# Where Is  Sikh-philosophy ?



## bscheema (May 17, 2012)

my question is where is Sikh philosophy the actual philosophy which lies in  "SHABAD" 

all here i can see a popular thought of idea of western thought western philosophy , 
why we people are  not working on our own philosophy


----------



## Ishna (May 17, 2012)

I'd like to think Sikh Philosophy is universal and not limited by East/West.  For it to be universal you will see ideas from both schools of thought.

The Truth is the Truth no matter what the nationality is.


----------



## Luckysingh (May 17, 2012)

bscheema said:


> my question is where is Sikh philosophy the actual philosophy which lies in "SHABAD"
> 
> all here i can see a popular thought of idea of western thought western philosophy ,
> why we people are not working on our own philosophy


 
The answer is within us all.
Follow the word of the shabad. - Live it and act it, breathe it, digest it.
The philosophy will all just come along and any confusions will vanish.
-Simple-


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 17, 2012)

when we buy/sew a shirt...we just wear it..not ask..Wheres the CLOTH ?? the thread..?? Its all there..BUT the SHIRT is for WEARING..practically used.


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 17, 2012)

BSCheema ji I wonder about your post.  If it was a juvenile I will look the other way.





bscheema said:


> my question is where is Sikh philosophy the actual philosophy which lies in  "SHABAD"
> 
> all here i can see a popular thought of idea of western thought western philosophy ,
> why we people are  not working on our own philosophy


BSCheema ji what are your thoughts?  Putting down all is a child's play.  Let us see some thoughts or contributions from your good-self.

Just in case you have not read, there are lots of discourses of Sabads from SGGS and other essays at SPN.  For me that suffices to great extent in contributing towards answering the question and helping define.  There is even discussion on aspects of Sikh Reht Maryada.  

If Sikh philosophy is guided by SGGS then you or others looking for summaries and short-cuts are simply being insulting.  There is a need to pay attention to all 1430 pages versus looking for stanzas, summaries or magic bullets, mantras, naam(s), the keys, etc.

Submitted unabridged to create direct addressing between adults.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## bscheema (May 18, 2012)

thanks everyone , but still your answer holds western ideology of  people like (Plato , Ernest Trump ,and many more) they gave us idea and we are speaking in that way only ,
we just say and don't even regret  "Guru Nanak was a great philosopher" "Guru Gobind singh was a great scholar and poet .we make them stand them among philosopher and poet .
isn't this a western thinking and we don't even hesitate saying  shri Guru Granth sahib A sikh scripture ,is a sikh scripture i dnt think so its a "SHABAD" devine created by akal purakh and great philosopher cannot do so , a poet cannot do so .

today we are in rush of  doing meaning of SHABAD, it says this, did our ancestor did so ,they just believe in it , can a tribe who don't understand  literature or word  can do a meaning of SHABAD , no he cannot then , how we can say SHABAD is for all human kind ,

we people say Guru Nanak was First guru of sikh , no he was guru to mankind he traveled toward every corner of world ,so SHABAD is not only  for bunch of minorities like us wearing kirpans its for human kind.everyone  in the way they are


----------



## Ishna (May 18, 2012)

They don't have poets and philosophers in the east? Is poetry and philosophy only produced by western minds?

I think the type person talking about Guru Sahibs determines the wording they will use. We are communicating in English so obviously we are going to use a lot of western terms. I wouldn't expect a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, atheist, Jew, etc to talk about Dhan Dhan Guru Nanak Sahib Ji or Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj because of course they wouldn't have that level of respect and adoration for these figures that (a lot of) Sikhs so. It is ok for a Chrsitian to call Guru Nanak a great philosopher, in fact that should be taken as a compliment.

It would be like, do you always say "Prophet Muhummad (peace be upon him)" when you speak of Muhammad, or "the Lord Jesus Christ" when you talk about Jesus? Probably not, because you don't have that kind of relationship with them.

On the other side, Sikhs in an informal environment like SPN can feel comfortable enough to talk about Gurujis without all the flowery language all of the time. We can talk frankly about their skills in poetry, war, philosophy, social service, etc without diminishing their importance, uniqueness and Divine Inspiration as Gurus.

Regarding Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it is in physical actual dictionary-definition fact a scripture. For Sikhs the message within it is Shabad, the way of live that comes from internalising this Shabad is singing the Shabad. But the cover, the pages, the ink, make a BOOK that when it is used as the main religious text becomes SCRIPTURE. They are English words, we are speaking English, and when used in the proper context the sanctity of the SCRIPTURE is preserved.

Guru Nanak was in fact the first Sikh Guru. Guruji has always existed even before Guru Nanak. Guru Nanak was the first Guru of the Sikhs. I see nothing wrong with this understanding. If I am wrong, please tell me.

And although Guru Nanak did travel, he certainly didn't travel the world in his day.

This is my opinion, correction would be happily received.

How would you prefer us to communicate, bscheema ji?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 18, 2012)

Should we stop calling Guru Nanak ji "GURU"..simply because there are Yoga Gurus, Love Gurus, IT Gurus, Sharemarket investor Gurus..etc etc..does the Title GURU make Guru nanak ji stand among these ?? Calling Guru granth sajib ji 'scripture"..doesnt make our Guru any less. GREAT....Kahan SULTAN tu Meeian..IF we call a Sultan..as Mian Ji..does it make the sultan any less sultan..or if call a Mian Ji..SULTAN..does that make the ord joe mian a sultan ??  If someone addresse me as..Aoo baitho mahapursho..it doenst add anything to me.and if he chases me out calling me Bevkoof Chunjh Agyani..it doenst make me any less..( The First happens if i say DG is Gurbani..the second happens when i say DG is utter rubbish ..or I agree that a Sikh who eats meat is NOT a Sikh...and the latter if i say Jhatka is OK for a Sikh as per srm...and many many other topics..)winkingmunda


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 18, 2012)

For one thing which we are not considering a fact of Gurbanee that the significant word is SABAD(u) not SABAD.There is a lot of difference in meanings of these two words.

In Gurbanee reference for the GuRoo is always with SABAD(u)  nowhere with the word SABAD.

I have always been pointing the significance of this understanding.Once we understand SABAD(u) we can get better understanding of GuRoo NANAK .

Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## Randip Singh (May 18, 2012)

bscheema said:


> my question is where is Sikh philosophy the actual philosophy which lies in "SHABAD"
> 
> all here i can see a popular thought of idea of western thought western philosophy ,
> why we people are not working on our own philosophy


 

I see Sikh philosophy as transcending all. It is not limited by the Western or Semetic concept of sin.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (May 18, 2012)

The Aunkadd signifies Gramatical marker Proper NOUN..singular..the aunkadd takes the palce of "CAPITAL" letter in English grammar.
Thus the word *General* hari Singh nalwa..is different in meaning to the same word.."general"..as in general subjects, general topics..etc..

And as in English..no one will say..General - CAPITAL G please..Generla hari Singh...we have no need to Pronounce the aukadd under Shabad(u) as the (u) is a Grammar marker to signify the exact same thing that Capital 'G" signifies in General-general.

Simple..but always being made into something difficult and controverted and confusing...


----------



## Harry Haller (May 18, 2012)

bscheema said:


> my question is where is Sikh philosophy the actual philosophy which lies in  "SHABAD"
> 
> all here i can see a popular thought of idea of western thought western philosophy ,
> why we people are  not working on our own philosophy



phi·los·o·phy   [fi-los-uh-fee]  Show IPA
noun, plural phi·los·o·phies.
1.
the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

I am a bit confused by your question, in my view Sikh philosophy is simply the truth by which we live our lives having already been rationally investigated, with the principles of being, knowledge and conduct set out in Shabad. 

The fact that this divine truth matches western philosophy is irrelevant, the truth is the truth, no one has a monopoly on it, however, there are parts of the SGGS that proclaim these truths years before they were even validated by science and/or the west. 

The truth is the truth my friend, there is no Sikh truth, only a Sikh confirmed truth


----------



## bscheema (May 18, 2012)

gr8 if western world call Guru Nanak a philosopher ..becoz we fail to present who he was 
there philosopher did trnsalation of gurbani like they wanred nd we acepted we never made a dialouge with marxism , earnest trumph ..is it OK !!! yea we are busy pepole ..

about GURU yea! it doesn't matter what we call them >>they never choose that word for them its was people choice or it wasnt ..Example ( a word sahib now put it every where you like ..nishan sahib , joda sahib , palang sahib ,nd nw sant di gaddi a ji ... gaddi sahib where it stands ,....and whats does exactly sahib means ..."sahib mera mehrwan "

Guru Nanak dev ji sikhan de first guru !!! how proud we feel saying that ...? was there any sikh at  that time... no!!! did he only came to enlightened sikh... no!! he was JAGAt gurU ...means he was not sikhs first guru !!! he was guru to mankind (hindu, muslim ,budhist ...)
stop saying that he was first guru to sikhs only 

pronunciation shabad or shabad(u) ..its clear from word wat im saying so its doent matter 
till ur perception is not compromised 

its ok if western world call GUru Granth sahib a scripture or book ..hey peeps ok its book 
can u find me another book called guru....u ll say holy Quran Holy BIBLE ...
are these other two carries similarity with Guru Granth sahib ...."dhur ki bani ayii jin sagli chint mittayi " did philosphy fall from god then how bani came from god ?

may b im not good enough in explaining but it doesn't mean im wrong


----------



## Harry Haller (May 18, 2012)

> may b im not good enough in explaining but it doesn't mean im wrong



true, but it makes it kind of hard to answer


----------



## TigerStyleZ (May 18, 2012)

bscheema , but wasn´t it GURU GOBIND Singh ji , who created the KHALSA and said every follower from NOW on is a SIKH - Wasn´t he the ONE who said that the GURU GRANTH Sahib is the LAST Guru? And as we all know the Divine Light of the GURU was is ALL our Gurus - it was the SAME. No one is saying that the Gurus are only for Sikhs - but the Gurus created the word "Sikh" - so the followers see them as the creator of Sikhi (or Sikh, I don´t like the word (Sikh (-ism)).
Philosophy means the "Love to the Widom" (broadly speaking).



You need to know that in the western world ther are more Atheists than in the eastern. SO for them it is only a scripture - WE Cannot change their mind - they are free beings like we are. If they have read the whole Guru Granth Sahib (that is really seldom), and they come to no Conclusion or they don´t understand the whole thing they will call it just a scripture , this is the ignorance in every humans, like we are ignorant and don´t understand some things of the western worlds (exp. habits.) So we were ignorant and didn´t "teach" the eastern world - that the Guru is a HOLY book - like you call - as well. The fault lies withhin us Sikhs


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 18, 2012)

BSCheema ji there is nothing philosophical about your post.





bscheema said:


> gr8 if western world call Guru Nanak a philosopher ....................
> may b im not good enough in explaining but it doesn't mean im wrong


It is just a bitching post and that is not philosophical.

Try to stick to the topic that you yourself have have started.

What metric you want Sikh philosophy to address that are not covered at spn?  Perhaps you can start threads on those topics and more importantly put information out, contribute and not just ask and complain.

For many it is trying to understand the teachings of Guru jis, trying to live per teachings of Guru jis, it is not about putting labels or complaining about rhetoric or how who says what.  It is what our inner self learns, it is what we understand and how it allows us to live by.  Look at Tigerstylez's post.  A much younger man presenting and describing so much more positively and coherently in the following,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/questions-and-answers/38514-where-is-sikh-philosophy-2.html#post165100

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Archived_member15 (May 18, 2012)

My dear brothers and sisters :sippingcoffeemunda:

I am struggling to understand the meaning behind what the original poster is saying regarding Sikh Philosophy. He seems to be suggesting that it is much the same as Western philosophy? :motherlylove: 

I have noted many areas in which Sikhism has truly _innovated_ - championing concepts such as equal social rights for men and women, the unity of the entire human race and complete tolerance for all irrespective of faith, to name only a few, a long time before these concepts had become _en masse _fully integrated into the civilisation of the Western world. 

So I do not think that we can or should try and suggest that _one trumps the other_. There are certainly areas where Western philosophy truly excels and others where it falters, and this can be said for any philosopohy, since different cultures have - traditionally - different strengths. One can be absolutely advanced and cultured in one respect, and yet terrible in another. 

Both Eastern and Western philosophy can and should learn from each; enriching each other; enlivening each other. Pope John Paul II once said, when speaking of the Eastern and Western traditions within Christianity, that one tradition will naturally always have a better understanding of certain concepts than another and that both are the two "lungs" necessary to keep a healthy body alive, that is human civilisation. 

Ultimately, truth is One as brother Harry ji stated earlier and as he said no one has a monopoly on it, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explained: 


"...All that is true, by whomsoever it has been said, has its origin in the Spirit..." 


_*- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Catholic theologian, mystic and Doctor of the Church*_ 


In saying this Saint Thomas was merely attesting to this Sacred Tradition had been spoken of much earlier by all the Fathers, for example Saint Justin Martyr and Augustine: 


"...All truth, wherever it is found, belongs to us as Christians and is Christian truth..." 


*- Saint Justin Martyr (AD 100–165), Early Catholic Church Father* 


In terms of philosophy which means, "the love of/seeking after wisdom" - there is only one, common, universal quest for one, common, universal wisdom - no matter in what religion, culture or individual human heart. 


"...Greek philosophy is a clear image of truth, a divine gift to the Greeks. Before the advent of the Lord, philosophy helped the Greeks to attain righteousness, and it is now conducive to piety; it supplies a preparatory teaching for those who will later embrace the faith. God is the cause of all good things...The way of truth is one. But into it, as into a perennial river, streams flow from all sides...God is the Teacher, who instructs the enlightened Christian by mysteries, and the faithful labourer by cheerful hopes, and the hard of heart with His keen corrective discipline; so that His providence is particular, public, and universal... for He is the Saviour not of these or those, but of all...Should it be said that the Greeks discovered philosophy by human wisdom, I reply, that I find the Scriptures declare all wisdom to be a divine gift...Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanas among the Bactrians; and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour's birth, and came into the land of Judaea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas, and others Brahmins..." 

_*-* *Saint Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 220), Early Catholic Church father*_




And so we find that the Fathers highly praised the prophets of a great number of religions and proclaimed them as being inspired, and as being believers in the same philosophy despite difference of religious faith, including: 



_- The philosophers of the Jain religion and the Bactrian Buddhists (Sramanas)_

_- The Buddha himself_

_- The great Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Heraclitus (among others) _

_- The prophets of the Egyptian faith _

_- The prophets of the Chaldean people _

_- The Druids of the Gaulic people_

_- The philosophers of the Celts _

_- The Magi of the Zoroastrian faith _

_- The Sages and Prophets and priests of the Hindu religion (Brahmins, Gymnosophists) _


This is why Pope John Paul II once said, "*You speak of many religions. Instead I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions...From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties*."




And as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa wrote in the 1400s, there is only one Wisdom and underlying religion in the diversity of faiths: 




"...With many groanings I beseeched the Creator of all, because of His kindness, to restrain the persecution that was raging more fiercely than usual on account of the difference of faith between the religions..We praise our God, whose mercy rules over all His works and who alone has the power to bring it about, that such a great diversity of religions would be brought together in one harmonious peace. We, who are His work, cannot disobey His direction. Nevertheless we request instruction, as to how this unity of religion can be introduced by us...You will find that not another faith but the one and the same faith is presupposed everywhere...There can only be one wisdom. For if it were possible that there be several wisdoms, then these would have to be from one. Namely, unity is prior to all plurality...Even though you acknowledge diverse religions, you all presuppose in all of this diversity the one, which you call wisdom...Therefore, come to our aid you who alone are able. For this rivalry [among religions] exists for sake of you, whom alone they revere in everything that all seem to worship. For each one desires in all that he seems to desire only the good which you are; no one is seeking with all his intellectual searching for anything else than the truth which you are. For what does the living seek except to live? What does the existing seek except to exist? Therefore, it is you, O God, the giver of life and being, who is being sought in different religions in different ways, and who are named with different names because as you are you remain unknown and ineffable to all...Therefore, do not hide Yourself any longer, O Lord. Be propitious, and manifest Your face; and all peoples will be saved, who no longer will be able to desert the Source of life and its sweetness, once having foretasted even a little thereof. For no one departs from You except because He is ignorant of You. If You will deign to do the foregoing, the sword will cease, as will also the malice of hatred and all evils; and all will come to know that there is only one religion in the variety of faiths..." 

*- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464), De Pace Fidei, Catholic mystic and highest cleric under the Pope in his day* 


So one is bound to find similarities since we are all One Human Family, worshipping One God and following One Universal Philosophy gifted to us by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## bscheema (May 18, 2012)

Sikh should never consider  Gurabani a philosophy. don't even evaluate it on scale of western philosophy .:blueturban:


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 18, 2012)

From Gurbanee we can learn this from a Quote

"Banee ta Gavo GuRoo Keree Banee-a sir Banee"............Anandu Sahib

Thus Banee  in SGGS is Head of all the Banees revealed till date.

Prakash.s.Bagga


----------



## Ishna (May 18, 2012)

I don't think anyone said Gurbani = philosophy.  Gurbani is Gurbani.  Can you give a definition of what Gurbani is please?

Harry ji gave the definition of the word philosophy in an earlier post:
phi·los·o·phy   [fi-los-uh-fee]  Show IPA
noun, plural phi·los·o·phies.
1.
the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Do we all not seek the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge and conduct?  When we ask 'what am I and what is God? what is Guru and what are good actions?' And then we study Gurbani and the Sikh way of life and Sikh history are we not philosophizing?  The answers are already there in Gurbani (and with kirpa we find and understand them).

I'm failing to see the problem.

Is there a Punjabi word for 'philosophy'?  Would that make you more comfortable?


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 19, 2012)

bscheema said:


> Sikh should never consider  Gurabani a philosophy. _don't even evaluate it on scale of western philosophy_.:blueturban:


BSCheema ji totally useless sentence.  Who is evaluating?  Here people share their thoughts and knowledge.  If you want to package it into your own bundle that is your prerogative.  Philosophy as defined by Harry Haller ji other English dictionaries is exactly what is meant at SPN and it is pretty lame to start making sentences like you have done.

If Sikhism teaches one nothing else it is an open mind to learn for all life.  Kind of artificial rules implied in your sentence go against such fundamental values in Sikhism.  Perhaps you can elaborate on your background or context of making such statements.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## bscheema (May 19, 2012)

to you it may b useless for me its not http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Trumpp's_Translation_Of_Portions_Of_The_Guru_Granth_Sahib


----------



## Ambarsaria (May 19, 2012)

bscheema said:


> to you it may b useless for me its not ***********


Veer play with dirt you will get dirty.  Look for junk and you will find junk.  Your thread is not specific to this citation.  

Let us not look for non-Sikhs damaging Sikhi.  There are enough of our own and perhaps focus there.  Many such have come and gone here at spn.  Some have persisted in the so called shadow of postulating pure Gurbani understanding with their own grammar books, interpretations, linkages to Sanskrit, and other dubious tools.

Spend time on something positive. mundahug

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## bscheema (May 19, 2012)

these things are sikhi damaging.and they are still working we use there references to translate gurbani .our so called intellects here at spn . i am showing  u link that   how come it become  a part of sikhi its on sikhiwiki .its ok for but nt for me.
yea spend some time brother on positive thats wat im saying


----------



## Ishna (Feb 9, 2016)

I'm confused again, bscheema do you have a problem that that page being on SikhiWiki?  It is by no way singing praise of Trumpp...  In fact it serves as a caution that his translation is of poor quality.

What do you think of Macauliffe?  Is his work as corrupt in your opinion (keeping in mind Macauliffe was western, too)?


----------

