲੈ ਕਾਬਲਹੁ ਧਾਇਆ ਜੋਰੀ ਮੰਗੈ ਦਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ _॥ _
Bringing the marriage party of sin, Babar has invaded from Kaabul, demanding our land as his wedding gift, O Lalo.
ਸਰਮੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਦੁਇ ਛਪਿ ਖਲੋਏ ਕੂੜੁ ਫਿਰੈ ਪਰਧਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ _॥ _
Modesty and righteousness both have vanished, and falsehood struts around like a leader, O Lalo.
ਕਾਜੀਆ ਬਾਮਣਾ ਕੀ ਗਲ ਥਕੀ ਅਗਦੁ ਪੜੈ ਸੈਤਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ _॥ _
The Qazis and the Brahmins have lost their roles, and Satan now conducts the marriage rites, O Lalo.
ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨੀਆ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਕਸਟ ਮਹਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ _॥ _
The Muslim women read the Koran, and in their misery, they call upon God, O Lalo.
ਜਾਤਿ ਸਨਾਤੀ ਹੋਰਿ ਹਿਦਵਾਣੀਆ ਏਹਿ ਭੀ ਲੇਖੈ ਲਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ _॥ _
The Hindu women of high social status, and others of lowly status as well, are put into the same category, O Lalo.
ਖੂਨ ਕੇ ਸੋਹਿਲੇ ਗਾਵੀਅਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਤੁ ਕਾ ਕੁੰਗੂ ਪਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ _॥੧॥ _
The wedding songs of murder are sung, O Nanak, and blood is sprinkled instead of saffron, O Lalo. ||1||
ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕੇ ਗੁਣ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਗਾਵੈ ਮਾਸ ਪੁਰੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਖੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ _॥ _
Nanak sings the Glorious Praises of the Lord and Master in the city of corpses, and voices this account.
ਜਿਨਿ ਉਪਾਈ ਰੰਗਿ ਰਵਾਈ ਬੈਠਾ ਵੇਖੈ ਵਖਿ ਇਕੇਲਾ _॥ _
The One who created, and attached the mortals to pleasures, sits alone, and watches this.
ਸਚਾ ਸੋ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਚੁ ਤਪਾਵਸੁ ਸਚੜਾ ਨਿਆਉ ਕਰੇਗੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ _॥ _
The Lord and Master is True, and True is His justice. He issues His Commands according to His judgement.
ਕਾਇਆ ਕਪੜੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਹੋਸੀ ਹਿਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਸਮਾਲਸੀ ਬੋਲਾ _॥ _
The body-fabric will be torn apart into shreds, and then India will remember these words.
*ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥ 
Coming in seventy-eight (1521 A.D.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1540 A.D.), and then another disciple of man will rise up.*
ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਆਖੈ ਸਚੁ ਸੁਣਾਇਸੀ ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬੇਲਾ _॥੨॥੩॥੫॥ _
Nanak speaks the Word of Truth; he proclaims the Truth at this, the right time. ||2||3||5||



Truthsikher31 said:


> My question was, if you didnt understand, is that Sikhism was created by Guru Nanak.



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. 




Truthsikher31 said:


> He had a vision (saw the flaws between Hindus/Muslims) and thus created Sikhism.



If we go by your words and use the word "flaw", that flaw is still existent today. Does that mean that the Gurus were therefore unsuccessful that they couldn't eradicate this flaw ? 

Gurmat was not borne from the flaws of others.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Feb 25, 2018)

Kully said:


> Gurbani talks about heaven and hell as actual entities. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, it is not a place of permanancy. Gurbani tells us that also the womb is hell, and reincarnation is hell.


Please post full Shabads with the page numbers from the SGGS, our only Guru, with your own understanding as the English translations are misleading.



Kully said:


> SGGS is very clear on reincarnation of the soul. It says it in Japji Sahib and Sohila.


Please post full Shabads with the page numbers from the SGGS, our only Guru, with your own understanding as the English translations are misleading.



Kully said:


> No miracles? The Gurus performed many actions that were miraculous. These miracles were not for their own gains but to remind Man of his reason for this birth.


Please post full Shabads with the page numbers from the SGGS, our only Guru, with your own understanding as the English translations are misleading.



> Tejwant Singh said: ↑
> no prophets hence no prophecies........





Kully said:


> Is this shabad prophetic:
> 
> Again, the page number is missing. Page 722
> ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ _॥ _
> ...



One can see quite vividly that you are confused about the difference between prophetic and prophecy, just like in miraculous and a miracle. If you are not aware of the difference, please check it out.

The above Shabad is history with foresight based on the events of that time. It is not any prophecy because Sikhi has none.


----------



## japjisahib04 (Feb 26, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> There is a big difference between prophetic and prophecy, just like in miraculous and a miracle. If you are not aware of the difference, please check it out.
> 
> The above Shabad is history with foresight based on the events of that time. It is not any prophecy.


 In addition it is not coming in 78 and going 97. 
Before this line there is a pankti, 'ਕਾਇਆ ਕਪੜੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਹੋਸੀ ਹਿਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਸਮਾਲਸੀ ਬੋਲਾ ॥ Once ‘kaeya kapad’ the physical body is cut into pieces, then who cares or will remain to remember the words. Thus pankti does not relate to physical body. I humbly suggest that history is always tentative but Gurbani is not. It cannot be limited to one time only and Guru sahib cannot go against his own consciously awareness and make prophecy. Is guru nanak referring to some historical event or is telling me that his historical incidence can happen on me when I ignore the truth.

In japjisahib guru sahib says, ''nanak hukmi avoh jae once I acquire His traits my deficiencies ends. Similarly to me ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥ unlike yogies who believed to fix their 'atha' (two legs, two thighs, two arms, skull, chest) through lom vilom, guru sahib says once our manh (thought process) is fixed by imbibing his virtues in the ocean of sat+aanvai - truth - ਗੁਰੁ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਸਦਾ ਜਲੁ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਮੈਲੁ ਹਰੈ GS 1329.1 , our mission is complete whereas those who ignore shall remain victim of duality. And by following this 'gur' - the technique 'hor bhi uthsi mard ka cheyla all other deficiencies goes and manh knows how to combat with evil ਹਉ ਗੋਸਾਈ ਦਾ ਪਹਿਲਵਾਨੜਾ ॥ 74-8. Baba nanak says to Lalo. is many came and many went and many more will rise again.I t is linked with nank humki avoh jaey.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Feb 27, 2018)

Actually Gurbani speaks of heaven and hell as metaphors. Hell for a Sikh is being separated from Akal Purakh. It’s not some physical place of fire and brimstone. 

In Gurbani reality exists as both unmanifest as ONE and Manifest as ALL. The ALL is 100% within the ONE. And in turn the ONE is 100% within the ALL. 

Creation was born of the light and the light is in the creation.

Gurbani also speaks about the Gurmukh knowing their OWN self and that He is Me. Now if it’s saying that the divine resides within all of us, and that is our true identity, the atma is part of the paramatma, then how can there be a physical heaven or hell? We’re already in oneness with Creator. It’s only through this dream or the manifest we experience things as separate but they really aren’t. It’s like the drop of water from the ocean. It was never separated from the ocean, it only thought it was. 

In this way there can not be a heaven or hell or even reincarnation in the commonly understood meanings. Because there is only ONE of us ultimately here. 

This idea of physical heaven and hells and Devi’s and Devtas and avatars etc. are all perpetuated by your favourite Granth only and not Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. They are not part of Sikhi. 



Kully said:


> Gurbani talks about heaven and hell as actual entities. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, it is not a place of permanancy. Gurbani tells us that also the womb is hell, and reincarnation is hell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## seekingsikhi (Feb 27, 2018)

I think Christianity's biggest issue is that they've forgotten their guru and his message.  They don't worship God anymore, they worship Jesus because of the declarations of the Council of Nicaea that Jesus and God were the same person somehow.  Christianity fails because they give in to the same stone idol worship that Guru Nanak spoke against.  If they focused on connecting with the nature of God and destroying duality they could live up to Jesus' example, but instead they go with pomp and circumstance and fall further and further into the Maya of their own righteousness.  Obviously not all Christians fit this description, but as an institution they need to get back to basics.  And frankly so do we in some regards.



Truthsikher31 said:


> Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God. And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him, we' d call them crazy



The problem here is that many have, unfortunately; and they have all turned out to be frauds or crazies.  It's possible someone out there does have that same divine connection, but like many of the Gurus they aren't going to bother with some kind of mass marketing of the word; preferring instead intimate settings and humility.  Consider the transition between Guru Harkrishan Ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.  Many others came forward in Bakala claiming to be the next Guru, while Guru Tegh Bahadur sat patiently and worked the fields.  Had he taken to the stage and proclaimed himself guru and worked miracle after miracle to prove it, he wouldn't have been the guru because he would have been going against the teachings of the previous gurus.


----------



## chazSingh (Feb 27, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Actually Gurbani speaks of heaven and hell as metaphors. Hell for a Sikh is being separated from Akal Purakh. It’s not some physical place of fire and brimstone.
> 
> In Gurbani reality exists as both unmanifest as ONE and Manifest as ALL. The ALL is 100% within the ONE. And in turn the ONE is 100% within the ALL.
> 
> ...



Hey HArkiran,

Long time...hope you're well Sister!

that re-incarnation subject 

in Gurbani...Guru Ji is always talking to the mind..."oh my mind..."
the mind is the sikh..the mind takes on the character in the play (Ego) and a person is born....as you say behind it all...the atma, is really waheguru Himself..  as their is no other...

so re-incarnation being the mind taking on new forms, based on experiences, habits, actions carried out in previous characters of the play...

the mind has to accept that there is only one....the character is temporary...and thus kind of die......if it 'really' does this...we merge...
until this occurs...who knows what the mind will create, what experiences it will have...good, bad...heaven, hell whatever you want to call it.....something will be experienced during the seperation..

seriously...as i know you also have explored within...i just think creation is endless...so vast...all of us (minds) are driving it's creation...who knows what exists, where, in what form...realms, dimensions...


----------



## chazSingh (Feb 27, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions.  Religion is supposed to be the word of God.  Yet science, common sense,  and flat out ignorant teachings  show that Christianity has many flaws or is just wrong and not real.  So then what makes Sikhism so right and real.  The bible and idea of Jesus was created 1000s of years ago,  and is very hard to believe in their so called miracles,  and yet Sikhism is only few hundred years old.  Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back,  and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own,  and then never to be heard from anyone again.  Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God.  And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him,  we' d call them crazy.
> To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion.  There is another post on this site that shows through sikh history how it's a male dominant religion . Just like every other religion, which were created 100s and 1000s of years ago.




good post...
very interesting...and to be honest....many many sikhs would go along with this notion...just another man made religion...nothing to it....
and so, most people will just live their lives...but hope they do enough good to get a place in some kind of heaven just in case their really is a God...lol 

So what does one find when they open the SGGS Ji? seriously...when i first opened it and read it (aged 24)...i was gobsmacked...
what i read was so intriguing, and what i loved was that....*if i really want to see if it was True...i could...by following it's methods...whilst alive, in this life...not after death
*
So, at least you can prove to yourself...if it's nonsense...or if it's real...that's the beauty of it...

and yes...if you do get your own proof that it's for real...everyone...even other Sikhs will call you crazy...they will say you're smoking Drugs, taking the spiritual Bong, floating to cloud 9 etc etc...

but you know what...you'll have your proof, and what you say could inspire someone else...even if it's only one other person...you may find there are others that have had similar experiences...as i did...

or it could be bullsh*t ... but at least you'll know...and you made the effort to be a spiritual scientist and sit the experiment..


----------



## CHANDANJEET SINGH KHALSA (Mar 2, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions.  Religion is supposed to be the word of God.  Yet science, common sense,  and flat out ignorant teachings  show that Christianity has many flaws or is just wrong and not real.  So then what makes Sikhism so right and real.  The bible and idea of Jesus was created 1000s of years ago,  and is very hard to believe in their so called miracles,  and yet Sikhism is only few hundred years old.  Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back,  and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own,  and then never to be heard from anyone again.  Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God.  And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him,  we' d call them crazy.
> To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion.  There is another post on this site that shows through sikh history how it's a male dominant religion . Just like every other religion, which were created 100s and 1000s of years ago.



guru nank dev ji said " patalan patal lakh agasan agaas
udak udak bhaal thakeh ved kahen it vaat"

guru nanak proved scientifically in his time that there are several earth in this galaxy like this one.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Mar 3, 2018)

RD1 said:


> Interesting questions. Its always useful to be critical and reflect on things.
> Overall though I would say, perhaps its best to focus most on the messages that Sikhi gives, on the actual teachings. See how the actual teachings resonate with you.



See that's kind of where I have the problem, when you say "just focus on the message that Sikhi gives".  Honestly, I've been watching videos on YouTube (Jagraj Singh - basics of sikhi - and though I dont agree a lot of what he says - R.I.P), I've been reading forums of what the Sikhi world is posting, Facebook comments.  And its crazy how the "word" of Sikhi is defined.  Don't care what anyone says, Sikhi is a religion.  It's organized, peaceful, has a place of worship.  So being a religion it should have a purpose, a message on how to live or how be a human being.  Now for one minute if we can agree that the main message is "be good, and do good'.  Please, I dont want definitions of whats good.  Its common sense.  The reason behind my post is that, if the main message behind every religion is the same, then there is no need for religion.  But every religion even Sikhism, says the message was delivered from God, not just the good points, but every word uttered in SGGS is from God.  But the idea of God spread through out the world, and before it did it had an origin.  If you go back to the beginning of Christianity, as far back as Egypt times.  Look at what was going on in India.  There were no Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs. You had these tribes, who later also would become organized and  start religion.  

Christianity has sooo many flaws, and a lot the facts to base its origin is flat out ridiculous.  A woman gets pregnant without  sex, and its the son of God.  Meaning God put his seed in her without her knowing (Rape much).  And if I keep using Christianity's example, God created the first two human beings (Adam and Eve), so why does he need to impregnate a woman.  The thought of Jesus was much after mankind was "civilized".  Jesus wasn't the first human on Earth, you had people living and breathing before him.  Who were organized, had a language, some sense of fashion, entertainment, etc.  So then has humans became spoiled and sinful, God sends Jesus to Earth to fix all, and not to forget the big Flood to.  Utter nonsense.  If today some girl gets pregnant and claims she didnt have sex, what would we call her.  Easy - a liar.

So again if the idea of religion started somewhere in Africa, and spread through out the world, because you know Christians love to spread the word of "God", then every religion created after it was influenced by it.  And in every religion, every word delivered in their own respectful book, SGGS, Koran, Bible, etc. is the word of God, but if even one word is proven wrong, then that really questions the validity and existence of God.  Now if you claim that "oh those holy books, words, etc." were created by man not God, then God was created by man.  We as a world, as human race are so divided, and yes culture, geographic location does factor in, but religion is also clearly the cause for chaos in the world.  Don't sit here and say that Sikhi didn't have any cause for wars in India.  Sure your defense might be that what Sikhi was trying to deliver was peaceful, but won't every religion say that to.  It caused separation.  Sorry I went little off topic to your reply - RD1,  but religion and all its rules are not needed.  We as a human beings have been on this  planet for 1000s of years. The world has seen the massacres its created, and for the most part has tried to correct itself.  And uses common sense to go about things.  Sikhi is no different, and no more special than the next.  

I always find if fascinating that most Atheists probably come from a Christian background.  And they always question God, religion, etc.  But in Sikhi, in Punjabji culture, you can't even question.  Questioning the Gurus, SGGS, is like a death sentence.  I'm sure that newer generations will try to use their minds more, instead of fairy tails from previous generations.  More I can say, but I think I can add more points to some of the other comments.


----------



## Admin (Mar 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> But in Sikhi, in Punjabji culture, you can't even question. Questioning the Gurus, SGGS, is like a death sentence.



Dear @Truthsikher31 ji

You are judging Sikhi from the crooked prism of misleading _Vedic_ or _Abrahamic_ interpretations. A philosophy, which has its roots firmly in immersed in applying common-sense and questioning everything... so judging it within the cultural boundaries of particular region is a little shortsightedness IMHO.

This very forum, which has its roots firmly rooted in Punjab, is the epitome of preciously opposite of all your notions. We firmly denounce all such fairly tales and anything which is inconsistent to common sense. I would request to spend sometime at SPN and read some of the threads. You will be pleasantly surprised. But you will have to spend sometime to discover these hidden nuggets. 

Available English translations/transliterations do little justice to real Sikh philosophy and with due respect, most of the English speakers do even the worst job. So, your job is a little cut-out, being not from a non-Punjabi speaking and understanding background.
*
First step in learning would to be start from a clean slate... i.e. de-learning & re-learning. *A good starting point would be starting from Jup banee, the epitome of Sikh Philosophy. And good thing is that the followin discourse is in simple understandable English.

Understanding Jup Banee 1 |  Dr. Karminder Singh Dhillon

All the best!


----------



## RD1 (Mar 3, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> See that's kind of where I have the problem, when you say "just focus on the message that Sikhi gives". Honestly, I've been watching videos on YouTube (Jagraj Singh - basics of sikhi - and though I dont agree a lot of what he says - R.I.P), I've been reading forums of what the Sikhi world is posting, Facebook comments. And its crazy how the "word" of Sikhi is defined. Don't care what anyone says, Sikhi is a religion. It's organized, peaceful, has a place of worship. So being a religion it should have a purpose, a message on how to live or how be a human being.



Its great to explore these various sources and opinions regarding Sikhi. It aids in obtaining a more comprehensive perspective, and in keeping our eye critical. However, we must also go to the actual source, the ultimate source - the SGGS ji - and interpret it for ourselves. Focus primarily on the messages enclosed within the SGGS ji - not our modern day "religious structures and rituals." These too can have value, but they are all  secondary. The answers within the SGGS ji may not come to us right away. It is to be contemplated.



Truthsikher31 said:


> If you go back to the beginning of Christianity, as far back as Egypt times. Look at what was going on in India. There were no Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs. You had these tribes, who later also would become organized and start religion.





Truthsikher31 said:


> So again if the idea of religion started somewhere in Africa, and spread through out the world, because you know Christians love to spread the word of "God", then every religion created after it was influenced by it.





Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has sooo many flaws, and a lot the facts to base its origin is flat out ridiculous. A woman gets pregnant without sex, and its the son of God. Meaning God put his seed in her without her knowing (Rape much). And if I keep using Christianity's example, God created the first two human beings (Adam and Eve), so why does he need to impregnate a woman





Truthsikher31 said:


> but if even one word is proven wrong, then that really questions the validity and existence of God



Christianity is actually not one of the oldest religions. Its 2000 years old. There are much much older religions out there including Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Taoism. Humans have been organizing into "religion" for a very very long time.  The time period and context that a certain religion came about influences how it was practiced, and then how it was passed down. With time, the messages can become distorted. 

I have not studied Christianity thoroughly, but understanding the roots and origins could help to explain the stories. The stories may also be metaphors, and perhaps are not to be taken so literally - as many people do today with various religions. This too can distort meaning, and can make it difficult to determine validity. People really must explore it for themselves, and experience it for themselves. And ultimately, if one is doing this genuinely and thoughtfully, then we should respect their personal experiences, even if they may not exactly match with out own. Of course, there are exceptions, such as with "extremism." 



Truthsikher31 said:


> religion is also clearly the cause for chaos in the world



Or perhaps peoples _interpretations_ of religion that are laced with ego, attachment, greed etc. is what more precisely is a cause for chaos in this world. It basically comes down to intolerance - whether you want to call something religion, beliefs, philosophy, or whatever, people will always have different opinions, and some will resort to violence when they are unable to tolerate and respect divergent views.



Truthsikher31 said:


> I always find if fascinating that most Atheists probably come from a Christian background. And they always question God, religion, etc. But in Sikhi, in Punjabji culture, you can't even question. Questioning the Gurus, SGGS, is like a death sentence. I'm sure that newer generations will try to use their minds more, instead of fairy tails from previous generations. More I can say, but I think I can add more points to some of the other comments.



Its always good to question. In fact, I believe Sikhi encourages us to question, think, reflect, contemplate.
I don't know all the religions out there in an extensive degree. But I truly do view Sikhi  as being quite simple, to the point, and it makes sense - even if not everyone completely agrees with each other regarding certain aspects of it - if they are truly diving into it with love in their hearts, then it is not necessarily our job to judge their personal experiences with Sikhi. The heart of it is not full of unnecessary doctrine. We people complicate it. 

I also agree with @Aman Singh 's statement regarding that we must be careful to not view Sikhi with an Abrahamic or Vedic lens - which is very apparent especially in the way that Sikhi is outwardly "organised." Those views have their own particular cultural lens that do not necessarily align with Sikhi. 

I ultimately see our exploration of Sikhi to be a very personal journey, that is forever evolving.


----------



## RD1 (Mar 3, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> First step in learning would to be start from a clean slate... i.e. de-learning & re-learning.



This is absolutely vital. Clearing out the ways we have been conditioned to think, and opening our minds to something new.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 4, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Please, I dont want definitions of whats good.



I do, I want definitions of what is good, because from where I am sitting, its not common sense, every action that we do has a consequence, a short term, and a long term one, what may be seen as good in the short term, may not be so good in the long term, 


Truthsikher31 said:


> The reason behind my post is that, if the main message behind every religion is the same, then there is no need for religion.


you seem quite educated and intelligent, but even a {censored} like me can see that all religions are not the same, most advocate a carrot and stick approach, some promise untold bliss and riches, some use huge amounts of fear, some huge amounts of reward, some both, some say you spend eternity with god, some that you die, even within one single religion, things are not the same, in Sikhism some have a Vedic slant, some have an Abrahamic slant, some have an atheist slant. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has sooo many flaws, and a lot the facts to base its origin is flat out ridiculous. A woman gets pregnant without sex, and its the son of God. Meaning God put his seed in her without her knowing (Rape much). And if I keep using Christianity's example, God created the first two human beings (Adam and Eve), so why does he need to impregnate a woman. The thought of Jesus was much after mankind was "civilized". Jesus wasn't the first human on Earth, you had people living and breathing before him. Who were organized, had a language, some sense of fashion, entertainment, etc. So then has humans became spoiled and sinful, God sends Jesus to Earth to fix all, and not to forget the big Flood to. Utter nonsense. .



now now, its easy to throw stones at other religions, within our religion we also have our own contradictions, a religion that believes in equality for the sexes, that also bans women from certain activities, a religion that does not believe in superstitions that contains some of the most superstitious people in the world, a religion against miracles, that has umpteen stories about miracles, live and let live eh, 



Truthsikher31 said:


> If today some girl gets pregnant and claims she didnt have sex, what would we call her. Easy - a liar.



ok, again, you seem quite intelligent and with it, I am surprised you have never heard of surrogate mothers that carry fertilized eggs, they get pregnant without having sex......



Truthsikher31 said:


> So again if the idea of religion started somewhere in Africa, and spread through out the world, because you know Christians love to spread the word of "God", then every religion created after it was influenced by it.



did it? in Africa? why what is special about Africa? Aids and religion, I suppose there has to be a balance, religion was started when man first walked the earth and worshiped the sun, and Christians spread the word of God because it is a bit like pyramid selling, the more you get in, the closer to god you get when your dead, that is their belief, good luck to them. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> I always find if fascinating that most Atheists probably come from a Christian background. And they always question God, religion, etc. But in Sikhi, in Punjabji culture, you can't even question. Questioning the Gurus, SGGS, is like a death sentence. I'm sure that newer generations will try to use their minds more, instead of fairy tails from previous generations. More I can say, but I think I can add more points to some of the other comments.



This is one of the few sites on the internet that advocates free thinking and questioning within Sikhism, there is no death sentence, many points have been raised on this forum and many have been discussed, and in any case, even atheism is a religion, every atheist needs the concept of God in which not to believe in


----------



## Kully (Mar 4, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> One can see quite vividly that you are confused about the difference between prophetic and prophecy



I'm not confused. Thats just a convenient answer for you, as it avoids answering the statement. 



Tejwant Singh said:


> The above Shabad is history with foresight based on the events of that time. It is not any prophecy because Sikhi has none.



Call it a foresight if it helps you. It is still a prophecy. Look up the meaning of prophecy as you seemed confused by it. 




japjisahib04 said:


> In addition it is not coming in 78 and going 97.



You claim to know what it isn't, but can't/don't say what it is?




japjisahib04 said:


> Before this line there is a pankti, 'ਕਾਇਆ ਕਪੜੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਹੋਸੀ ਹਿਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਸਮਾਲਸੀ ਬੋਲਾ ॥ Once ‘kaeya kapad’ the physical body is cut into pieces, then who cares or will remain to remember the words. Thus pankti does not relate to physical body.



Who said anything about it being a physical body? Read the remainder of the sentence and you will see what body it refers to. 




Harkiran Kaur said:


> Actually Gurbani speaks of heaven and hell as metaphors.



Let's see some shabads that show heaven and hell as metaphors only. 

This hell and incarnation seems very real:

ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ _॥ _
Gauree Gwaarayree, Fifth Mehla:
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਹਰਖ ਸੋਗ ਬਿਸਥਾਰ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ੀ ਗ਼ਮੀ ਦਾ ਖਿਲਾਰਾ ਹੈ,
It torments us with the expression of pleasure and pain.
*ਬਿਆਪਤ ਸੁਰਗ ਨਰਕ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥ 
ਕਿਤੇ ਜੀਵ ਨਰਕਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਪੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ, ਕਿਤੇ ਸੁਰਗਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਪਹੁੰਚਦੇ ਹਨ,
It torments us through incarnations in heaven and hell.*
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਧਨ ਨਿਰਧਨ ਪੇਖਿ ਸੋਭਾ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਧਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਹਨ, ਕਿਤੇ ਕੰਗਾਲ ਹਨ, ਕਿਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਆਪਣੀ ਸੋਭਾ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਵੇਖ ਕੇ (ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ ਹਨ)—ਇਹਨਾਂ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਤਰੀਕਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਮਾਇਆ ਜੀਵਾਂ ਉਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਪਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ।
It is seen to afflict the rich, the poor and the glorious.
ਮੂਲੁ ਬਿਆਧੀ ਬਿਆਪਸਿ ਲੋਭਾ _॥੧॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਰੋਗਾਂ ਦਾ ਮੂਲ ਲੋਭ ਬਣ ਕੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਆਪਣਾ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਪਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ।੧।
The source of this illness which torments us is greed. ||1||
ਮਾਇਆ ਬਿਆਪਤ ਬਹੁ ਪਰਕਾਰੀ _॥ _
ਹੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ! (ਤੇਰੀ ਰਚੀ) ਮਾਇਆ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਤਰੀਕਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ (ਜੀਵਾਂ ਉਤੇ) ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਪਾਈ ਰੱਖਦੀ ਹੈ (ਤੇ ਆਤਮਕ ਮੌਤੇ ਜੀਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮਾਰ ਦੇਂਦੀ ਹੈ),
Maya torments us in so many ways.
ਸੰਤ ਜੀਵਹਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਓਟ ਤੁਮਾਰੀ _॥੧॥ _ਰਹਾਉ _॥ _
ਤੇਰੇ ਸੰਤ ਤੇਰੇ ਆਸਰੇ ਆਤਮਕ ਜੀਵਨ ਮਾਣਦੇ ਹਨ ।੧।ਰਹਾਉ।
But the Saints live under Your Protection, God. ||1||Pause||
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਅਹੰਬੁਧਿ ਕਾ ਮਾਤਾ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਕੋਈ ‘ਹਉ ਹਉ, ਮੈਂ ਮੈਂ’ ਦੀ ਅਕਲ ਵਿਚ ਮਸਤ ਹੈ,
It torments us through intoxication with intellectual pride.
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਪੁਤ੍ਰ ਕਲਤ੍ਰ ਸੰਗਿ ਰਾਤਾ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਪੁੱਤਰ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਦੇ ਮੋਹ ਵਿਚ ਰੱਤਾ ਪਿਆ ਹੈ,
It torments us through the love of children and spouse.
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਹਸਤਿ ਘੋੜੇ ਅਰੁ ਬਸਤਾ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਹਾਥੀ ਘੋੜਿਆਂ (ਸੁੰਦਰ) ਕੱਪੜਿਆਂ (ਦੀ ਲਗਨ ਹੈ),
It torments us through elephants, horses and beautiful clothes.
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਰੂਪ ਜੋਬਨ ਮਦ ਮਸਤਾ _॥੨॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਰੂਪ ਤੇ ਜਵਾਨੀ ਦੇ ਨਸ਼ੇ ਵਿਚ ਮਸਤ ਹੈ—ਇਹਨਾਂ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਤਰੀਕਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਮਾਇਆ ਆਪਣਾ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਪਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ।੨।
It torments us through the intoxication of wine and the beauty of youth. ||2||
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਭੂਮਿ ਰੰਕ ਅਰੁ ਰੰਗਾ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਭੁਇਂ ਦੀ ਮਾਲਕੀ ਹੈ, ਕਿਤੇ ਕੰਗਾਲ ਹਨ, ਕਿਤੇ ਅਮੀਰ ਹਨ,
It torments landlords, paupers and lovers of pleasure.
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਗੀਤ ਨਾਦ ਸੁਣਿ ਸੰਗਾ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਮੰਡਲੀਆਂ ਵਿਚ ਗੀਤ ਨਾਦ ਸੁਣ ਕੇ (ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ ਹੋ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ),
It torments us through the sweet sounds of music and parties.
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਸੇਜ ਮਹਲ ਸੀਗਾਰ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ (ਸੋਹਣੀ) ਸੇਜ, ਹਾਰ-ਸਿੰਗਾਰ ਤੇ ਮਹਲ-ਮਾੜੀਆਂ (ਦੀ ਲਾਲਸਾ ਹੈ), ਇਹਨਾਂ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਤਰੀਕਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਮਾਇਆ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਪਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ।
It torments us through beautiful beds, palaces and decorations.
ਪੰਚ ਦੂਤ ਬਿਆਪਤ ਅੰਧਿਆਰ _॥੩॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਮੋਹ ਦੇ ਹਨੇਰੇ ਵਿਚ ਕਾਮਾਦਿਕ ਪੰਜੇ ਦੂਤ ਬਣ ਕੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਪਾ ਰਹੀ ।੩।
It torments us through the darkness of the five evil passions. ||3||
ਬਿਆਪਤ ਕਰਮ ਕਰੈ ਹਉ ਫਾਸਾ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਹਉਮੈ ਵਿਚ ਫਸਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ (ਆਪਣੇ ਵਲੋਂ ਧਾਰਮਿਕ) ਕੰਮ ਕਰ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ,
It torments those who act, entangled in ego.
ਬਿਆਪਤਿ ਗਿਰਸਤ ਬਿਆਪਤ ਉਦਾਸਾ _॥ _
ਕੋਈ ਗ੍ਰਿਹਸਤ ਵਿਚ ਪ੍ਰਵਿਰਤ ਹੈ, ਕੋਈ ਉਦਾਸੀ ਰੂਪ ਵਿਚ ਹੈ,
It torments us through household affairs, and it torments us in renunciation.
ਆਚਾਰ ਬਿਉਹਾਰ ਬਿਆਪਤ ਇਹ ਜਾਤਿ _॥ _
ਕਿਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਧਾਰਮਿਕ ਰਸਮਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਪ੍ਰਵਿਰਤ ਹੈ, ਕੋਈ (ਉੱਚੀ) ਜਾਤਿ ਦੇ ਮਾਣ ਵਿਚ ਹੈ
It torments us through character, lifestyle and social status.
ਸਭ ਕਿਛੁ ਬਿਆਪਤ ਬਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਰੰਗ ਰਾਤ _॥੪॥ _
ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਵਿਚ ਮਗਨ ਹੋਣ ਤੋਂ ਵਾਂਜੇ ਰਹਿ ਕੇ ਇਹ ਸਭ ਕੁਝ ਮਾਇਆ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਹੀ ਹੈ ।੪।
It torments us through everything, except for those who are imbued with the Love of the Lord. ||4||
ਸੰਤਨ ਕੇ ਬੰਧਨ ਕਾਟੇ ਹਰਿ ਰਾਇ _॥ _
ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਸੰਤ ਜਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਬੰਧਨ ਕੱਟ ਦੇਂਦਾ ਹੈ ।
The Sovereign Lord King has cut away the bonds of His Saints.
ਤਾ ਕਉ ਕਹਾ ਬਿਆਪੈ ਮਾਇ _॥ _
ਉਹਨਾਂ ਉਤੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਆਪਣਾ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਸਕਦੀ ।
How can Maya torment them?
ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਜਿਨਿ ਧੂਰਿ ਸੰਤ ਪਾਈ _॥ _ਤਾ ਕੈ ਨਿਕਟਿ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਮਾਈ _॥੫॥੧੯॥੮੮॥ _
ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ ! ਆਖ—ਜਿਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਨੇ ਸੰਤ ਜਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਚਰਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਧੂੜ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰ ਲਈ ਹੈ, ਮਾਇਆ ਉਸ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦੇ ਨੇੜੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਢੁੱਕ ਸਕਦੀ ।੪।੧੯।੮੮।
Says Nanak, Maya does not draw near those who have obtained the dust of the feet of the Saints. ||5||19||88||



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Hell for a Sikh is being separated from Akal Purakh.



But we are never separate from Sri Kaal Purkh. 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> In this way there can not be a heaven or hell or even reincarnation in the commonly understood meanings.



ਪਵੜੀ _॥ _
Pauree:
ਬਦਫੈਲੀ ਗੈਬਾਨਾ ਖਸਮੁ ਨ ਜਾਣਈ _॥ _
(ਜੋ ਮਨੁੱਖ) ਲੁਕ ਕੇ ਪਾਪ ਕਮਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਮਾਲਕ ਨੂੰ (ਹਰ ਥਾਂ ਹਾਜ਼ਰ ਨਾਜ਼ਰ) ਨਹੀਂ ਸਮਝਦਾ,
The foolish demon, who does evil deeds, does not know his Lord and Master.
ਸੋ ਕਹੀਐ ਦੇਵਾਨਾ ਆਪੁ ਨ ਪਛਾਣਈ _॥ _
ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਪਾਗਲ ਕਹਿਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਅਸਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਪਛਾਣਦਾ ਨਹੀਂ ।
Call him a mad-man, if he does not understand himself.
ਕਲਹਿ ਬੁਰੀ ਸੰਸਾਰਿ ਵਾਦੇ ਖਪੀਐ _॥ _
ਜਗਤ ਵਿਚ (ਵਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ) ਬਿਖਾਂਧ (ਐਸੀ) ਚੰਦਰੀ ਹੈ (ਵਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਵਿਚ ਪਿਆ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਵਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਦੇ) ਝੰਬੇਲੇ ਵਿਚ ਹੀ ਖਪਦਾ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ
The strife of this world is evil; these struggles are consuming it.
ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਵੇਕਾਰਿ ਭਰਮੇ ਪਚੀਐ _॥ _
ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਛੱਡ ਕੇ ਮੰਦ ਕਰਮ ਤੇ ਭਟਕਣਾ ਵਿਚ ਖ਼ੁਆਰ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ।
Without the Lord's Name, life is worthless. Through doubt, the people are being destroyed.
ਰਾਹ ਦੋਵੈ ਇਕੁ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੋਈ ਸਿਝਸੀ _॥ _
(ਮਨੁੱਖਾ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੇ) ਦੋ ਰਸਤੇ ਹਨ (ਮਾਇਆ ਤੇ ਨਾਮ), ਇਸ (ਜੀਵਨ ਵਿਚ) ਉਹੀ ਕਾਮਯਾਬ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ (ਦੋਹਾਂ ਰਸਤਿਆਂ ਵਿਚੋਂ) ਇਕ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨੂੰੂ ਚੇਤੇ ਰੱਖਦਾ ਹੈ,
One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated.
*ਕੁਫਰ ਗੋਅ ਕੁਫਰਾਣੈ ਪਇਆ ਦਝਸੀ ॥ 
(ਨਹੀਂ ਤਾਂ) ਝੂਠ ਵਿਚ ਗ਼ਲਤਾਨ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੀ ਸੜਦਾ ਹੈ ।
One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn.*
ਸਭ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਸੁਬਹਾਨੁ ਸਚਿ ਸਮਾਈਐ _॥ _
ਜੋ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਸਦਾ ਕਾਇਮ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਵਿਚ ਜੁੜਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਲਈ ਸਾਰਾ ਜਗਤ ਸੋਹਣਾ ਹੈ,
In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth.
ਸਿਝੈ ਦਰਿ ਦੀਵਾਨਿ ਆਪੁ ਗਵਾਈਐ _॥੯॥ _
ਉਹ ਖ਼ੁਦੀ ਮਿਟਾ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੇ ਦਰ ਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਦਰਗਾਹ ਵਿਚ ਸੁਰਖ਼ਰੂ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ।੯।
One who eliminates selfishness and conceit is redeemed in the Court of the Lord. ||9||


----------



## Kully (Mar 4, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> Creation was born of the light and the light is in the creation.



Agreed. Look at the highlighted text and ask why Guru Sahib would give such vivid descriptions if none were true? 

ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੪ _॥ _
Shalok, Fourth Mehla:
ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਵਿਚਿ ਵਡੀ ਵਡਿਆਈ ਜੋ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ _॥ _
ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਵਿਚ ਇਹ ਭਾਰਾ ਗੁਣ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਹਰ ਰੋਜ਼ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ-ਨਾਮ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ
Great is the greatness within the True Guru, who meditates night and day on the Name of the Lord, Har, Har.
ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਰਮਤ ਸੁਚ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੇ ਹੀ ਤ੍ਰਿਪਤਾਵੈ _॥ _
ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਸੱੁਚ ਤੇ ਸੰਜਮ ਹਰਿ-ਨਾਮ ਦਾ ਜਾਪ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਉਹ ਹਰਿ-ਨਾਮ ਵਿਚ ਹੀ ਤ੍ਰਿਪਤ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹ
The repetition of the Name of the Lord, Har, Har, is his purity and self-restraint; with the Name of the Lord, He is satisfied.
ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਤਾਣੁ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਦੀਬਾਣੁ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੋ ਰਖ ਕਰਾਵੈ _॥ _
ਹਰਿ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਹੀ ਆਸਰਾ ਤੇ ਨਾਮ ਹੀ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਲਈ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ
The Lord's Name is His power, and the Lord's Name is His Royal Court; the Lord's Name protects Him.
ਜੋ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇ ਪੂਜੇ ਗੁਰ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਸੋ ਮਨ ਇਛੇ ਫਲ ਪਾਵੈ _॥ _
ਜੋ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਇਸ ਗੁਰ-ਮੂਰਤੀ ਦਾ ਪੂਜਨ ਚਿੱਤ ਲਾ ਕੇ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ (ਭਾਵ, ਜੋ ਜੀਵ ਗਹੁ ਨਾਲ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੇ ਉਪਰ-ਲਿਖੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਾਰਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ) ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਉਹੀ ਫਲ ਮਿਲ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਦੀ ਮਨ ਵਿਚ ਇੱਛਾ ਕਰੇ ।
One who centers his consciousness and worships the Guru, obtains the fruits of his mind's desires.
ਜੋ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਕਰੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੇ ਕੀ ਤਿਸੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਮਾਰ ਦਿਵਾਵੈ _॥ _
ਜੋ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਪੂਰੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਮਾਰ ਪਵਾਉਂਦਾ ਹ
But one who slanders the Perfect True Guru, shall be killed and destroyed by the Creator.
ਫੇਰਿ ਓਹ ਵੇਲਾ ਓਸੁ ਹਥਿ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਓਹੁ ਆਪਣਾ ਬੀਜਿਆ ਆਪੇ ਖਾਵੈ _॥ _
ਆਪਣੀ ਹੱਥੀਂ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਦਾ ਬੀਜ ਬੀਜੇ ਦਾ ਫਲ ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਭੋਗਣਾ ਪੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ (ਤਦੋਂ ਪਛਤਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ) ਫੇਰ ਜੋ ਵੇਲਾ (ਨਿੰਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਿਚ ਬੀਤ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ) ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਮਿਲਦਾ ਨਹੀਂ,
This opportunity shall not come into his hands again; he must eat what he himself has planted.
*ਨਰਕਿ ਘੋਰਿ ਮੁਹਿ ਕਾਲੈ ਖੜਿਆ ਜਿਉ ਤਸਕਰੁ ਪਾਇ ਗਲਾਵੈ ॥ 
ਤੇ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਚੋਰ ਨੂੰ ਗਲ ਵਿਚ ਰੱਸੀ ਪਾ ਕੇ ਲੈ ਜਾਈਦਾ ਹੈ ਤਿਵੇਂ ਕਾਲਾ ਮੂੰਹ ਕਰ ਕੇ (ਮਾਨੋ) ਡਰਾਉਣੇ ਨਰਕ ਵਿਚ (ਉਸ ਨੂੰ ਭੀ) ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ ।
He shall be taken to the most horrible hell, with his face blackened like a thief, and a noose around his neck.*
ਫਿਰਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਸਰਣੀ ਪਵੈ ਤਾ ਉਬਰੈ ਜਾ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ _॥ _
ਫੇਰ ਇਸ (ਨਿੰਦਾ-ਰੂਪ ਘੋਰ ਨਰਕ ਵਿਚੋਂ) ਤਾਂ ਹੀ ਬਚਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਸਰਨੀ ਪੈ ਕੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦਾ ਨਾਮ ਜਪੇ
But if he should again take to the Sanctuary of the True Guru, and meditate on the Name of the Lord, Har, Har, then he shall be saved.
ਹਰਿ ਬਾਤਾ ਆਖਿ ਸੁਣਾਏ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਹਰਿ ਕਰਤੇ ਏਵੈ ਭਾਵੈ _॥੧॥ _
ਨਾਨਕ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ (ਦੇ ਦਰ) ਦੀਆਂ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਆਖ ਕੇ ਸੁਣਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ; ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਇਉਂ ਹੀ ਭਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ (ਕਿ ਨਿੰਦਕ ਈਰਖਾ ਦੇ ਨਰਕ ਵਿਚ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਪਿਆ ਸੜੇ) ।੧।
Nanak speaks and proclaims the Lord's Story; as it pleases the Creator, so does he speak. ||1||



Harkiran Kaur said:


> Gurbani also speaks about the Gurmukh knowing their OWN self and that He is Me. Now if it’s saying that the divine resides within all of us, and that is our true identity, the atma is part of the paramatma, then how can there be a physical heaven or hell?



Just as the divine resides in us, in this world. This planet that we have called Earth is existing right? It was created at some stage by Sri Sarab Kaal and at some stage in Sri Sarab Kaal's leela will be destroyed, but it does exist doesn't it? How can it exist physically if the divine is in us and the earth itself? 



Harkiran Kaur said:


> We’re already in oneness with Creator.



Only earlier you were saying that hell is being separate from Sri Sarab Kaal.


----------



## Original (Mar 4, 2018)

Good morning Everyone,

Dear Truthsikher

You write,* "if Christianity can be proven wrong, then what makes Sikhism so right?"*

Allow me to share with you the following: religious experience rises above such intellectual parameters [right n wrong] and since they both [Christianity n Sikhism] fall within the ambit of "religion", they cannot be intellectually analysed. Religion is a system of belief based on the "faith" of the individual. You either believe or you don't, full stop. Arguments will forever remain inconclusive because objective testing cannot be had. Experience alone, will confirm the validity of the holy scriptures and that experience has to be your own. Moreover, Sikhism is a religion that was "revealed" and not found through the hard-graft of the mind, nor the empirical observation of the sciences. The ultimate truth [metaphysical, Nanak's *satnam*] that we all seek doesn't come about through rational thinking and argument but through revelation, intuition and mystical experience. You've obviously yet to experience that "eternal truth" [God]. Have faith for it is that faith, which constitutes belief and it is belief that manifests into "revelations" where the individual experiences metaphysical excursions.


Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions.


..incorrect ! Oldest religions are still practiced by certain tribes in Africa [stand corrected].


Truthsikher31 said:


> So then what makes Sikhism so right and real.


Nanak the founder of Sikhism, questioned "what is real" and concluded that "alone" God is real and that conscious experience constitutes reality. He departed from the hard-headed realists who believed tables, chairs, plants, animals, universe, etc are the only objects representing *reality*. He went on to affirm that conscious experience [living in the moment, meeting God] is primary and called it, ultimate reality. From this perspective [Sikhism] the external reality [tables n chairs] that appears to constitute the ambient environment of this experience is to be understood as a reflection of the ultimate reality, a construct that is abstracted from conscious sense-data, meaning, God. In other words, matter is but part of God and God an experience. 


Truthsikher31 said:


> Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back, and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own, and then never to be heard from anyone again.


..you are to believe that these individuals experienced something that we call "irrational" and that their experiences are tabled in these so called scriptures. Those who go on to believe in the writings of these scriptures "actually" experience the same and hence the reason they endorse the scriptures to be authentic and real. This then forms the basis of their belief.


Truthsikher31 said:


> Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God. And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him, we' d call them crazy.


Sikhs speak to God everyday - their prayers, recitations, remembrance is actually a medium of communicating with God.


Truthsikher31 said:


> To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion.


That will be your prerogative !

Nice to have you interacting with practicing Sikhs.


Aman Singh said:


> You are judging Sikhi from the crooked prism of misleading _Vedic_ or _Abrahamic_ interpretations.


..back it up with evidence and try telling the believers of the faiths in question ! Its never a Sikh thing to call "theological" concepts as misleading. It goes to show how much of the Sikh you are "not" and yet, self-appoint yourself to be the advocate ? Don't knock other belief systems on the one hand and then on the other, go on to promote inter-faith education at SPN.


Aman Singh said:


> This very forum, which has its roots firmly rooted in Punjab,


...yeah, it sure has, just the SIKH bit. The philosophy network is foreign and pretty much youth-centric. Hardly any of the think-tank at SPN is from Punjab, or Punjabi literate. How its rooted in Punjab beats me ?


Aman Singh said:


> We firmly denounce all such fairly tales and anything which is inconsistent to common sense.


..since when did common sense come into Sikhism ? You need to brush up bro - sending out mixed messages here ! Read up on "manmukh" [common sense] and "gurmukh" [gur sense]. It is Guru's mat [wisdom] that underpins Sikhism and not your Jo Blogg Man mat [common sense] - get it right shall we !

The entire creation is Sikh, meaning, students. Those that follow Guru's way of life are called Gursikhs and those that follow their own mental constructs or contemporary belief n value are called Manmukhs. The difference is in belief and not knowledge. The "believers" of Guru Nanak Mat and His successors, including Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are called Sikhs. The rest, respectively, as beautiful human beings part of the whole Ekonkar {God].

Many thanks - enjoy Sunday


----------



## Kully (Mar 4, 2018)

Original said:


> Hardly any of the think-tank at SPN is from Punjab, or Punjabi literate.



That is scary.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 4, 2018)

Kully said:


> That is scary.



why? what is so special about input from the Punjab? Does it have a monopoly on the truth? if anything Punjab taints Sikhism with its own brand of misogyny, racism, caste prejudice, Babas and Sants in BMW's with red lights, superstitions and a strong belief in Sakhis, most of which are incorrect. No, what is scary is that while the rest of the world questions and grows, Punjab is still routed in the Sikhism of years ago, which I guess suits some people, maybe those that would seek to control, those that seek to write definitively as if they know the game and everyone else is a {censored},

5" Car Warning Red Flashing Strobe Beacon Emergency Lights 12V For Car Pickup  | eBay

i think they are on special if anyone who is scared is interested.


----------



## Kully (Mar 4, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> why? what is so special about input from the Punjab?



Nothing wrong with not being from Punjab, but the "Punjabi literate" is the one that is of concern. 

The standard of Punjabi language spoken and written word understood. 




Harry Haller said:


> Does it have a monopoly on the truth?



No, it just has a stronger connection to understanding Gurmat. Case in point. On this forum, we had a respected admin and another poster, both non-Punjabi speakers/readers/writers. To their dismay, they read a text in english and then got the wrong idea about it. Yet they made their views on the text seem like they had understood it, in it's entirety. Yet after there was some linguistic effort made into looking at the same text, we saw an entirely different scenario being presented. Now both member and admin can understand it more accurately.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 4, 2018)

Kully said:


> Nothing wrong with not being from Punjab, but the "Punjabi literate" is the one that is of concern.
> 
> The standard of Punjabi language spoken and written word understood.



now that would be utter rubbish my friend, for if that were the case, then Punjab would stand up as the very pinnacle of understanding, instead it is fact the pinnace of Babas, Sants and superstition. The problem that I see is the culture of parent worship, now, I love my mum and dad hugely, I also matha tek my parents, although not daily, but  they remain the most important people in my life, however, there seems to be an attitude that whatever they taught us, whatever we learned from their knees, is sacrosanct, and must never be questioned, so any growth in learning is quite limited, whereas I question, I doubt, I bring in litmus tests, what your camp bring to the table is simply faith, and this faith is so precious to you, that it rises above logic, common sense and more importantly consistency.



Kully said:


> No, it just has a stronger connection to understanding Gurmat. Case in point. On this forum, we had a respected admin and another poster, both non-Punjabi speakers/readers/writers. To their dismay, they read a text in english and then got the wrong idea about it. Yet they made their views on the text seem like they had understood it, in it's entirety. Yet after there was some linguistic effort made into looking at the same text, we saw an entirely different scenario being presented. Now both member and admin can understand it more accurately.



can you put a link to the thread so that I can fully understand your argument?


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 5, 2018)

Exactly we are never actually separate because there is only ONE in existence. Akal Purakh exists as both ONE and ALL at the same time.

The problem is unlike the drop of water separated from the ocean, we have been in the ocean all along... we just forgot we were here. 

Heaven and Hell are metaphors because in truth, ALL is illusion except ONEness. There is only ONE actor playing ALL the parts of ALL beings... Ang 736. But the costumes (us) are being played by the same ONE. How can a costume experience heaven or hell? And the conscious awareness behind the costumes, is Akal Purakh. How can ONE Creator existing as formless experience heaven or hell? 

Within the ‘play’ or dream or illusion, sure we can create artificial hells for ourself. Like financial ruin, etc. Or artificial heavens like surrounding ourselves with money or influential people etc. But when the actor finishes the play and all the costumes are removed we all will collectively wake up and realize we were all the same ONE. 

There is no ‘soul’ except for Waheguru. The bodies are false. Who does that leave to experience heaven or hell? 




Kully said:


> I'm not confused. Thats just a convenient answer for you, as it avoids answering the statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 5, 2018)

Read between the lines... hell is being separated (or rather THINKING we are separated) from Waheguru. 

Read the line above the one you highlighted. It speaks about THIS opportunity. If we do not use his opportunity to find our true identity and divine light within ourselves then we will experience torment of not knowing Akal Purakh. Not knowing Akal Purakh for a Gurmukh is worse than any worst description one can come up with for torment so the descriptions just drive that home. Remember we are trying to understand concepts beyond the physical, using physical metaphors. We obviously can’t describe nonphysical concepts without doing this. 

It’s like saying... if you don’t use this chance to meet God while in this life, you feel such (inner) torment that it will be like a thousand hot pokers being stuck in your side etc. I am obviously not saying you will have hot pokers stuck in your side... 



Kully said:


> Agreed. Look at the highlighted text and ask why Guru Sahib would give such vivid descriptions if none were true?
> 
> ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੪ _॥ _
> Shalok, Fourth Mehla:
> ...


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 5, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> now that would be utter rubbish my friend, for if that were the case, then Punjab would stand up as the very pinnacle of understanding, instead it is fact the pinnace of Babas, Sants and superstition. The problem that I see is the culture of parent worship, now, I love my mum and dad hugely, I also matha tek my parents, although not daily, but  they remain the most important people in my life, however, there seems to be an attitude that whatever they taught us, whatever we learned from their knees, is sacrosanct, and must never be questioned, so any growth in learning is quite limited, whereas I question, I doubt, I bring in litmus tests, what your camp bring to the table is simply faith, and this faith is so precious to you, that it rises above logic, common sense and more importantly consistency.
> 
> 
> 
> can you put a link to the thread so that I can fully understand your argument?



He is speaking about Dasam Granth and myself I assume and no by no means did his arguments and his own ‘interpretations’ of the whole chapter in question, changed my mind about how much it degraded women. He thinks somehow his theories successfully explained away all the degrading comments in that text towards women. He’s wrong. He didn’t sway me one iota. He may have convinced himself only.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 5, 2018)

Harkiran Kaur said:


> He is speaking about Dasam Granth and myself I assume and no by no means did his arguments and his own ‘interpretations’ of the whole chapter in question, changed my mind about how much it degraded women. He thinks somehow his theories successfully explained away all the degrading comments in that text towards women. He’s wrong. He didn’t sway me one iota. He may have convinced himself only.



no, I don't think he is talking about you, on the occasion in question whoever he is talking about accepted they were at fault and admitted they were wrong, which is why I have asked for the link, I know your views on the topic, I do not think you would have accepted any other interpretation than the one you are comfortable with, so who is it?


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 5, 2018)

Kully said:


> No miracles? The Gurus performed many actions that were miraculous. These miracles were not for their own gains but to remind Man of his reason for this birth.


Please provide examples  of miracles?


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Mar 5, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> Please provide examples of miracles?


Please define what you mean by "miracle." The definition I use is"A miracle is a temporary suspension of natural law by or through a supernatural being."

This definition has gotten me into trouble. When my dear friend had a baby and called it a it miracle, she got very angry when I tried to explain to her that a baby, while wondrous, is the operation of natural law, not its suspension and therefore not a miracle. It took me a moment to realize that we were using two different definitions. 

Without knowing how you define the word, it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion.


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 5, 2018)

Inderjeet Kaur said:


> Please define what you mean by "miracle." The definition I use is"A miracle is a temporary suspension of natural law by or through a supernatural being."
> 
> This definition has gotten me into trouble. When my dear friend had a baby and called it a it miracle, she got very angry when I tried to explain to her that a baby, while wondrous, is the operation of natural law, not its suspension and therefore not a miracle. It took me a moment to realize that we were using two different definitions.
> 
> Without knowing how you define the word, it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion.


OK cool let's go with the definition you reference . 

So using that definition does anyone  have any evidence of them performing miracles?


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Mar 9, 2018)

chazSingh said:


> good post...
> very interesting...and to be honest....many many sikhs would go along with this notion...just another man made religion...nothing to it....
> and so, most people will just live their lives...but hope they do enough good to get a place in some kind of heaven just in case their really is a God...lol
> 
> ...



chazSingh,

Thanks for the reply.  My approach to this post was to question beyond Sikhi, and when I say beyond I dont mean spiritually.  Beyond as in what came before.  Because most major events in history were inspired by or affected by events that came before.  So when I started questioning Sikhi, why do we follow 5ks, how did it come about, how were Guru's chosen, even what did Gurus do on a daily basis.  See like when people think of Jesus, they know baby Jesus and adult Jesus, but the bible and their history skip or never talk much about his journey or what he did or what events happen during that gap.  So we to also have a Sikh history.  It talks about the wars/battles, the miracles, the teachings, etc.  So the Gurus unlike "Jesus" (who's like this God like being), the Gurus were just human. So they must have lives with their families.  So I started wondering about their lives, and where it all started.  What inspired Guru Nanak to take that step.  But the world did not start with Sikhi or Guru Nanak.  There is world history before that.  And so if you start to going backwards in history, like what events were occurring prior to Sikhism, and things before those events.  You can almost find the origins of "religion".  Christianity and Islam, are few of the oldest religions.  Some here comment that there were tribes in Africa that still exist today, or Hindus or Taoism came before Christians, fair enough I wont argue the validity of that.  But Tribal worshipers, how much credit are you really going to give them.  Their beliefs and thoughts were in a time of uncertainty.  Really a Sun god, or Hinduism - multiple gods.  Gods with multi arms, or elephants, or multi heads. Gimme a break.  Hinduism would require a separate post.  But still they all came before Sikhism.  Sorry might have gone off topic from your reply

But for me, I would call myself a practicing Sikh.  I have not taken Amrit, so don't practice all the 5ks, so guess according to some rules, can't be considered a Khalsa Sikh.  But anyways, I've kept my Kesh my whole life.  Didn't think much of it, just its my religion, we do it because we're born into a Sikh family and part of the Sikh community, so must follow what they say.  Never questioning why, but whats fascinating, now that I'm older, have two kids of my own, I start to question all these thoughts.  First choice was my parents, and do be honest they did not have much answers, and I feel like much of their generation never thought to question Sikism, hell you all know most women in our parents and grandparents times didnt have any equality.  Can you imagine a woman raising half the questions on this Website to their parents.  So my parents say I need to speak to a Bhai saab.  I feel like majority won't have answers, they'll prolly say "It's God's will".  I could be wrong, but lets face it, most Bhai Saabs are in it for non-spiritual reasons.  Hell some sell CDs.  I guess I'm on my own journey right now, and with what limited sources I have, I've turned to WWW.  It's at least helped me to learn lil bit of Sikh history.  And I'm trying to view things from a realistic, logical point of view.  Not spiritual.  And I might not ever be done with my search, but one question was the validity of religion(s).  If Christians today can question and have valid proof that their religion isnt all that true - or not realistic, then that really questions the existence of God.  Because even though religion is man made, they claim that it is the word of God that they do what they do.  So if religions start with God, but God doesn't exist, then what does it say about the Gurus who created Sikhism.  

I know I might be picking on Christianity a lot, but I question the validity of other religions (Islam, Hinduism, etc.) just the same. They all have hard to believe explanations.


----------



## Harkiran Kaur (Mar 10, 2018)

Actually Mithraism and Zoroastrianism came before Abrahamic religion... and don’t forget ancient Egypt. Wait there seems to be something intriguing going on....


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 10, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Really a Sun god, or Hinduism - multiple gods. Gods with multi arms, or elephants, or multi heads. Gimme a break. Hinduism would require a separate post.



Ultimately Hindus believe in one god, the facets of which are not unlike the God as described in Sikhism, in my opinion.

Brahman is the name of the God, Hindus are though, it seems, allowed to worship this God in any form they wish, which explains the plethora of Gods.

There are different sects that focus on different Gods, but ultimately its all Brahman. 

here is one of many links on the subject

God in Hinduism - Wikipedia


----------



## namritanevaeh (Mar 11, 2018)

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........



I find people start off by saying Sikhi is a way of life. And then the rules start.

You must keep your hair.
You must not have sex outside of marriage.
You must bow down before ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ.
You must not drink.

And it goes on and on with one "sikh" dissing another for what they do that falls outside what sikhi "prescribes".

There are 52 hukkams. How is that not a list of rules?


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 11, 2018)

I am pretty sure you don't actually have to do anything, it is society and traditions that dictate the do's and don'ts, I do not consider myself a Sikh as I have no belief in theology, I accept a higher power exists, but my own belief is that is is absolutely non interventionist, and when your dead, your dead, however, if did believe in the theology, I absolutely would consider myself a Sikh despite not doing any of the above, I have no problem bowing, I bow to my parents after an absence, I have no problem bowing before the SGGS, but if I did not, it would not negate me from being a Sikh, the rules are man made, at the end of the day, you make your own peace with yourself and your creator in your own way. 

That is not to say the above rules do not have a point, I feel the hair is a vanity thing, if everyone looks the same, vanity as a concept is negated, sex outside marriage, again, makes sense, you don't end up at the STD clinic and be on first names with the nurses, the bowing, I guess that is a mixture of the traditional way of showing respect in India, and showing humility, and the drink and the drugs, I lost a lot of time to both, a lot of time, managed to get through in one piece, but I know many that did not make it, 

At the end of the day its a personal choice, the advice is there, but it remains a personal thing, funnily enough, now I am approaching 50, I keep whatever hair appears on my head, now that there is very little there, I have a disdain for casual sex, the urges fade with time, but I am glad I got into treble figures, although looking back, each one left their own baggage with me, as a young man, I was proud and egoistical, now I laugh at it all, I don't go out of my way to be humble, but humility does not scare me, and I hardly drink, rarely, and even then, maybe a glass of wine. 

Funny how it all comes back round again


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 11, 2018)

namritanevaeh said:


> I find people start off by saying Sikhi is a way of life. And then the rules start.



I call it Lifestyle but it is definitely not a religion as religion is defined and also as compared to other religions.



namritanevaeh said:


> You must keep your hair



Well, not really. I personally find it uncomfortable when non-Sikhs are told to keep hair and take khandei de pahul in order to embrace Sikhi. This is not the message of the SGGS, our only Guru, but the total ignorance laced with imposition by the honchos of Sikhi. This is sheer segregation in my view.

In my personal opinion, keeping kesh was a defiance as was wearing turbans or riding horses,  because the latter two were forbidden for the commoner by the Hindu upper class and also by the Mughal emperors.

As far as keeping unshorn hair is concerned, Hindus used to shave heads of their children of both sexes at a very young age as a ritual called mundan which our Gurus may have thought to be futile, hence keeping one's kesh became the defiance to the ritual. However, there are many Sikhs who do not keep unshorn hair and are called sehajdhari Sikhs, sehaj meaning slow paced in this sense. Not all who considered themselves Sikhs during the day of Vaisakhi in 1699 took khandei de pahul either and many had unshorn hair then. The majority still do not take khandei  de pahul but they call themselves Sikhs either with kesh and turban or without.

There are many sehajdhari Sikhs in Sikhi. One of the well-known ones is a Sikh scholar, Dr Harbans Lal who was the first sehajdhari Sikh to become the head of a Sikh Association of some sort. You can google him if you wish to and he is also on FB. He is married to a German and lives in Texas and a well known Sikh scholar.

In the past, most of the Hindu Punjabi families had their first child, sadly a boy, to be a Sikh with kesh etc. etc. Hence one will find many Hindu families having Sikhs in their families because of this.



namritanevaeh said:


> You must not have sex outside of marriage.



Well, that is a moral code that the societies want to abide by to have a long married life together.
Would you let yourself or your spouse have sex outside your marriage provided that was your case?
If you meant sex before marriage, in other words, remain a virgin, then it is a different thing and is sadly favourable to the male gender than to the female one which is unfair.
This is worth mentioning again as it was said before in another thread that virginity lies between one's two ears, not between one's two legs. Masturbation and wet dreams in both sexes prove that whether one is a virgin or not.



namritanevaeh said:


> You must bow down before ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ.



What do you understand by 'bow down before ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ'?
Once you expand on what you mean by the above, then only I will be able to respond.



namritanevaeh said:


> You must not drink.



I suppose you mean drinking alcohol if I am not mistaken. We all know its mals. We see AA all around the world. DUI is a crime. Many kill and get killed while driving drunk daily. So, I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Would you please expand on it?



namritanevaeh said:


> And it goes on and on with one "sikh" dissing another for what they do that falls outside what sikhi "prescribes".
> There are 52 hukkams. How is that not a list of rules?



Would you be kind enough to expand on the above as well, please? Thanks.


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 11, 2018)

Original said:


> Moreover, Sikhism is a religion that was "revealed" and not found through the hard-graft of the mind, nor the empirical observation of the sciences. The ultimate truth [metaphysical, Nanak's *satnam*] that we all seek doesn't come about through rational thinking and argument but through revelation, intuition and mystical experience. You've obviously yet to experience that "eternal truth" [God]. Have faith for it is that faith, which constitutes belief and it is belief that manifests into "revelations" where the individual experiences metaphysical excursions.


That's quite a statement to make please elaborate and qualify your opinion.. I don't necessarily disagree with it but it suggests that the pursuit of truth and the application of critical thinking is not required..but rather blind faith.. 
Can you please provide examples of revelation..? 





Original said:


> Sikhs speak to God everyday - their prayers, recitations, remembrance is actually a medium of communicating with God.


Sikhs speak to God..? Hhhhmmm curious.. Recitations are a medium of communicating with God..? Which mantra should we be reciting ? 

For me 
Naam japo.. Recite naam  , sat naam =truth is the name.. 
Always speak truth?


----------



## namritanevaeh (Mar 11, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> sex outside marriage, again, makes sense, you don't end up at the STD clinic and be on first names with the nurses, [...] I have a disdain for casual sex, the urges fade with time, but I am glad I got into treble figures, although looking back, each one left their own baggage with me, as a young man, I was proud and egoistical, now I laugh at it all, I don't go out of my way to be humble, but humility does not scare me, and I hardly drink, rarely, and even then, maybe a glass of wine.
> 
> Funny how it all comes back round again



True.

Some of what you say is totally true, but it's entirely possible to have sex, casual sex, and avoid being high risk for STD's. Similarly, being married does NOT guarantee no STD's, as that is partly based on the faithfulness of your PARTNER, and im sûre we mostly know a lot of people just aren't.

I have to say though, as I age, I view STD's very differently than i did as a teen. I think partly it was that as i ended my teen years, HIV was a very.big.deal. and it was considered a definite death. Now, I view it totally differently. Science has made such huge advances, that neither HIV nor Hepatitis B are "guaranteed death within 10 years". Yeah you may ultimately die from complications related to HIV if you are unlucky and get it BUT, with modern médecines people are literally living 40-50+ years, decently long lives, WITH HIV. And there are no other STD's currently that are not really cureable, the way they were terrible centuries ago. There are treatments for gonnorhea or syphillis. Etc.

So as I see it, you can eat a bag of improperly washed salad from the store which is recalled for E. coli contamination, and die from that bug...but we don't say salad is unhealthy for us.

Sex in general, is good for us. It helps prevent certain things (prostate cancer in men for example), and is good for our mental health.

So Yeah. There's a small risk from sex...EVEN if you're being super careful. Broken condom. Unfaithful partner when you think you're being monogamous.

But overall I feel the benefits outweigh the risks, when we can die from things like salad too.  and salad is healthy for us. We can die crossing the street after looking both ways...but it's good to go out and take a walk, nobody says otherwise.


----------



## namritanevaeh (Mar 12, 2018)

Tejwant Singh said:


> In the past, most of the Hindu Punjabi families had their first child, sadly a boy, to be a Sikh with kesh etc. etc. Hence one will find many Hindu families having Sikhs in their families because of this.



Interesting. I'm glad to see someone who isn't so caught up in dogma to insist if you dare cut your hair you're no longer a valid Sikh. Refreshing.



Tejwant Singh said:


> Well, that is a moral code that the societies want to abide by to have a long married life together.
> Would you let yourself or your spouse have sex outside your marriage provided that was your case?



Well, I certainly know groups who are polyamorous by choice. And often it works well for them. However that is VERY different from hidden cheating. Very.




Tejwant Singh said:


> If you meant sex before marriage, in other words, remain a virgin, then it is a different thing and is sadly favourable to the male gender than to the female one which is unfair.


Very true



Tejwant Singh said:


> What do you understand by 'bow down before ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ'?
> Once you expand on what you mean by the above, then only I will be able to respond.



I don't really mean that it's "necessary", but it is certainly expected. I have even felt if I am going past the darbar hall without making appropriate bowing gestures, that people certainly look at me crooked. 


Tejwant Singh said:


> I suppose you mean drinking alcohol if I am not mistaken. We all know its mals. We see AA all around the world. DUI is a crime. Many kill and get killed while driving drunk daily. So, I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Would you please expand on it?



There is nothing wrong in being alcohol free. I myself have not had any since 2015. I feel no "need", and I was not an alcoholic at the time either. I would occasionally drink with my parents, a glass of wine or a beer. But after then I haven't, I just haven't had the desire. There are a lot of "holier than thous" who insist one should never drink. I realize it is an illness some can't stop once they start, but equally many people are quite capable of drinking sensibly, never drinking and driving, never getting violent under the influence, etc. So I don't see drinking as "all bad".

But that being said I think it is written in rehat maryada, based on guru Gobind singh Ji's 52 hukkams, not to drink?



Tejwant Singh said:


> Would you be kind enough to expand on the above as well, please? Thanks.



Surely you've heard of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 52 hukkams? I know many Sikhs consider them somewhat like "commandments", obligatory rules. Though I have also heard there is some disagreement over them (& rehat), as to who originally wrote them, politics etc.

But there are a lot of Sikhs who insist they are the code of conduct for all to follow otherwise you can't call yourself Sikh. Despite Sikh, as a word, meaning learner. I just find in general it's a bit hypocritical of people to say one instant that sikhi is a way of life (which I do often hear), and almost the next minute "oh but you're not a true Sikh if you drink/cut your hair(etc)"...

And I do hear it. Sometimes from the same people. Sometimes within a short period of time.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Mar 12, 2018)

namritanevaeh said:


> Interesting. I'm glad to see someone who isn't so caught up in dogma to insist if you dare cut your hair you're no longer a valid Sikh. Refreshing.



Sikhi is not dogmatic because it is not dependent on any deities. So, it has nothing to do with not getting caught up in dogma. It has a much deeper meaning though. The invaders at the time of Sikhi used to kidnap Hindu women and rape them. Sikhs used to get them back. 
Hindu girls, until today are urged to get a turbaned Sikh taxi driver for their own safety. Sikhs were considered trustworthy by the Brits even though they treated them awfully bad. So, having a Sikh son in a Hindu family was a safety issue for the whole family and still is.



namritanevaeh said:


> Well, I certainly know groups who are polyamorous by choice. And often it works well for them.



Yes, I know them too but that is not what we are talking about here. There are many polyamorous communities all around the world but that is not the mode de vie for the majority.



namritanevaeh said:


> However that is VERY different from hidden cheating. Very.



So, you did mean adultery then when you said, "sex outside the marriage."  And btw, cheating is always hidden.



namritanevaeh said:


> I don't really mean that it's "necessary", but it is certainly expected. I have even felt if I am going past the darbar hall without making appropriate bowing gestures, that people certainly look at me crooked.



What I am gathering from you and your emoji, bowing or not bowing has nothing to do with the SGGS but with people looking at you. I have no idea who these people are. I belong to an Interfaith Council. You may check my FB page under Teji Malik for more details as it is public. I get invited and invite people to Gurdawaras. Some of them bow, some do not. I do not find any problems with that. 
Having said that, bowing has a different meaning as Harry explained it to you. So, I have no idea why you have to race your eyebrows up north for the things that you do not understand their significance.The only solution is to try to understand them in the context rather than protesting about it for naught.



namritanevaeh said:


> There is nothing wrong in being alcohol free. I myself have not had any since 2015. I feel no "need", and I was not an alcoholic at the time either. I would occasionally drink with my parents, a glass of wine or a beer. But after then I haven't, I just haven't had the desire.



I used to drink too many moons ago. Not anymore. People who belong to LDS-Mormon church do not drink alcohol and coffee. If everyone knew what moderation is, then we would not be having drinking problems all over the world. So, I have no idea what you gripe is about refraining from drinking and smoking in Sikhi. I am a bit bewildered that you did not mention the latter.



namritanevaeh said:


> There are a lot of "holier than thous" who insist one should never drink. I realize it is an illness some can't stop once they start, but equally many people are quite capable of drinking sensibly, never drinking and driving, never getting violent under the influence, etc. So I don't see drinking as "all bad".



I fail to understand what kind of satisfaction you get by talking about others in this way or with your emojis. I have no idea who is holier than thou here nor do I care because it does not affect me personally. I  also think drinking is not that bad because perhaps I do not drink anymore but I drive people home during drinking holidays. I used to think drinking was a very good thing when I used to drink.



namritanevaeh said:


> Surely you've heard of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 52 hukkams? I know many Sikhs consider them somewhat like "commandments", obligatory rules. Though I have also heard there is some disagreement over them (& rehat), as to who originally wrote them, politics etc.



I have no idea whether you are a Sikh or not. If you are the latter, then please stop scrutinising other religions' practices that do not have any effect on you. 
What joy does it bring to you except disdain? I am very well aware of the 52 Hukumnaamas as they are called. 

As far rehat is concerned and what is written in it, I wrote an article about the changes it needed and often, many years ago. You can find it here on SPN under my name.



Surely you've heard of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's 52 hukkams? I know many Sikhs consider them somewhat like "commandments", obligatory rules. Though I have also heard there is some disagreement over them (& rehat), as to who originally wrote them, politics etc.


----------



## Truthsikher31 (Mar 12, 2018)

Aman Singh said:


> Dear @Truthsikher31 ji
> 
> You are judging Sikhi from the crooked prism of misleading _Vedic_ or _Abrahamic_ interpretations. A philosophy, which has its roots firmly in immersed in applying common-sense and questioning everything... so judging it within the cultural boundaries of particular region is a little shortsightedness IMHO.
> 
> ...



Aman Singh,
Thats great if SPN denounces "fairy tales" but like I mentioned in one of my replies, my resources are limited.  I've turned to mostly online forums, YouTube videos, social media (FB, Twitter, etc.), and those other sources have some aggressive/abusive response - from the Sikhi side.  You'll have responses like death to poster because they want to cut their hair, or dont believe in the same faith.  Very hateful responses.  Most of them do sound immature, could be youngsters who haven't matured or learned enough, or experienced much in life.  Could be elder generations to, can't never tell.  But I'm not judging those here in SPN, its just an overall observation i'm seeing.  

I didnt mean literally by death sentence.  But like most of our parents, and generations before would never give a proper debate if you asked something about Sikhi.  And if you went complete rebel aka: cutting hair, or changing religions or leaving religion all together, then you were totally in the wrong.  Online people can be anonymous, express their true feelings, and shut it down whenever they want.  But imagine trying to taking such questions to older generations, or even take half these thoughts to places like Amritsar.  There are still some new generations who are very hardcore, and can not tolerate anything negative being said to Sikhi, the Gurus, or SGGS


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 12, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Thats great if SPN denounces "fairy tales" but like I mentioned in one of my replies, my resources are limited


why

in the age of the internet why are your resources limited? I found myself in the same situation years ago, and then, the questions were not even being asked as often as they are now. 



Truthsikher31 said:


> I've turned to mostly online forums, YouTube videos, social media (FB, Twitter, etc.



quality sources then!!



Truthsikher31 said:


> and those other sources have some aggressive/abusive response - from the Sikhi side.



what did you expect?



Truthsikher31 said:


> You'll have responses like death to poster because they want to cut their hair, or dont believe in the same faith. Very hateful responses. Most of them do sound immature, could be youngsters who haven't matured or learned enough, or experienced much in life. Could be elder generations to, can't never tell.


 could be both, 


Truthsikher31 said:


> But I'm not judging those here in SPN, its just an overall observation i'm seeing.


SPN is in a different league to the social media and youtube material you have come across, its a platform that encourages mature(on the whole) talk and logical and pragmatic discussion, 


Truthsikher31 said:


> But like most of our parents, and generations before would never give a proper debate if you asked something about Sikhi. And if you went complete rebel aka: cutting hair, or changing religions or leaving religion all together, then you were totally in the wrong. Online people can be anonymous, express their true feelings, and shut it down whenever they want. But imagine trying to taking such questions to older generations, or even take half these thoughts to places like Amritsar. There are still some new generations who are very hardcore, and can not tolerate anything negative being said to Sikhi, the Gurus, or SGGS



the key is not to say anything negative, ask questions for sure, ask why, ask how, damn it, question everything, but there is no need to be negative


----------



## chazSingh (Mar 13, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> chazSingh,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.  My approach to this post was to question beyond Sikhi, and when I say beyond I dont mean spiritually.  Beyond as in what came before.  Because most major events in history were inspired by or affected by events that came before.  So when I started questioning Sikhi, why do we follow 5ks, how did it come about, how were Guru's chosen, even what did Gurus do on a daily basis.  See like when people think of Jesus, they know baby Jesus and adult Jesus, but the bible and their history skip or never talk much about his journey or what he did or what events happen during that gap.  So we to also have a Sikh history.  It talks about the wars/battles, the miracles, the teachings, etc.  So the Gurus unlike "Jesus" (who's like this God like being), the Gurus were just human. So they must have lives with their families.  So I started wondering about their lives, and where it all started.  What inspired Guru Nanak to take that step.  But the world did not start with Sikhi or Guru Nanak.  There is world history before that.  And so if you start to going backwards in history, like what events were occurring prior to Sikhism, and things before those events.  You can almost find the origins of "religion".  Christianity and Islam, are few of the oldest religions.  Some here comment that there were tribes in Africa that still exist today, or Hindus or Taoism came before Christians, fair enough I wont argue the validity of that.  But Tribal worshipers, how much credit are you really going to give them.  Their beliefs and thoughts were in a time of uncertainty.  Really a Sun god, or Hinduism - multiple gods.  Gods with multi arms, or elephants, or multi heads. Gimme a break.  Hinduism would require a separate post.  But still they all came before Sikhism.  Sorry might have gone off topic from your reply
> 
> ...




keep contemplating brother...it will move you close to waheguru even when you think it isn't... 

TRUTH has ALWAYS existed...we just need a nudge in the right direction from time to time...  you are truth seeking all the time even when you think you have gone off the rails...

learn about the lives of the Guru's...but ultimately you will need to apply Gurbani in your life now...the present moment...when you get that moment...and you will...you'll never wonder or question again...you just need to be that explorer and make that effort with Simran....daily...anchor that mind...

everything written above by you is your mind trying to understand by logic and reasoning what this whole Shizzle we call life is about...ultimately your mind will fail...
the realization is from first hand experience...endless sea of possibilities...to surrender to His Will, and die (Ego - your character..your temporary character in this play)..

anyway i'm rambling now...but seriously...be that explorer...the Sikh...confront those 5 thieves that plague you within...those stingy basta*ds  all your answers are there within you...


----------



## sukhsingh (Mar 14, 2018)

@Original?
Are you able to respond to my questions?


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 14, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> @Original?
> Are you able to respond to my questions?



I wouldn't hold your breath, even if you get a reply, it is likely to be to a question you have not asked...


----------



## Original (Mar 14, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> Are you able to respond to my questions?


Forgive me for the late response. I'm inundated with work right now, but will have a go. Pls note, I wont be able to give extensive answers, but rather, off-the-cuff explanations!

Thank you


sukhsingh said:


> That's quite a statement to make please elaborate and qualify your opinion..


It's not my opinion, convention deem Sikh a religion and religion as you know is something that supports the idea God or a superhuman agency.


sukhsingh said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with it but it suggests that the pursuit of truth and the application of critical thinking is not required..but rather blind faith..


..yes Sukh, the nature of truth [satnam] sought n found by Nanak wasn't through intellectual inquiry, but through belief>faith. Why ? Because satnam is beyond time n space - metaphysical, in terms of existence.


sukhsingh said:


> Can you please provide examples of revelation..?


..much of SGGSJ is a revelation, classic of which is your "anand sahib ji".


sukhsingh said:


> Sikhs speak to God..? Hhhhmmm curious.. Recitations are a medium of communicating with God..? Which mantra should we be reciting ?


..language of love


sukhsingh said:


> Naam japo.. Recite naam , sat naam =truth is the name..
> Always speak truth?


..granted ! anyone [atheist] can speak truth, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a desired result - God.


----------



## Harry Haller (Mar 14, 2018)

told you...., mind you, this chap manages to avoid the same question 12 times !



[


----------



## Ajmer singh Randhawa (Jun 1, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions.  Religion is supposed to be the word of God.  Yet science, common sense,  and flat out ignorant teachings  show that Christianity has many flaws or is just wrong and not real.  So then what makes Sikhism so right and real.  The bible and idea of Jesus was created 1000s of years ago,  and is very hard to believe in their so called miracles,  and yet Sikhism is only few hundred years old.  Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back,  and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own,  and then never to be heard from anyone again.  Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God.  And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him,  we' d call them crazy.
> To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion.  There is another post on this site that shows through sikh history how it's a male dominant religion . Just like every other religion, which were created 100s and 1000s of years ago.


Better you come to the point. your post is vague as it only questions if Sikh religion is a religion or a sect?
The Sikh Gurus never learnt art of performing miracles. Islam impose three conditions to declare someone as Prophet or Nabi. 
1- followerrs,
2- religious book,
3- ability tho perform miracles.
And the Siklh Gurus were blessed with these qualities.
it ts took 239 years to finally declare Sikh as religion. 
Sikh religion is now a complete, distinct, sovereign religion which guarantee its followers to take care of them right from birth to salvation after death.


----------



## Ishna (Jun 2, 2018)

Truthsikher31 said:


> Christianity has many flaws, and yet it's one of the oldest and first religions.  Religion is supposed to be the word of God.  Yet science, common sense,  and flat out ignorant teachings  show that Christianity has many flaws or is just wrong and not real.  So then what makes Sikhism so right and real.  The bible and idea of Jesus was created 1000s of years ago,  and is very hard to believe in their so called miracles,  and yet Sikhism is only few hundred years old.  Am I to believe "God" talked to the white man 1000s of years ago, sent his son only to take him back,  and then waited 1000s of years later to speak to 10 gurus in a span of 100 years, in which they perform miracles of their own,  and then never to be heard from anyone again.  Since the 10th guru, no one legitammly has claiimed to spoken to God.  And in today's time if one says they saw him or spoke to him,  we' d call them crazy.
> To me Sikhism is just another man made up religion.  There is another post on this site that shows through sikh history how it's a male dominant religion . Just like every other religion, which were created 100s and 1000s of years ago.



Christianity isn't one of the oldest and first religions.  Here's a graphic timeline so you can get some better perspective.  It was created, lets be generous and say 2000 years ago, and came out of Judaism with an injection of Greek culture.

Religion doesn't mean 'the word of God'.  It comes from a Latin word and means something more like "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods" and "obligation, the bond between man and the gods", or even to "reconnect with god".  At any rate, 'religion' is a modern Western concept and the misapplication of it might really be messing up communication about Sikhi.

And what does "white man" have to do with this?  Christianity is a Middle-Eastern religion that invaded Europe via Greece and Rome.

Sikh Gurus weren't miracle makers.

And yes, religions (in the broadest use of the word) are man-made insofar as we are humans and can only compute with our human minds.  Most religions I've come across have kernels of common spiritual insight in them.  It's just the wrapping that is different.  Sometimes the wrapping can be stifling and a adherent can't get to the insights buried under layer upon layer of convoluted man-made religion.  In my experience, Sikhi has one of the thinnest layers you can find.  It is still layered with cultural and mythological stuff only relevant to the culture of the people it grew up in (like patriarchal baggage and references to Hindu myths and concepts) , but the 'common spiritual insights' in it are clear and many.  They are the pearls.  Do you see them?


----------

