# Why This Forum Thesedays Is Full Of "saakats" (skeptics And Atheists) ?



## Seeker2013 (Aug 28, 2015)

I remember till a few years ago when I used to come to this forum , it still had a substantial number of sikhs with bhaavna in their hearts . Thesedays its full of skeptics and doubters ! 
The ones who make "kintu parantu" in everything !


----------



## Ishna (Aug 28, 2015)

I'm sorry you don't feel the "bhaavna" in this forum anymore.  I think this forum is unique in that it allows everyone to present their point of view and really dig out ideas and topics and find the core, without worrying about being accused of being wicked cynics or slanderers

There is merit in having a discerning mind and not following blindly and not accepting everything that Internet randoms say is true.  I suppose that makes people like myself and Harry Ji "skeptic doubters" to some.

I can only speak for myself now, but please keep in mind that although my way of connecting and honouring Ik Onkar is different from your, it is no less real.  The wisdom I find within Guru Granth Sahib Ji is plainly different from that which you see - who is to say which one of us is right?  Probably both of us are right, if we remember Naam as much as we can and encourage the good qualities within us and guard against the thieves.

Ik Onkar loves diversity, and we are all unique.  While we are able to share thoughts, learn from each other and communicate about Sikhi, the Divine and our Guru Sahiban, then we are on the right track, and it's not fair to judge other members.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Aug 28, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> I remember till a few years ago when I used to come to this forum , it still had a substantial number of sikhs with bhaavna in their hearts . Thesedays its full of skeptics and doubters !
> The ones who make "kintu parantu" in everything !


Seeker2013 ji,

Guru Fateh.

Would you be kind enough to share what you find different and what you mean by "sikhs with bhaavna"? 

Bhaavna is a very subjective thing and it also personal. No one else can judge others about their bhaavna.

Let me ask you a question. How has your bhaavna been in your life independently of joining SPN?


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Aug 29, 2015)

_I remember till a few years ago when I used to come to this forum , it still had a substantial number of sikhs with bhaavna in their hearts . These days its full of skeptics and doubters ! _
_The ones who make "kintu parantu" in everythin_g 


Nothing changed to me ,Its the same forum, even  years ago  it was controlled by Atheist Sikhs ,always on fore front to mock Dhyaan ,Meditation .


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 29, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> I remember till a few years ago when I used to come to this forum , it still had a substantial number of sikhs with bhaavna in their hearts . Thesedays its full of skeptics and doubters !
> The ones who make "kintu parantu" in everything !



maybe god was fulfilling their wishes then, and now he isn't! maybe it will happen to you, maybe one day, you will stop listening to all the superstitions and rumours, and actually question and think for yourself.


----------



## Ishna (Aug 29, 2015)

Am I an atheist?


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 29, 2015)

if you try walking the walk, keep an open mind, ask questions and accept nothing on faith, apparently, yes


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Aug 29, 2015)

harmanpreet singh said:


> _I remember till a few years ago when I used to come to this forum , it still had a substantial number of sikhs with bhaavna in their hearts . These days its full of skeptics and doubters ! _
> _The ones who make "kintu parantu" in everythin_g
> 
> 
> Nothing changed to me ,Its the same forum, even  years ago  it was controlled by Atheist Sikhs ,always on fore front to mock Dhyaan ,Meditation .



Harmanpreet ji,

Guru Fateh.

How is the married life coming along? It is honeymoon for the first 6 months only then the thing hits the fan.
Would you be kind enough to elaborate what you mean by your statement above? How do you define the  "Atheist Sikhs" as you have been part of this family for many years?

Thanks


----------



## Admin (Aug 29, 2015)

harmanpreet singh said:


> controlled by Atheist Sikhs



Isn't it all about the *control*?  Even a lack of an agenda seems like an agenda! How many of your thoughts (messages) and for that matter anyone else' posts have been suppressed or edited during all these years at SPN?

Kintu Parantu ... isn't this the basis of evolution of Sikhi? Guru Nanak Sahib did kintu parantu every-time He saw illogical practices. So, wasn't Guru Nanak Sahib a Skeptic?

We have to learn to respect unity in diversity. We come here to think, discuss, share, learn and evolve and _not Judge_!

Gurfateh!
Bhull Chuk Maaf


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 29, 2015)

Admin Singh said:


> Isn't it all about the *control*?  Even a lack of an agenda seems like an agenda! How many of your thoughts (messages) and for that matter anyone else' posts have been suppressed or edited during all these years at SPN?
> 
> Kintu Parantu ... isn't this the basis of evolution of Sikhi? Guru Nanak Sahib did kintu parantu every-time He saw illogical practices. So, wasn't Guru Nanak Sahib a Skeptic?
> 
> ...



respect  although the sikh community itself wud not tolerate kintu parantu beyond a level . For eg : guru nanak slept with his feet towards kabba, would we accept it as ok if someone slept with his feet towards SGGS in a gurudwara ? food for thought !


----------



## harmanpreet singh (Aug 29, 2015)

Admin Singh said:


> Isn't it all about the *control*?



 No issue with you Admin Singh ji ,you always remained neutral without any biasing ,blessings to you .bit busy now ,I will reply to other members here .


----------



## namritanevaeh (Aug 29, 2015)

harry haller said:


> if you try walking the walk, keep an open mind, ask questions and accept nothing on faith, apparently, yes


Maybe more agonistic than atheist?


----------



## Ishna (Aug 29, 2015)

Well, atheism is a statement about _*belief*_, usually "I do not believe that any deity(ies) exist."

Agnosticism is a statement about _*knowledge*_, usually "I do not know if any deity(ies) exist."

They are both quite western concepts when applied like this, and I'm not sure they can be applied so easily to a way of life that is part of the dharmic family of paths.

I am looking forward to finding out from fellow members if I am one of the atheists or not (as they seem to be in the know  ).


----------



## namritanevaeh (Aug 29, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Well, atheism is a statement about _*belief*_, usually "I do not believe that any deity(ies) exist."
> 
> Agnosticism is a statement about _*knowledge*_, usually "I do not know if any deity(ies) exist."
> 
> ...


I myself will fully admit to being a bit of a Venn diagram with my beliefs. If you take agnosticism and put it in one circle, that's where I go "but what if there isn't a god?" And enjoy debating that. If you take Sikhi and put it in another, and look at what I love about Sikhi, there's langar, gatka, sewa, kirtan...etc.  and in the final circle (I think...) put Wicca. I'm very much more sexually a witch (ie free to mingle with who I want, be in whatever relationship I want) and am fine with the definition of "spells" being nothing more than "ardas/prayers" under a different name.

It's harder to find Wiccan covens than Sikh temples though. Which is part of why I go to gurdwara. But I'm a mix of all 3...I'm where they intersect. ;-)


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 30, 2015)

I myself have had my own living as both an atheist an and an agnostic but after I developed my own personal relationship with SGGS , now I feel like all those years were waste when i was being doubtful by being an atheist and agnostic


----------



## CanadianChap (Aug 30, 2015)

Well, there are people who doubt other people. There are people who disagree while others agree. Like for example people say that the moon landing were real while others say its fake. Its their own point of view. This website was meant for everyone. You don't complain about their beliefs.


----------



## CanadianChap (Aug 30, 2015)

Look I understand that atheists and religious people like to be like rams and bash with each other. But, we can be peaceful. Its our point of views, trust me.  For those who have a religion don't mock the atheists who don't believe. And for the Atheists don't mock the others who believe their faith.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2015)

I believe in Ek Ong Kar period, I am a Sikh period. 

In my opinion Ek Ong Kar is not a Abrahamic god like figure, I don't quite know what it is, but I do have a fair idea what it ain't.


----------



## Ishna (Aug 30, 2015)

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if I'm an atheist or not.  

@Seeker2013 Ji, @harmanpreet singh Ji?


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 30, 2015)

Ishna said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to tell me if I'm an atheist or not.
> 
> @Seeker2013 Ji, @harmanpreet singh Ji?



how can we tell you if you're an atheist or not ? no one can tell you because thats only for you to know ! whats in your heart ! do you think god exists ? if yes, you're not an atheist. Atheist means someone who doesn't believe in existence of god


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 30, 2015)

I am not bashing ! I am ok with atheists.
it was Harry haller who started rebuking me by saying  my idea of god as a "giver god" was wrong ! 
He was the one who told me "wait a minute ! I thought u got this wrong but all the things you hear from SGGS are all in your own head ! its not really there. god's not interested in helping your affairs"


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> Atheist means someone who doesn't believe in existence of god



actually, are you sure your not an atheist? most of what you describe god as, is against what Ek Ong Kar actually stands for.


----------



## Ishna (Aug 30, 2015)

But your thread title seems to suggest you know who the atheists are, which is why I'm asking you if I'm one of them.


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2015)

am I one of them too?


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2015)

was hitler an atheist? by the way this is the house that looks like hitler!


----------



## Ishna (Aug 30, 2015)

Personally, I think Guru Sahib is most interested in bringing our awareness to Naam and nothing more.

Gurbani practically even cautions us against asking for anything except Naam.  Like here on panna 258:

ਸਲੋਕੁ ॥
Salok.
Shalok:

ਮਾਇਆ ਡੋਲੈ ਬਹੁ ਬਿਧੀ ਮਨੁ ਲਪਟਿਓ ਤਿਹ ਸੰਗ ॥
Mā▫i▫ā dolai baho biḏẖī man lapti▫o ṯih sang.
Maya clings to the mind, and causes it to waver in so many ways.

ਮਾਗਨ ਤੇ ਜਿਹ ਤੁਮ ਰਖਹੁ ਸੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮਹਿ ਰੰਗ ॥੧॥
Māgan ṯe jih ṯum rakẖahu so Nānak nāmėh rang. ||1||
When You, O Lord, restrain someone from asking for wealth, then, O Nanak, he comes to love the Name. ||1||

ਪਉੜੀ ॥
Pa▫oṛī.
Pauree:

ਮਮਾ ਮਾਗਨਹਾਰ ਇਆਨਾ ॥
Mamā māganhār i▫ānā.
MAMMA: The beggar is so ignorant -

ਦੇਨਹਾਰ ਦੇ ਰਹਿਓ ਸੁਜਾਨਾ ॥
Ḏenhār ḏe rahi▫o sujānā.
the Great Giver continues to give. He is All-knowing.

ਜੋ ਦੀਨੋ ਸੋ ਏਕਹਿ ਬਾਰ ॥
Jo ḏīno so ekėh bār.
Whatever He gives, He gives once and for all.

ਮਨ ਮੂਰਖ ਕਹ ਕਰਹਿ ਪੁਕਾਰ ॥
Man mūrakẖ kah karahi pukār.
O foolish mind, why do you complain, and cry out so loud?

ਜਉ ਮਾਗਹਿ ਤਉ ਮਾਗਹਿ ਬੀਆ ॥
Ja▫o māgėh ṯa▫o māgėh bī▫ā.
Whenever you ask for something, you ask for worldly things;

ਜਾ ਤੇ ਕੁਸਲ ਨ ਕਾਹੂ ਥੀਆ ॥
Jā ṯe kusal na kāhū thī▫ā.
no one has obtained happiness from these.

ਮਾਗਨਿ ਮਾਗ ਤ ਏਕਹਿ ਮਾਗ ॥
Māgan māg ṯa ekėh māg.
If you must ask for a gift, then ask for the One Lord.

ਨਾਨਕ ਜਾ ਤੇ ਪਰਹਿ ਪਰਾਗ ॥੪੧॥
Nānak jā ṯe parėh parāg. ||41||
O Nanak, by Him, you shall be saved. ||41||​I hope this gives you some idea of where I put 'my faith'.  

I am not interested in miracles, or a god-character who intervenes in my life on my behalf, or grants my wishes, or protects me if I pray before a long trip, or blesses me with children and old age.  I am interested in honing my attention, my mind, my heart and my purpose to One and One Only Ik Onkar.  Carefully absorbing the spiritual wisdom-amrit from Sri Guru Granth Sahib and living in the world wide awake and per the Guru's guidance within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  With every effort, I hope that one day that light-bulb of Gur Prasaad will switch on in my mind and I will be able to see nothing else except That Light.

I quietly hope this happens to me and everyone else, too.


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 30, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Personally, I think Guru Sahib is most interested in bringing our awareness to Naam and nothing more.
> 
> Gurbani practically even cautions us against asking for anything except Naam.  Like here on panna 258:
> 
> ...



I am very aware gurbani speaks of only asking for god . But I am no saint . I am quite materialistic .
I now have a job, then want  a better one, then want god to intervene in my life for taking me to canada for a gay marriage with a handsome man or converting me to straight , .... 
I know he's my no servant but I am a beggar asking him for things and having faith that he gives ! 

I am no perfect. I am flawed , sinner , a patit ! but all I do know is he's patit paavan (purifier of saints) , all I do know is despite all of my imperfections, he loves me !
All I do know is nobody returns empty handed from his door.



> I am not interested in miracles, or a god-character who intervenes in my life on my behalf, or grants my wishes, or protects me if I pray before a long trip, or blesses me with children and old age.  I am interested in honing my attention, my mind, my heart and my purpose to One and One Only Ik Onkar.  Carefully absorbing the spiritual wisdom-amrit from Sri Guru Granth Sahib and living in the world wide awake and per the Guru's guidance within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.  With every effort, I hope that one day that light-bulb of Gur Prasaad will switch on in my mind and I will be able to see nothing else except That Light.



very nice ideal !  if you really do think like this, then you're doing good and definitely not an atheist


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2015)

there you go sis, seeker says your not an atheist! you have your validation!


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 30, 2015)

harry haller said:


> there you go sis, seeker says your not an atheist! you have your validation!



you crack me up !    lemme grab me some pop corn


----------



## Ishna (Aug 30, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> I am very aware gurbani speaks of only asking for god . But I am no saint . I am quite materialistic .
> I now have a job, then want  a better one, then want god to intervene in my life for taking me to canada for a gay marriage with a handsome man or converting me to straight , ....
> I know he's my no servant but I am a beggar asking him for things and having faith that he gives !
> 
> ...



At this point in my life, I think anything we think we get 'from Him' is actually a trick of Maya.

Naam is the only thing that can *really, truly satisfy you*, forever from now through to the moment of your death.  Why would the Ik Onkar Creator of the measureless creation give you a transitory job to give you transitory happiness in a transitory life, a job that will be taken away from you at some point in the future and probably cause you pain, when He could give you limitless, immortal Naam instead?

Why would He do that? O.O  Why?


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 30, 2015)

Ishna said:


> At this point in my life, I think anything we think we get 'from Him' is actually a trick of Maya.
> 
> Naam is the only thing that can *really, truly satisfy you*, forever from now through to the moment of your death.  Why would the Ik Onkar Creator of the measureless creation give you a transitory job to give you transitory happiness in a transitory life, a job that will be taken away from you at some point in the future and probably cause you pain, when He could give you limitless, immortal Naam instead?
> 
> Why would He do that? O.O  Why?



the same reason he gives us food . why give us food if we're going to get hungry again ! don't be confused , everything has its scope . The one travelling with you on the bus is also a partner but of a shorter journey. Your husband / wife is also a partner but of a longer journey . 



> a job that will be taken away from you at some point in the future and probably cause you pain



what makes u think I will lose the job ? -_-


----------



## JourneyOflife (Aug 30, 2015)

This forum can be applauded for not approving posts Is being publicized. I think most large Sikh forums either screen or have a habit of censoring opposing views so it can be applauded in that respect, although I have sometimes come across the claim that it is the only Sikh forum to do this, which isn't exactly true. There is at least one other forum which is more active than SPN and also encourages lively debate.

With that being said, while there may not be explicit censorship, in my experience of mostly lurking here, I have noticed an undercurrent of what I can only describe as 'mockery', where any thread or post that deals with or encourages spiritual practices like meditation or of 'reaching out to God' is not just disagreed with so as to start a debate, but even implicitly ridiculed as being 'childish'. That, I believe, does nothing to further anyone's understanding but just creates a hostile environment where the ridiculed feel unwelcome, just like I have noticed the public "appreciation" system also creates an us vs. them mentality and aids in creating the division.

Many people may not like what I have to say here, but the honest truth is that over the last few months, I have seen far more mockery and ridicule of different forms of spiritual expression than I have actual productive discussion, to the point where a member even wanted to leave this forum due to being attacked for his practice of meditation.

Sorry if this offended anyone, but I do genuinely appreciate the ethos of SPN and think all participants (including myself) should work to live up to it. And when we aren't- and right now I don't think we are - then we should be honest about our concerns and try to improve the environment on SPN together.


----------



## Ishna (Aug 30, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> the same reason he gives us food . why give us food if we're going to get hungry again ! don't be confused , everything has its scope . The one travelling with you on the bus is also a partner but of a shorter journey. Your husband / wife is also a partner but of a longer journey .
> 
> 
> 
> what makes u think I will lose the job ? -_-



Even if you stay there forever you will die and therefore lose it 

You will either be made redundant, be fired, leave because you don't like it anymore, or leave for a better job.  You will most likely not be there forever.

He doesn't give us food.  The food is there and we take it, distribute it, greedily hog it or share it around.  Did the Creator create the food that humans eat on purpose, or did we evolve to eat the food that is in our environment?  My money is on the latter.

Uhoh, maybe I _*am*_ an atheist after all?  LOL (I'm not, but c'mon, that was pretty funny, right? )


----------



## Harry Haller (Aug 30, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> This forum can be applauded for not approving posts Is being publicized. I think most large Sikh forums either screen or have a habit of censoring opposing views so it can be applauded in that respect, although I have sometimes come across the claim that it is the only Sikh forum to do this, which isn't exactly true. There is at least one other forum which is more active than SPN and also encourages lively debate.
> 
> With that being said, while there may not be explicit censorship, in my experience of mostly lurking here, I have noticed an undercurrent of what I can only describe as 'mockery', where any thread or post that deals with or encourages spiritual practices like meditation or of 'reaching out to God' is not just disagreed with so as to start a debate, but even implicitly ridiculed as being 'childish'. That, I believe, does nothing to further anyone's understanding but just creates a hostile environment where the ridiculed feel unwelcome, just like I have noticed the public "appreciation" system also creates an us vs. them mentality and aids in creating the division.
> 
> ...



I have nothing against reaching out to God or meditation, in fact, I recently started a thread that gave my view on both, which is, if it feels good, then do it, whether its worshipping statues, feeding deities, whatever, it that's how you worship god, good for you, enjoy.

my problem is when people are unable to answer questions, the current situation in this thread, Is Sikhism about listing all your earthly desires and then praying till they have all been given? what do you think?


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 30, 2015)

> Even if you stay there forever you will die and therefore lose it
> 
> You will either be made redundant, be fired, leave because you don't like it anymore, or leave for a better job.  You will most likely not be there forever.



TRUE ! but Guru Gobind Singh ji never told us to foresake worldly materials . He said foresake the "moh" (attachment) to them . Something which even I am not able to do ! 
Lotus is significant in world religions (including sikhi) because lotus stays and grows in mud yet untouched by its dirt . Same way a god realized person grows and stays in this maya world , yet untouched by its attachment. easier said than done ! 



> He doesn't give us food.  The food is there and we take it, distribute it, greedily hog it or share it around.  Did the Creator create the food that humans eat on purpose, or did we evolve to eat the food that is in our environment?  My money is on the latter.



please don't mix science and spirituality . Yes physically we evolve depending on our food as well. But I was referring spiritually to the fact that god is giver of all we have .

"Tu daata daatar , tera ditta khavana" (you're the great giver of gifts, we eat what you give us)



> Uhoh, maybe I _*am*_ an atheist after all?  LOL (I'm not, but c'mon, that was pretty funny, right? )


As harry haller said, I am no certificate-issuing authority LOL . Thats between you and god only ! 
I personally don't think ur an atheist


----------



## Ishna (Aug 30, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> TRUE ! but Guru Gobind Singh ji never told us to foresake worldly materials . He said foresake the "moh" (attachment) to them . Something which even I am not able to do !
> 
> Lotus is significant in world religions (including sikhi) because lotus stays and grows in mud yet untouched by its dirt . Same way a god realized person grows and stays in this maya world , yet untouched by its attachment. easier said than done !



You've got the right idea here   Keep trying.  Never stop.  I am well far from being anywhere near Gurmukh, but if we keep learning and trying and yearning, Gur Prsaad we'll get there.

The difference in asking for a job and asking for Naam is that the job will come when it comes.  You put in the effort to the best of your ability and cultivate contentment while you wait for something to come up, and accept the hukam that the world works the way it works and when a job comes, be happy; but meanwhile, through it all, focus lovingly on Naam and beg for that Kirpaa to get the drop of rain that will satisfy you forever.  The world is the world, it does what it does.  Naam is the reality behind it all, and it is in Naam that is all contentment, protection, acceptance, detachment, peace, etc.



> please don't mix science and spirituality.



Hey!  That's my line!  



> Yes physically we evolve depending on our food as well. But I was referring spiritually to the fact that god is giver of all we have .
> 
> "Tu daata daatar , tera ditta khavana" (you're the great giver of gifts, we eat what you give us)



Fair point.  Just as a sidenote, I tend to view the Sikh experience as a more passive spiritual experience.  That is, rather than It literally arranging things so that food appears on your plate, it is rather the individual who's perspective changes so that everything you eat, every breath you take, every breeze that kisses your cheek is indeed a gift from It.  Not because It is bending reality for you, but rather you are seeing reality for what it is.

Does this make sense to you?



> As harry haller said, I am no certificate-issuing authority LOL . Thats between you and god only !
> I personally don't think ur an atheist



I have only been asking to try to point out how awkward it might be for you on one hand calling most of the forum users atheists and skeptics, but then being less than willing to actually name names.


----------



## Original (Aug 31, 2015)

Pyara Satsangi ' O Ji [associates of truth]

For such a noble an association [Sikh, SPN] and yet so little an understanding ? Come on people, you're connected with the "shabd" and the shabd is *sat*. It is not in what capacity your connected but the fact that you are voluntarily or involuntarily surfing, researching, leisure-zoning, visiting, or indeed participating, renders you an associate of Guru di Bani. And, Bani is God [...waho waho Bani Nirankar hai - Ang 515].

That said, here's the metaphysics of it all: Aristotle in his "Physicae Auscultationes" candidly remarks, "so what hinders the different parts of the body from having this merely accidental relation in nature ? Take the teeth for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp adapted for cutting and the back grinders for masticating; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And, in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end [teleology]. Where so ever, all things together [part of a whole] happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity [Karta Purakh- creative energy] and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish".

We are all missionaries and not adversaries,  missionaries of the "word" and the word is good, beautiful and just - God of Nanak, Ikonkar. So whether AP gets you to be an atheist or an antagonist is of little value but the fact that it gets you on this forum is most seriously a consideration of want and wear.

As for you IG - you've such a serene disposition, not knowing yet aspiring, O' how beautiful a state for the maker to mould you to better extract from you seva, of form n substance alone AP knows, that in itself is a state of being and being at the "right place at the right time" is what Gur Ghar calls Gur Prasad, meaning SPN. Hold on in there, you'll be the next Pythia [jovial mood].

The beauty in all this is - we're together and Guru [word] G is with us - ferrying us home [teeth above, Aristotle] for some us are *grinders*, while others are *winders* and *blinders* - perfect bunch for a gate gourmet treat.

Enjoy the day !


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 31, 2015)

> That said, here's the metaphysics of it all: Aristotle in his "Physicae Auscultationes" candidly remarks, "so what hinders the different parts of the body from having this merely accidental relation in nature ? Take the teeth for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp adapted for cutting and the back grinders for masticating; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And, in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end [teleology]. Where so ever, all things together [part of a whole] happened like as if they were made for the sake of something,



Aristotle never heard "natural selection" ?
Teeth in front is sharp and back is for chewing . its no coincidence . Its the result of millions of years of evolution . There have been other varieties of configuration of teeth too but since it was disadvantageous otherwise, those beings with such teeth configurations didn't survive long enough to breed and pass the genes of their teeth configs, 

got now ??


----------



## Seeker2013 (Aug 31, 2015)

Admin Singh said:


> Isn't it all about the *control*?  Even a lack of an agenda seems like an agenda! How many of your thoughts (messages) and for that matter anyone else' posts have been suppressed or edited during all these years at SPN?
> 
> Kintu Parantu ... isn't this the basis of evolution of Sikhi? Guru Nanak Sahib did kintu parantu every-time He saw illogical practices. So, wasn't Guru Nanak Sahib a Skeptic?
> 
> ...



Actually I respect the kind of freedom we have here in SPN . Go to sikhsangat.com and tell me if you don't get banned in 24 hours if you're not one of those who bat for their extremist views ! 
I have had my own experience with that forum . SPN is a warm place , hoping it always remain so


----------



## Original (Aug 31, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> Aristotle never heard "natural selection" ?
> Teeth in front is sharp and back is for chewing . its no coincidence . Its the result of millions of years of evolution . There have been other varieties of configuration of teeth too but since it was disadvantageous otherwise, those beings with such teeth configurations didn't survive long enough to breed and pass the genes of their teeth configs,
> 
> got now ??


Warrior, don't just look at the finger pointing at the moon for you will miss all the heavenly glory [enter the dragon]. Aristotle was the forerunner to what Darwinians were to theorise back in 1859, besides, the analogy used was to show the teleological workings of what is ontological [Ikonkar]. In other words, being at SPN is no coincidence but predetermined long list of events. All the riders n runners at SPN, no matter what their status, are present and assembled because Waheguru deem it so.  Like the Bee hovers around the flower to extract nectar so do we congregate around SPN to sweeten our soul with the melodious sound of Gurbani.

Take care !


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 31, 2015)

Friends spirituality is as much food as paratha, "saron da  saag" and makki di roti, samosa or milk. We are all spiritual but with different levels of cravings for certain types or varieties of spiritual elements.

SGGS gives us plenty of spiritual food and also enables us to discover even more. The physical activities related to spirituality are simply anomalies. You can walk, ride a bike, take rickshaw, drive a motorcycle or a Mercedes to get your groceries. None of these are wrong as the end point is to get the groceries. If you think and detest somebody driving a Mercedes to pick up Sholay Bhaturay, you have a problem not the other person driving a Mercedes. If we focus on selves and self fulfillment in spirituality we are likely to be way ahead versus if we are correcting others or taking them to task. Share for sure but don't ridicule or mock as it probably brings you down in spirituality more than the person you are ridiculing or mocking!

If you mock or ridicule, you do so alone. You share the joy of spiritual discoveries, you are in joy with all.






How about the following,








Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 31, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> I remember till a few years ago when I used to come to this forum , it still had a substantial number of sikhs with bhaavna in their hearts . Thesedays its full of skeptics and doubters !
> The ones who make "kintu parantu" in everything !


Seeker2013 ji in terms of the topic of focus in this thread, I have couple of comments.

From what I understand, I could of course be very wrong, a very large part of SGGS was devoted to making Hindus and Muslims skeptic of their beliefs and what they followed or were asked to believe. So skepticism is as much part of Sikhism as perhaps most of the other teachings are. So being a skeptic does not make you a less of a Sikh but in my eyes it is almost a fundamental tenet of Sikhism. Of course as Sikhs we seek and look for eternal truths in all places, and many times skeptic thinking is what helps us understand or discover these.

There is also some dialog about atheism in this thread. If you at all believe and understand the "mool mantar" to be a set of fundamental truths, it is almost impossible to be classified an atheist thereafter. During my interactions at SPN, mool mantar is almost universally linked to by almost all contributors who declare themselves to be of Sikhism affiliation. So it also follows for me, that vast majority are not atheist who otherwise associate themselves to be a Sikh or of Sikhism.

Hence most of the contributors are not at variance to Sikhi proper or in reference to SGGS.

Just some humble thoughts. I stand corrected.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Original (Sep 1, 2015)

Ambarsaria said:


> Seeker2013 ji in terms of the topic of focus in this thread, I have couple of comments.
> 
> From what I understand, I could of course be very wrong, a very large part of SGGS was devoted to making Hindus and Muslims skeptic of their beliefs and what they followed or were asked to believe. So skepticism is as much part of Sikhism as perhaps most of the other teachings are. So being a skeptic does not make you a less of a Sikhc but in my eyes it is almost a fundamental tenet of Sikhism. Of course as Sikhs we seek and look for eternal truths in all places, and many times skeptic thinking is what helps us understand or discover these.
> 
> ...


Respected Ambarsaria Ji - Good morning [05:32 UK],

Your text above is educational and pretty much in line with the views n virtues of the likes of Carl Sagan. He too like you, stresses the importance of skepticism, "_my parents were not scientists. They knew almost nothing about science. But in introducing me simultaneously to skepticism  n wonder, they taught me the two uneasily cohabiting modes of thought that are central to the scientific method"._

However, I wouldn't go as far as saying, " ...skepticism a fundamental tenet of Sikhism" for that will be inconsistent with the concept of Guru n Disciple [Gur-Sikh], which will take away the "faith" element. Total n unconditional surrender is a priori - Nanak makes it absolutely clear -

*ਜਉ ਤਉ ਪ੍ਰੇਮ ਖੇਲਣ ਕਾ ਚਾਉ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਧਰਿ ਤਲੀ ਗਲੀ ਮੇਰੀ ਆਉ ॥ ਇਤੁ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਪੈਰੁ ਧਰੀਜੈ ॥ ਸਿਰੁ ਦੀਜੈ ਕਾਣਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ ॥੨੦॥ {ਪੰਨਾ 1412}*

What underpins the concept of Guru n Chela [Sikh] is the relinquishing of certain human rights, such as the assignment of the mind to the disposal thereof by the Guru. Clearly autonomy therefore is foregone.

Words in gest for the initiator of this thread

If I'm  allowed a say, it would be to read in-between the lines of Seeker 2013's sentiments re *Sikhism* n *Respect*, much of which is to do with treatment rather than symptoms. Of course, being passionate n dispassionate about certain fundamentals is human, the idea is to rise above them and connect with the spiritual. What Sikhi is all about -

I'll take leave now Sir and bid you good day with Tejwant Singh Ji's salutation - Gurfateh !


----------



## Ambarsaria (Sep 1, 2015)

Original ji thanks for your reply. I do believe your comments about faith are well placed. The 'mool mantar" is embedded in my thought process and spirituality without much skepticism. So it must be faith, the upbringing or the inherent peace one has at some base level of spirituality. Such may originate from all kind of processes and faith for sure is part of it.

Another way I look at it is that once you start to believe or understand it can slowly transforms into faith. You may do it actively or passively. Classic example is "nirbhao"/without fear and "nirvair"/without animosity words in mool mantar. If a flood comes it is not that God/creator is trying to punish us. We may simply be affected or suffer because we are not fully in consonance with creation. The more one understands consonance with creation the better it becomes as we start to understand why!

The classic example that sticks in my mind among many others is the time of Tsunami damage in Japan. You can see the birds flying around cheerfully as masses of man made materials and structures are swept away and humans are drowning. If the dying expected and were at peace with such an event, they were in consonance. Those who called it or posited it as wrath of god, bad karma, etc., were not in consonance with creation. The beauty of nature is that it is full of surprises as we will never fully understand it. However if you are driven by inner desire to be in consonance with creation, the positive and negative surprises become so much easier to understand and handle. No hocks-pocus is the Sikhi way for me .

Sat Sri Akal and thanks for your very well articulated posts.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Sep 1, 2015)

I am still just a plain garden variety SRM Sikh who believes we are all the creation of the same Creator and everyone has something to learn from everyone else. I am also a huge believer in freedom of expression and diversity. Let all kinds have their say.  While I enjoy reading responses that shore up my beliefs, I learn more from those that challenge them.

I've not noticed if the character of SPN has changed over the years. That is possible. SPN acts as a living growing organism and expect some change, but the core values remain the same. Possibly it has become less news-oriented, more focused on Sikh religious spiritual matters. This might have something to do with the censorship laws in India, maybe. 

Come to think of it, I do see more debate on Sikh issues than we used to have, pretty much civil with an occasional lighter note.


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 5, 2015)

harry haller said:


> I have nothing against reaching out to God or meditation, in fact, I recently started a thread that gave my view on both, which is, if it feels good, then do it, whether its worshipping statues, feeding deities, whatever, it that's how you worship god, good for you, enjoy.
> 
> my problem is when people are unable to answer questions, the current situation in this thread, Is Sikhism about listing all your earthly desires and then praying till they have all been given? what do you think?



For the first paragraph, I agree completely. I actually don't care how someone wants to worship God as long as they are not infringing someone else's freedoms, and as long as we don't try to make room for absolutely everything to fit in Sikhi. Some things, like caste and idol worship have no place at all in Sikhi and the people who want to practice them should not be allowed to bring them into Sikhi under the guise of "it is my choice to practice religion/spirituality however I like!!" 

But then you have people feeling villified for things like meditation and it just makes me scratch my head. How is meditation counter to Sikhi at all? What was Guru Arjun Dev Ji doing when he was seated on the hot plate? What did the Sikhs find Guru Amar Das Ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji doing when they went out looking for the Guru?

Likewise, I remember comments about how the guy was hiding in his "cocoon" and other such jabs. And I do believe he tried to explain his reasons for meditation multiple times, but it fell on deaf ears. I just don't see how this is productive discussion at all.

For the second paragraph, no, that is not what I think Sikhi is about. But I also don't think Sikhi is some sort of secular philosophy either. The latter is what I get the impression of on this forum. I disagree with this view just as much as the view you highlighted in your second paragraph...


----------



## Harry Haller (Sep 5, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> Some things, like caste and idol worship have no place at all in Sikhi and the people who want to practice them should not be allowed to bring them into Sikhi under the guise of "it is my choice to practice religion/spirituality however I like!!"



Where do you draw the line? Would you find a bunch of Sikhs worshipping a photo of the tenth master acceptable? How about a bunch of Sikhs spending more time worrying about the temperature in Babaji's room? the material used? the size of the room? or how about paying someone money to mumble their way as fast as possible through the SGGS? so that covers idol worship, lets see about caste, caste has a very very big place in Sikhism, it would be naïve to think otherwise, so caste and idol worship are both rife in standard mainstream Sikhism.





JourneyOflife said:


> But then you have people feeling villified for things like meditation and it just makes me scratch my head



let me make myself quite clear, I could not care less what other people do, worship god by inserting carrots in your orifices if its what you want, makes no difference to me, no what I have a problem with is being told repeatedly that by doing this, I feel a certain way, and open my eyes to experiences I could not possibly experience otherwise, by all means meditate, by all means write about it, but I feel quite offended at the constant pressure that if I am not meditating then I am doing something wrong, or worse, as an answer to a problem, often I read, try meditating, which is fair enough, followed by, you will feel such and such, and it will make you feel such and such, well, how can that possibly be substantiated? In any case, it begs the question what is meditation? Is meditation what I do in the bath? is it thinking? is it contemplating? oh its all those things I am told, but when push comes to shove, it all seems to come back to one thing, the use of words and breathing to artificially put the brain into a suggestive state that feels pleasurable, the trouble is, these feelings seem to only be present during this state, given the behaviour of some of the meditators on this forum, this can clearly be seen, the writing is painfully polite, aloof, its like watching a drug addict waiting for his next fix, life becomes irrelevant, a place full of problems and strife, best to wait for the 'happy place' where all is good, and there are no people to deal with, the desire to meditate, to escape becomes addictive, it is this state that becomes reality and real life with all its challenges becomes the illusion, if your talking about thinking, I am all for it, if your talking about Vedic relaxation techniques with a view to Vedic realisation through chanting, well that's something else, the obsession with finding the tenth eye, is that particularly Sikhi to you?



JourneyOflife said:


> How is meditation counter to Sikhi at all? What was Guru Arjun Dev Ji doing when he was seated on the hot plate? What did the Sikhs find Guru Amar Das Ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji doing when they went out looking for the Guru?



Guru Arjan Devji was standing against tyranny, and showing the world that there are men, and women, who will stand up for what they believe in, and accept the consequences with bravery and without fear, personally the thought that he put himself in a trance like state to achieve this seems quite distasteful to me, did he need to? ah yes, Guru Tegh Bahadurji spent 26 years meditating, first, could you confirm you believe this to be good and true and line with Guru Nanakjis philosophies? , then we may continue.



JourneyOflife said:


> Likewise, I remember comments about how the guy was hiding in his "cocoon" and other such jabs. And I do believe he tried to explain his reasons for meditation multiple times, but it fell on deaf ears. I just don't see how this is productive discussion at all.



sorry you will have to quote this, was it from another thread?



JourneyOflife said:


> But I also don't think Sikhi is some sort of secular philosophy either. The latter is what I get the impression of on this forum.



Guru Nanakji wanted us to be householders not ascetics, he wanted us to be real people, with jobs, kids and wives. He wanted us to reject superstition, ritual, ceremony, and just accept the one Creator, and assist in the work of Creator, I suppose to some, without all the bells and whistles, that may come across as secular.


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 5, 2015)

Seeker2013 said:


> I myself have had my own living as both an atheist an and an agnostic but after I developed my own personal relationship with SGGS , now I feel like all those years were waste when i was being doubtful by being an atheist and agnostic



Not a waste my good friend...stepping into the dark helps you see the light...everything has its place...even this forum

You.ll get what you need from the forum...and you.ll share with others what you need to...and then you move into another phase of your journey...awakening day by day....

One day when you're walking on pastures new...another sikh is doubting questioning...jumping from forum to forum. ..drinking l...chasing after desires...but being gently pulled in the right direction by the light within...

Such a wonderful play


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 5, 2015)

harry haller said:


> I believe in Ek Ong Kar period, I am a Sikh period.
> 
> In my opinion Ek Ong Kar is not a Abrahamic god like figure, I don't quite know what it is, but I do have a fair idea what it ain't.




Feel the force young padawan...

Having taken a dive within the sea of the mind...I see some truth in even the star wars movies...

An open mind is a free mind...with it the truth starts to become visible in the strangest of places...it's all the domain of waheguru. ..

Ahhh...so you do have some faith and belief 

God bless... it's strange...I. M sat on a beach in Aruba. ..and I. M posting on this forum...can't keep away from this thing they call Sikhi. ...


----------



## Navdeep88 (Sep 7, 2015)

harry haller said:


> Where do you draw the line? Would you find a bunch of Sikhs worshipping a photo of the tenth master acceptable? How about a bunch of Sikhs spending more time worrying about the temperature in Babaji's room? the material used? the size of the room?.



Harry Ji, 

What is WRONG with worrying about temperature? Isn't it an everyday practical thing we would worry about in our homes? 

I do agree with you that there's a line between obsessing frantically over details (reading but missing the message) and doing practical things to retain comfort, respect etc.


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 7, 2015)

harry haller said:


> Where do you draw the line? Would you find a bunch of Sikhs worshipping a photo of the tenth master acceptable?



I wouldn't go over and physically stop them from doing it. If there are Sikhs who want to worship pictures of the Gurus then far be it from me to go over and rip them up. What I am referring to is a _doctrinal acceptance_ of these practices. That is what I am opposed to. Sikhs do many things which are not in-line with Sikhi because Sikhs, like everyone else, are also regular humans and none of us are perfect. But that doesn't mean we say "okay Sikhs are doing all these things, I suppose they are a part of Sikhi or we should adopt them into Sikhi." I want to maintain that there are many things Sikhs do in spite of Gurbani, not because of it.

So would I find Sikhs worshiping a picture of the tenth master acceptable? I would try to talk them out of it by showing how the practice contradicts Gurbani. But I wouldn't physically force them to stop. Regardless of the outcome, I would not say that the practice is endorsed or acceptable by Sikhi. I do many things in my life which probably wouldn't have been accepted by the Gurus and I like to be honest about how just because I do it, doesn't mean it is acceptable from the point of view of Sikhi.



> How about a bunch of Sikhs spending more time worrying about the temperature in Babaji's room? the material used? the size of the room?



I think they're probably being overly fussy about things, but I wouldn't compare it to "idol worship" as you have done.



> or how about paying someone money to mumble their way as fast as possible through the SGGS?



Is this a reference to Akhand Paaths? The Sikh Rehat Maryada is pretty clear that they are not supposed to be "mumbled through as fast as possible." If there are people who do so, then they should be reminded of their duty to recite SGGS Ji at a rate which is comprehensible to the attending Sangat.

so that covers idol worship,



> lets see about caste, caste has a very very big place in Sikhism, it would be naïve to think otherwise, so caste and idol worship are both rife in standard mainstream Sikhism.



This is where choice of words is very important. I have never denied that there are many Sikhs, especially in India, who have unfortunately blurred the lines between Sikhi and Hinduism and engage in these sorts of practices. But what I was trying to get across in my last post and have stressed above in this one is that just because there are practices going on among Sikhs- no matter how wide-spread they may be- that go against the message of Gurbani, it does not give us the right to suddenly adopt them into Sikhi and proclaim them to be acceptable from the POV of the Guru. I would try and use reason to get people away from idol worship and believing in caste but regardless of the outcome I would never say these practices are accepted by Sikh doctrine. They happen in spite of Sikhi, not because of it.

And of course, I brought up meditation because I think it is encouraged in Sikhi and in-line with Gurbani. Which is why I can't understand the taunting (at best) or the vilifying (at worst) that happens to people who promote it on SPN...



> let me make myself quite clear, I could not care less what other people do, worship god by inserting carrots in your orifices if its what you want, makes no difference to me,



Nice to know there is at least one person who can tolerate my method of worship 



> no what I have a problem with is being told repeatedly that by doing this, I feel a certain way, and open my eyes to experiences I could not possibly experience otherwise, by all means meditate,



Why do you have a problem with this?



> by all means write about it, but I feel quite offended at the constant pressure



There is no "constant pressure" to meditate on SPN.



> that if I am not meditating then I am doing something wrong, or worse, as an answer to a problem, often I read, try meditating, which is fair enough, followed by, you will feel such and such, and it will make you feel such and such, well, how can that possibly be substantiated?



I'm sorry I don't follow.



> In any case, it begs the question what is meditation? Is meditation what I do in the bath? is it thinking? is it contemplating?



So the issue is with properly defining _meditation_?



> but when push comes to shove, it all seems to come back to one thing, the use of words and breathing to artificially put the brain into a suggestive state that feels pleasurable



How do you naturally "put the brain into a suggestive state that feels pleasurable" and how is this different from "artificially putting the brain into a suggestive state that feels pleasurable."



> the trouble is, these feelings seem to only be present during this state, given the behaviour of some of the meditators on this forum, this can clearly be seen



That's a very small sample size. I know many people in my life who meditate and the consensus seems to be that the benefits of it carry over into all aspects of life. Secular studies on meditation overwhelmingly indicate the same thing.



> life becomes irrelevant, a place full of problems and strife, best to wait for the 'happy place' where all is good, and there are no people to deal with, the desire to meditate, to escape becomes addictive,



I am highly skeptical of this being an inherent feature of practicing meditation even if there were people who exhibited this behavior. Humans can get addicted to almost anything. There are millions of people addicted to the internet, to television, to prescription pills. These numbers far outweigh any possible _addicts _to meditation. I'll begin to consider this a valid argument against meditation when I see widespread calls to stop (among other things) internet, television and prescription drug uses for the same reason.



> if your talking about thinking, I am all for it,



"Thinking" about what?



> if your talking about Vedic relaxation techniques with a view to Vedic realisation through chanting, well that's something else,



What do the Vedas have to do with this? Meditation arguably outdated the Vedas by thousands of years. Who knows, perhaps it was developed very early on by humans following our arrival on the evolutionary scene.



> the obsession with finding the tenth eye, is that particularly Sikhi to you?



I don't think _obsession _with *anything* is "particularly Sikhi".



> Guru Arjan Devji was standing against tyranny, and showing the world that there are men, and women, who will stand up for what they believe in, and accept the consequences with bravery and without fear, *personally the thought that he put himself in a trance like state to achieve this seems quite distasteful to me, did he need to?*



The question wasn't "did he need to" (I have no idea if he did), but what exactly "*he* *was doing*" when he was on there. Every version of this account I have come across states that he was meditating, almost certainly on Gurbani. I have come across no good reason to believe otherwise.




> ah yes, Guru Tegh Bahadurji spent 26 years meditating, first, could you confirm you believe this to be good and true and line with Guru Nanakjis philosophies? , then we may continue.



I think it is important to point out that while he spent 26 years meditating, no one is saying that's _all _he did for that period of time. He worked, he shared and did other things associated with a 'normal' Sikh life. The emphasis on meditation is used as a foil against the martial and political activities of the 6th-8th Guru during their reigns, reigns the 9th Guru lived through himself.

This also brings to light a potential difference in our approach to Sikhi. You have called it "Guru Nanakjis *philosophies*". I don't believe it is a mere philosophy at all. I'm sure there are overlapping features between Sikhi and philosophy, but to say that Sikhi is Guru Nanak's philosophy is in a sense to say that Sikhi was _created by the Guru himself. _I don't believe this to be true, and everything I have read in Gurbani and accompanying literature like the Vaars of Bhai Gurdas thus far seems to indicate that Sikhi was given to the Guru by Waheguru, not the Guru merely speculating on what may or may not be a "nice way to live."

And no, I don't find anything about those 26 years of Guru Teg Bahadur ji to be out of line with the Sikhi given to the first Guru.



> sorry you will have to quote this, was it from another thread?



Yes, post 26: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threa...hat-does-gurbani-say.44909/page-2#post-201963



> Guru Nanakji wanted us to be householders not ascetics, he wanted us to be real people, with jobs, kids and wives.



Yes of course, I fully understand.



> He wanted us to reject superstition,



Yes.



> ritual, ceremony,



Not necessarily. Guru Nanak never spoke out against ritual and ceremony in general, just blind ritualism and blind ceremony in particular, or believing that it makes you somehow holier or purer than people who don't share the same rituals/ceremonies as yourself.



> and just accept the one Creator, and assist in the work of Creator,



How do you "assist in the work of Creator"? What is this work? Why should we do it?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 7, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> *Likewise, I remember comments about how the guy was hiding in his "cocoon" and other such jabs.* And I do believe he tried to explain his reasons for meditation multiple times, but it fell on deaf ears. I just don't see how this is productive discussion at all.


Harry asked:


> sorry you will have to quote this, was it from another thread?



And below is the post number given by 
Yes, post 26: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threa...hat-does-gurbani-say.44909/page-2#post-201963



> Being naughty is not the part of this thread. What you do in your private life is your life. No one has the right to interfere in that. This is a serious subject which demands respect from all of us. Sikhi is all about caring for all humankind. It not about dwelling in one's own self created cocoon hoping one day to come out like a fluttering butterfly. Only dwelling in Gurmat cocoon one may become fortunate for that leap.



JourneyOfLife ji,

Guru Fateh.

The above is the post written by me to Chaz Singh ji. 

Would you be kind enough to show where it is mentioned about "*hiding in his "cocoon"" *as you implied and how is the  post  a jab in the context it was written? 

And lastly,  please define meditation as per SGGS, our only Guru. Please use the word/s that define meditation in the SGGS.

Thanks

Tejwant Singh


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 7, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> JourneyOflife said:
> 
> Harry asked:
> 
> ...



Guru Fateh Tejwant Ji,



> Would you be kind enough to show where it is mentioned about "*hiding in his "cocoon"" *as you implied



The last time I visited that thread was back in July and so I was paraphrasing the comment, hence the quotation marks around _cocoon _(I distinctly remember this word being used)  but not _hiding _(and so no quotations around it).



> and how is the  post  a jab in the context it was written?



Is "dwelling in one's own self-created cocoon" a reference to meditation? It appeared to me that it was but I am now unsure.



> And lastly, please define meditation as per SGGS, our only Guru. Please use the word/s that define meditation in the SGGS.



Thank you for the question. For the record I don't think meditation in Sikhi is completely parallel with what is found in religions like Buddhism or practiced secularly in the west, although there are certainly some base similarities. This is why I think it is important for us to turn to SGGS Ji for our understanding of what the Gurus meant by meditation instead of accepting the standard definition from other traditions. So thank you for the important question.

In reply to your inquiry I must first point out that while I am learning Gurmukhi I am still no expert on it so welcome this discussion. Some words I have a good enough grasp on but others are currently beyond my understanding.

I ran a search in srigranth.org here

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=AdvancedSearchGurbani

One simple word which is often translated as 'meditate' or 'meditation' is _Dhian. _As per my understanding Dhian means something along the lines of concentration, awareness, focus. So when Gurbani tells us to meditate on the Guru and the word for meditate is "dhian", it appears to be saying that we must keep our focus, our awareness and our concentration firmly on our Guru. When it says to meditate on the Creator and the word is again dhian, we are being told focus, concentrate on and keep our awareness rooted in the Creator.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 8, 2015)

JourneyOflife ji,

Guru Fateh.

I apologise for not making myself clear. Let's start all over, shall we?

The following is your post to Harry ji.



> Likewise, I remember comments about how the guy was hiding in his "cocoon" and other such jabs. And I do believe he tried to explain his reasons for meditation multiple times, but it fell on deaf ears. I just don't see how this is productive discussion at all.



Your above post was based on my post below:



> Being naughty is not the part of this thread. What you do in your private life is your life. No one has the right to interfere in that. This is a serious subject which demands respect from all of us. Sikhi is all about caring for all humankind. It not about dwelling in one's own self created cocoon hoping one day to come out like a fluttering butterfly. Only dwelling in Gurmat cocoon one may become fortunate for that leap.



When asked by me about it,  you used the word *reference* rather than* jab*, the word you used in your post to Harry ji.
Why this change because there is a lot of difference between a *jab* and a *reference* as you know?



> Is "dwelling in one's own self-created cocoon" a reference to meditation? It appeared to me that it was but I  am now unsure.



I am also certain that you know the difference between 'hiding', the word you used to paraphrase my thought and 'dwelling', the one used by me.

Would you be kind enough to state why this inconsistency between  your commenting about my post to Harry ji and the original post from me? You are giving a different message to Harry ji about my post than what I wrote in actuality.In other words, your accusations are based not on my post but on yourself. Can you please explain that?

I am sure you have noticed that I used the word *cocoon,* *twice* in expressing my thought. What do you understand by the second one,*"Only dwelling in Gurmat cocoon one may become fortunate for that leap"*?

Regarding the use of meditation in the SGGS, Dhian is just one word out of many in Gurmukhi used by the the translator. If you use the search engine of srigranth.org, you will find that dhian is just one of them. The followings words are just a few out of many which are translated into English as Meditation. And all these words mean different things in the SGGS.
jap,gi▫ān vīcẖār,suraṯ,simrī▫ai,ṯap

If our Gurus wanted to talk about meditation, then they would have used just one word rather than so many with different meanings or different words with the same meaning. Don't you think so?

Is it possible that none of these words mean meditation but the translator, in this case Sant Singh Khalsa got it all wrong? In case you did not know, I have mentioned here by showing from the SGGS how Sant Singh Khalsa's translation is not only incorrect but rather quite misleading. As you mentioned that you are not fluent in Gurmukhi, then you would not know the difference. This is the reason, I only gave the romanised version of only some of the words used as 'meditation' by the translator from the SGGS,our only Guru.

Isn't it dangerous when the wrong/incorrect/misleading message is given by the translators to the people, especially to those who are not fluent in Gurmukhi?

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh





*

*


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 8, 2015)

Guru Fateh Tejwant ji,



Tejwant Singh said:


> JourneyOflife ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> I apologise for not making myself clear. Let's start all over, shall we?



Sure.




> I am also certain that you know the difference between 'hiding', the word you used to paraphrase my thought and 'dwelling', the one used by me.



Yes I am aware and the reason I used it was because, as before, I had forgotten the exact phrasing of the original statement by you. Had I remembered, I would've used "dwelling" instead. I apologize if you were taken aback by that, it was my mistake.



> When asked by me about it,  you used the word *reference* rather than* jab*, the word you used in your post to Harry ji.
> Why this change because there is a lot of difference between a *jab* and a *reference* as you know?
> 
> Would you be kind enough to state why this inconsistency between  your commenting about my post to Harry ji and the original post from me? You are giving a different message to Harry ji about my post than what I wrote in actuality.In other words, your accusations are based not on my post but on yourself. Can you please explain that?



I don't think it is an inconsistency at all, rather a misunderstanding. I feel like I've used this phrase a lot today, but the two (reference and jab) are not mutually exclusive. If it is indeed a _reference_ to meditation then I would also consider it to be a _jab _at people who engage in the practice. Of course like I mentioned before I am unsure as to whether it is actually talking about meditation, hence my plea for clarity.



> I am sure you have noticed that I used the word *cocoon,* *twice* in expressing my thought. What do you understand by the second one,*"Only dwelling in Gurmat cocoon one may become fortunate for that leap"*?



Yes I did notice, and this is one of the reasons the word "hiding" came to mind when I was paraphrasing your original statement. Assuming that "dwelling in one's own self-construed cocoon" _is _actually a reference to meditation, then the phrase "*Sikhi is all about caring for all humankind. It not about dwelling in one's own self created cocoon hoping one day to come out like a fluttering butterfly. Only dwelling in Gurmat cocoon one may become fortunate for that leap*" does bring "hiding" to my mind.

The statement seems to suggest that because a) "Sikhi is all about caring for all humankind" and b) It isn't about "dwelling in one's own self-construed cocoon..." (which I am assuming to be a reference to meditation), then it naturally follows that engaging in meditation shows a lack of "caring for all humankind." And because legitimately caring about humankind means working to make a difference in the world then if meditation is lack of caring for humankind, it is taken as _hiding _from the world rather than _engaging _in it. Of course I think this is a false dichotomy and therefore disagree. But I hope that clears up the hiding vs. dwelling and reference vs. jab issue.



> Regarding the use of meditation in the SGGS, Dhian is just one word out of many in Gurmukhi used by the the translator. If you use the search engine of srigranth.org, you will find that dhian is just one of them. The followings words are just a few out of many which are translated into English as Meditation. And all these words mean different things in the SGGS.
> jap,gi▫ān vīcẖār,suraṯ,simrī▫ai,ṯap



Yes I noticed the variation in words being translated as _meditation_ or _meditate_. Unfortunately my Gurbani skills are not up to the level where I know the meaning of all the words mentioned by you so I would highly appreciate it if you could just give a short-run down of the meanings of jap, gian, surat, simriai and tap. I am sure others and myself would benefit from your sharing of knowledge.



> If our Gurus wanted to talk about meditation, then they would have used just one word rather than so many with different meanings or different words with the same meaning. Don't you think so?



No, because I don't think meditation in Sikhi is a one-dimensional concept. It could entail many different things in many different situations/contexts, hence the variety of words used. The 'meditation' we do throughout our day could mean something different to the 'meditation' we do upon arising in the morning, and so different words are used to best capture the essence of what the Gurus actually meant.




> Is it possible that none of these words mean meditation but the translator, in this case Sant Singh Khalsa got it all wrong? In case you did not know, I have mentioned here by showing from the SGGS how Sant Singh Khalsa's translation is not only incorrect but rather quite misleading. As you mentioned that you are not fluent in Gurmukhi, then you would not know the difference. This is the reason, I only gave the romanised version of only some of the words used as 'meditation' by the translator from the SGGS,our only Guru.
> 
> Isn't it dangerous when the wrong/incorrect/misleading message is given by the translators to the people, especially to those who are not fluent in Gurmukhi?



Yes that is very much possible. But then why pick on 'meditation' alone? No translation into the English or any other language can by itself (without some form of exegesis)  can ever fully or 100% correctly capture the essence of what the Guru was trying to say. I would much rather have Sikhs abandon this foreign terminology altogether and work on standardizing their own vocabulary so we don't need to deal with these translational errors. But until that happens I will most likely continue to use 'meditation' because so far it is the best word I have been able to find in the English language. If you have found another word you feel is a better translation please do share.


----------



## Ishna (Sep 8, 2015)

Tejwant Ji said:
			
		

> If our Gurus wanted to talk about meditation, then they would have used just one word rather than so many with different meanings or different words with the same meaning. Don't you think so?





			
				Journey of Life Ji said:
			
		

> ... I would highly appreciate it if you could just give a short-run down of the meanings of jap, gian, surat, simriai and tap. I am sure others and myself would benefit from your sharing of knowledge.



Just my personal opinion, but I think different words are used for a couple of reasons; the main one is use of synonyms for the same concept to fit with the rhyme or metre of the poetry, and the next is use of subtlety of meaning.

I'm not sure they can be adequately translated, really, at least not without making one line of Gurbani poetry worth three lines of English prose to try to explain. 

I have found that the context of the shabad in which the word appears generally gives one a good impression of what the words should mean.


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 8, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> JourneyOflife ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Tejwant ji

I think many times my meditations experiences and other members meditational experiences have been described by yourself and other members as merely drug induced like experiences amongst other such type references.

I think this is what journeyoflife  is referring to.

My experiences of simran using dyaan and reaching a point of ik man...single mindedness on shabad cannot even be explained by myself...they are very personal between my and my guru...

In which case calling it merely a drug induced like experience or something else is quite ridiculous...because you or other members have 'no idea'



But I don't expect you to...10 years ago...if I heard myself saying the things I say today...I would have laughed at it...made fun of it...or mocked myself...

I even tried to explain to my own wife that this is the real deal...even she looked at me like I. M nuts...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 8, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> Tejwant ji
> 
> *I think many times my meditations experiences and other members meditational experiences have been described by yourself and other members as merely drug induced like experiences amongst other such type references.*
> 
> ...



Chaz Singh ji,

Guru Fateh,

I beg to differ with you. JourneyOflife was talking about one particular post of mine which he had posted and we have clarified that.
I would request one thing from you though, please post  where I mentioned the above* in Bold *as you claim I did.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## japjisahib04 (Sep 8, 2015)

There is sakhi. What is today called as Nanak Matta, it is said was earlier called the Gorakh Matta. When Guru Nanak with Mardana and other reached in Gorakhmatta, yogis welcomed him and the yogi Lohari-Pa Nath offered him a rose. Mardana pointed out and enquired from Guru Ji whether yogis have changed their behaviors as earlier whenever they used to come to their place, yogis used to argue for hours, but now are offering rose with pleasure. Guru Nanak replied this flower is not offered as welcome, instead they have raised a question through it “that ‘yog mat’ is like a rose flower”. It has fragrance of Ridhi and Sidhi (magical methods). It has beauty of worldly worship, fame and has softness of communion (Samadhi). And they are enquiring why until today have not adopted ‘yog mat - the meditation’ Guru Nanak returned that flower back to yogis and said this flower is beautiful, soft and has fragrance, but he is not worshipper of that flower which does not yield fruit. As gurbani says, 'ਏ ਮਨ ਹਰਿਆ ਸਹਜ ਸੁਭਾਇ ॥ ਸਚ ਫਲੁ ਲਾਗੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਭਾਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

He said they were only after acquiring powers, with different yogic assans and meditations on some mantras and would get those powers too. But these will in no way bring sehaj. People thought that meditation experience was perhaps the best achievement in human life, because they did not know how to connect with Naam and hence connect with God. Guru Nanak realized the truth through Naam. He humbly suggested them not to waste this blessed birth in mantras, worshipping of deities and yogic assans. He says this does not connect one with the God; hence the whole process is useless. It is only the Naam through which one will get united with God. He does not want Ridhi Sidhi, worshiping of world and fame. Guru Nanak is looking for fruit the creativeness of Naam. He said, “Without the creativity of Naam, cursed is such spirituality, cursed is such miracles.”- Guru Granth ang.650.6. I consider root of life only Naam. Hence I do not require this flower, which does not have essence of Naam. Therefore he advised them to perform only those deeds, which yield Spiritual Knowledge and finally which bears fruit, and told them any deeds, which have no relation with ‘righteousness’, are hypocrisy.

 It is under this background that Guru Arjun Ji says the “Messenger of Death plunders all the religious rites, rituals and hypocrisies that bear no fruit.” In fact that ‘Karam’ is only worth which connects the conscious with God and creativity.


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 8, 2015)

japjisahib04 said:


> There is sakhi. What is today called as Nanak Matta, it is said was earlier called the Gorakh Matta. When Guru Nanak with Mardana and other reached in Gorakhmatta, yogis welcomed him and the yogi Lohari-Pa Nath offered him a rose. Mardana pointed out and enquired from Guru Ji whether yogis have changed their behaviors as earlier whenever they used to come to their place, yogis used to argue for hours, but now are offering rose with pleasure. Guru Nanak replied this flower is not offered as welcome, instead they have raised a question through it “that ‘yog mat’ is like a rose flower”. It has fragrance of Ridhi and Sidhi (magical methods). It has beauty of worldly worship, fame and has softness of communion (Samadhi). And they are enquiring why until today have not adopted ‘yog mat - the meditation’ Guru Nanak returned that flower back to yogis and said this flower is beautiful, soft and has fragrance, but he is not worshipper of that flower which does not yield fruit. As gurbani says, 'ਏ ਮਨ ਹਰਿਆ ਸਹਜ ਸੁਭਾਇ ॥ ਸਚ ਫਲੁ ਲਾਗੈ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਭਾਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
> 
> He said they were only after acquiring powers, with different yogic assans and meditations on some mantras and would get those powers too. But these will in no way bring sehaj. People thought that meditation experience was perhaps the best achievement in human life, because they did not know how to connect with Naam and hence connect with God. Guru Nanak realized the truth through Naam. He humbly suggested them not to waste this blessed birth in mantras, worshipping of deities and yogic assans. He says this does not connect one with the God; hence the whole process is useless. It is only the Naam through which one will get united with God. He does not want Ridhi Sidhi, worshiping of world and fame. Guru Nanak is looking for fruit the creativeness of Naam. He said, “Without the creativity of Naam, cursed is such spirituality, cursed is such miracles.”- Guru Granth ang.650.6. I consider root of life only Naam. Hence I do not require this flower, which does not have essence of Naam. Therefore he advised them to perform only those deeds, which yield Spiritual Knowledge and finally which bears fruit, and told them any deeds, which have no relation with ‘righteousness’, are hypocrisy.
> 
> It is under this background that Guru Arjun Ji says the “Messenger of Death plunders all the religious rites, rituals and hypocrisies that bear no fruit.” In fact that ‘Karam’ is only worth which connects the conscious with God and creativity.



Yes ji...

Only love can take us back...to satnaam. ..wanting anything else...powers or material gain will create big hurdles...

True selfless love...and god will make himself known ... God bless


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 8, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Just my personal opinion, but I think different words are used for a couple of reasons; the main one is use of synonyms for the same concept to fit with the rhyme or metre of the poetry, and the next is use of subtlety of meaning.
> 
> I'm not sure they can be adequately translated, really, at least not without making one line of Gurbani poetry worth three lines of English prose to try to explain.
> 
> I have found that the context of the shabad in which the word appears generally gives one a good impression of what the words should mean.



I think we're on the same page here. I'm interested in hearing your take on this whole meditation fiasco.


----------



## Ishna (Sep 8, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> I think we're on the same page here. I'm interested in hearing your take on this whole meditation fiasco.



Yeah, I think we're on the same page, too.

My take on the whole meditation fiasco? Okay...

I don't think it's wrong to nurture your spirituality with meditation, prayer, chanting, music, conscious ritual/ceremony, voluntary work, sharing, contemplation, etc.  I think it's good to do what you need to do to fan your own inner spiritual flame as long as you do so in the spirit expressed by Gurbani.
I personally feel that studying the spiritual wisdom contained in Gurbani is an absolute essential, as well as living what you learn.
I believe that Gurbani teaches an attitude, a perspective and a philosophy.
We all tend to understand the Gurbani in our individual way, and there is also a tendency for each of us to display the occasional 'my understanding is the right one / my way or the highway' part of our selves.
I strongly believe the forum *can be about more* than a) talking about meditation and b) arguing about it.  I think discussion of meditation techniques is perfectly good and should be encouraged *in the proper threads and areas*, but I observe that the meditation debate is brought up in most threads *by both sides*.  I'm guilty of this, too.
It is my hope that all members of the SPN community will some day be able to consciously decide to leave meditation (overtly or just by suggestion) out of their posts for the sake of other topics.  Everyone has said their piece many times over the last couple of years, it's time for both sides to recognise that there isn't going to be a resolution on the issue by talking about it, and will choose to put the forum ahead of their urge to jab, slide, argue, refer, pontificate, joke about and otherwise bring up *meditation et. al.* in practically each and every single thread.


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 9, 2015)

Ishna said:


> I don't think it's wrong to nurture your spirituality with meditation, prayer, chanting, music, conscious ritual/ceremony, voluntary work, sharing, contemplation, etc.  I think it's good to do what you need to do to fan your own inner spiritual flame as long as you do so in the spirit expressed by Gurbani.



Exactly. I completely disagree with this idea of "Sikhi/Guru Nanak is against rituals and ceremonies." No they're not. I brush my teeth twice at the same times every day. I try and buy the same brand of toothbrush and toothpaste every time because I find they leave my mouth feeling more minty clean after each use. Is that a ritual? I'm an above-average germaphobe and hate touching any sort of food if my hands have not been washed with soap. Is the need to wash my hands before eating also a ritual? Or how about forcing myself to study hours on end before every big exam or test. Isn't that a ritual?

The truth is you can define almost anything to be a ritual if our definition of _ritual _is so broad it may as well just be "a ritual is any sequence of actions or behavior performed over and over again." Under that definition you could say that things like meditation, congregation, "prayer, chanting, music conscious ceremony, voluntary work, sharing [and] contemplation" are rituals. But then under this definition brushing teeth, washing hands and studying for tests can also be counted as potential rituals and that is absurd.

In this sense I think it makes no sense to make a blanket statement about how "the Gurus were against ritualism. Period." Because they're not. They're against _blind _ritualism and thinking your particular set of religious ceremonies makes you holier than everyone else, because these in particular breed ignorance in the population and a sense of superiority towards those who follow another path. Guru Nanak did actually start a community in Kartarpur, a community which was centered around meeting together on a regular basis every day, singing, playing and dare I say it, _meditating _on Gurbani. Isn't that ritualism, then? That isn't directed at you, just food for thought for the sangat as a whole because the "Sikhi is against all ritualism" narrative is pretty strong in contemporary Sikhi.



> I believe that Gurbani teaches an attitude, a perspective and a philosophy.



I have also noticed the phrase "Philosophy, yes. Religion, no" under your username. Could you elaborate on this?

Spot on with the next points. I know there are some heated topics that get discussed here like reincarnation and meditation, why not have formal debates on these in logic-book style instead of the usual manner of discussion which doesn't tend to lead anywhere?


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 10, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Chaz Singh ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh,
> 
> ...





Tejwant ji,

before i go through your past quotes, i can across one of your comments and wanted to ask you something...

on another thread you wrote to me...

*"If you consider, you are not a parrot of Gurbani, then there is no discussion to be held because I was talking about the parrots of Gurbani who parrot senselessly for hours and feel a transitory high like a drug addict would feel, which happens* *especially when one is in a Vaheguru chanting group, the way I was"*

So you was a part of some kind of waheguru chanting group? if so, why did you senselessly parrot Waheguru for hours?

why didn't you say the word waheguru with love? with a pouring of your heart? with longing? like a child wanting to say 'i love you' to his mother?

why did you *senselessly* parrot waheguru for hours? were you drugged by them prior to speaking the words waheguru which made you devoid of any feeling or emotions? did they force you to be there against your free will? so you just sat there senselessly parrotting and ended up being on some kind of drug like high?

how did this happen? i often tell my mother that i love her...when i say the words...there is a pouring from my heart...it is a powerful thing...this thing called love...when the words come out...she hears them...she can tell that i really mean it...she feels it...wow! what a wonderful thing..and then i feel great...she feels great...two hearts connecting...

of course...if i senselessly parrot the words "i love you" to my mother...i'm pretty sure she will 'feel' the difference...she will know there is no love behind my words...

why did you become so senseless uttering like a parrot? i don't get it...what got you into that state becoming like a robot where your words had no pouring of your heart or no emotions?


----------



## Original (Sep 10, 2015)

Dear  All

The less said the better for JourneyOflife Ji is profoundly navigating the sangat back home to the land of the five alive, Anandpur Sahib. A commendable dispostion for the want of Sikhism to flourish to fulfill its divine nature, well argued and held a position.

On my part then, an overview perhaps, to say the least, but first, two notable observations:

Is Sikh a philosophy ? In short, no ! Why ? Because of its belief in the transcendental [Ikonkar] deem it an ideology. Classification that Sikh is a religion by conventional standards is thus arrived because, philosophy seeks truth by reason and argument, religion and mysticism do so by intuition and revelation. The dichotomy is in pursuit of "truth" [sat]; the basis of *religion*is faith in the unseen and in *philosophy* is the quest in the unseen. It was through *revelations* on the whole and *mystical* in part that the word [shabd] came to glorify the greatness of God without human intervention [meaning, subjectivity removed, *ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥ *_As the word of the Husband Lord comes to me, so do I express it O'Lalo, Ang 722 SGGSJ] _and directly from Akal Purakh [AP, nam, source]. Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible. It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one *believes* [gurmukh]. And, it is the faith of the individual that constitutes belief. Academians have accepted Nanak's AP as trancendental , confirmation of which is Sikhi, meaning, it cannot be argued but experienced [live-it, note here the importance of meditation as a mean to an end from teleological perspective] hence the three pillars, that is KK, VS and Nam Jap [open to wider interpretation].
Does Sikhi overlap with Philosophy ? Personally speaking, I don't think it does. Gur Ghar is absolutely clear on its doctrinal foundations. It's not so much the overlapping but rather the conceptual understanding. For example, Nanak completely changed the trend of religious life in India, that is, against the world being regarded as unreal [maya], miserable and suffering, he called it real and meaningful [teleological]. That taken as a world-view perspective, potentially has a philosophical ring to it, but not in its entirety is it ideologically a philosophy. It is this anomaly perhaps, which gives rise to abstract thinking, moving away as it were, from the real deal. But, for clarification sake, it must be noted that although, Nanak promoted and encouraged social reform, he never moved away from his ideology nor did the rest of the Banikars in maintaining the status quo of the perishable [physical] and the imperishable [spiritual] world of the soul, Sachkhand. Nanak's emphasis were on *social* and not *religious*. He promoted householder's life [garhasthya jeevan] as the bedrock of society. Any society that ignores the sanctity of marriage [voicing against asceticism] ultimately undermines its moral foundation. The individual's personality finds its expression through participation in family life, the training ground for usefulness. This was in view of the sargun nirgun maxim, classic example of which is pauri 38 of Jap Ji Sahib.
What I mean by understanding is, its deep conceptual message. Going to the Gurdwara, doing seva and nam simran all amounts to nothing unless a relationship is found with the "guru" [SGGSJ and Panth, the individual n the state, deontological perspective]. That is not to say, one accords with the Panth's procedural view n belief, but with substantiative Sikhism in order to both, build its institutional image and social status, for the betterment of society as a whole. Furthermore, it helps to understand how Gur Ghar was steeped in the historical perspectives [religion] of its time so it could reproduce and clarify their distinctive vocabularies and conceptual tools [meditation, reincarnation] ensuring contribution of knowledge through its applications to new objects of enquiry [removal of inequalities] were compatible to better the human condition. The only way possible was questioning and pushing at the boundaries of their respective traditions.

*Comment* [write-up below, is tailored made to reflect contemporary issues. It is not entirely my own, I've used it as a template to advance a contentious issue].

At a time when so many "venerable" traditions are being skeptically scrutinised, if not harshly attacked, it is hardly surprising that moral reasoning is also attracting increasing criticism. Growing number of youngsters [including my own] are questioning whether religious institutions like the science of *logic* n *analysis* are indeed proper tools for contemporary problem solving. Sizeable population believe [perception, youngsters] that the institutions and their method of communication and teachings obscures rather than clarify relevant issues in assessing religious fundamentals, mixed marriages [mm] for example.

From a lawyers perspective [past tense], it is true that passes for *logic* in some judicial decisions are no more than rhetorically weaved words, but equally, it must be noted, that pure logic does not offer a solution to all contemporary problems. In reaching a great many solutions [mm] a value judgment or aesthetic choice becomes inevitable, no matter how much the decision maker [me] exercises caution by means of careful *analysis. *In deed in some cases [instant] the logical solution may even be inappropriate because certain emotional or other supposedly illogical factors are proper considerations. 

Little imagination is required to interpret these statements of the religious thought process that moral principles be sacrificed on the alter of Panthic reasoning. What do you think ?
.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 10, 2015)

Chaz Singh  ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> before i go through your past quotes, i can across one of your comments and wanted to ask you something...
> 
> on another thread you wrote to me...
> 
> ...



I was introduced to the Dodra group in Vancouver in Aug 1988 and fell in love with it because Simran made me high, put me in trance in a transitory manner. I saw many people getting emotional and saw the tears flowing from their eyes which was touching. The only funny thing which I did not do after an hour of Vaheguru chanting was the silent chant because I heard many snoring during that.



> why didn't you say the word waheguru with love? with a pouring of your heart? with longing? like a child wanting to say 'i love you' to his mother?



When did I say "I did not say the word waheguru with love"? Why are you making things up? 

This has nothing to do with Simran. I recite Gurbani with love because it is a Miracle Gro for my love that I cultivate within through Gurbani. But if you mean about the Vaheguru Simran, why would not one do it with love? I am sorry, I have no idea what the premise of your question is.



> why did you *senselessly* parrot waheguru for hours? were you drugged by them prior to speaking the words waheguru which made you devoid of any feeling or emotions? did they force you to be there against your free will? so you just sat there senselessly parrotting and ended up being on some kind of drug like high?



The above realisation came in front of me after many months, perhaps I was blinded and high on this drug of trance when I saw the honchos of the group hugging vulnerable emotional women, some of them quite young not in a brotherly fashion.



> how did this happen? i often tell my mother that i love her...when i say the words...there is a pouring from my heart...it is a powerful thing...this thing called love...when the words come out...she hears them...she can tell that i really mean it...she feels it...wow! what a wonderful thing..and then i feel great...she feels great...two hearts connecting...



I have no idea what your question is above. Please elaborate.



> of course...if i senselessly parrot the words "i love you" to my mother...i'm pretty sure she will 'feel' the difference...she will know there is no love behind my words...



You seem a bit confused. Let's stick to the topic that you wonderfully started by asking me questions. Now it has stopped making any sense. Your love for your Mum has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.



> why did you become so senseless uttering like a parrot? i don't get it...what got you into that state becoming like a robot where your words had no pouring of your heart or no emotions?



LOL . Now, you are trying to be a shrink. When I was in the group, for me everything made sense and I participated in it wholeheartedly, went to the Smagams all over the US and Canada till I found out about their  naughty shenanigans of affairs, rapes and jail time. They were taking advantage of the women because of the emotional drain that the Simran environment created. I was shell shocked once, when some women who were not happy in their marriages asked for help. They told them to just do Vaheguru Simran and everything would be OK and which was not.

 I was also very uncomfortable from the very beginning about their way of hugging each other especially the women. I did hug the men but from day one I did not hug any woman. 

Any more questions? Please do not hesitate to ask.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Sep 10, 2015)

Guru Fateh to All,

I know we have discussed this before here several times but it is worth bringing the subject back.

Original ji posts the following one liner from Gurbani in his interesting post in order to justify his Sikhi thought process by saying this:

*"and directly from Akal Purakh [AP, nam, source]. Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible. It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]". 

ਤਿਲੰਗਮਹਲਾ੧॥*

*ਜੈਸੀਮੈਆਵੈਖਸਮਕੀਬਾਣੀਤੈਸੜਾਕਰੀਗਿਆਨੁਵੇਲਾਲੋ॥*

_As the word of the Husband Lord comes to me, so do I express it O'Lalo, Ang 722 SGGSJ]_

There are many verses like this in the SGGS, our only Guru. The following is just one more one liner (I do not fancy one liners because they are incapable of expressing the true message of the whole shabad but give the writer a weapon to use in his/her argument.

The literal translation of the below is by Sant Singh Khalsa who is a convert from Christianity and hence has the Abrahamic baggage.

ਸੋਰਠਿਮਹਲਾ੫॥
Soraṯẖ mėhlā 5.

ਧੁਰਕੀਬਾਣੀਆਈ॥
Ḏẖur kī baṇī ā▫ī.
The Bani of His Word emanated from the Primal Lord

ਤਿਨਿਸਗਲੀਚਿੰਤਮਿਟਾਈ॥
Ŧin saglī cẖinṯ mitā▫ī.
It eradicates all anxiety  Ang 628 of SGGS

As mentioned above, this subject was discussed here before. The followers of the Abrahamic religions  say the same thing but they do it more bluntly by saying, "God spoke to Me,Moses,Jesus, Prophets and others".

My question in those Christian forums and also here at SPN was and still is:

What is *NOT inspired* by  *Ik Ong Kaar *in our lives? Please take a note of the word *Inspire *in the view of positive action in this context. Please share your list here. I am still looking for the list which is *not inspired by Ik Ong Kaar in all of us. *Hence, it has nothing to do with* "Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible.It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]." *as Original ji mentioned in his post. But in my view, it has everything to do with pragmatic reasoning on which Guru Nanak based our Sikhi.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 11, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Chaz Singh  ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Ahhh the silent simran....i often used to fall asleep during that...with time my awareness and focus got me through that...but i guess sometimes you just have to listen to your own body and get some rest 




> When did I say "I did not say the word waheguru with love"? Why are you making things up?
> 
> This has nothing to do with Simran. I recite Gurbani with love because it is a Miracle Gro for my love that I cultivate within through Gurbani. But if you mean about the Vaheguru Simran, why would not one do it with love? I am sorry, I have no idea what the premise of your question is.



ok, this is interesting and it's basically the reason i bought this up....you often mention on Simran and meditation threads this whole 'parroting' that goes on....and you stated in your quote that you were involved with a group that was doing "*parrot senselessly for hours*"..

so from your reply, you have bought to attention a difference between what they we doing and what you were doing...

they were senselessy parroting....*and you were reciting with love..*.





> The above realisation came in front of me after many months, perhaps I was blinded and high on this drug of trance when I saw the honchos of the group hugging vulnerable emotional women, some of them quite young not in a brotherly fashion.



Ahh, so you realized that the ones who were senselessly parroting i.e. *reciting in a robotic manner with no love and emotion or thirst and longing for waheguru*...were the ones involved in this *'huggin'* and you decided to leave...

I'm glad you did leave...Lust affects us all...one of the 5 thieves...it drains our energy.




> You seem a bit confused. Let's stick to the topic that you wonderfully started by asking me questions. Now it has stopped making any sense. Your love for your Mum has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.



No confusion Ji....from many responses of yours on meditation and Simran threads you have made clear you have a very big issue with this whole Mindless Senseless Parroting that often goes on...

*and my reference to saying 'i love you' to my mother was to highlight that words can be said with an infinite amount of love and longing and feeling and emotion for the subject that the words are intended for...the words come alive *

and you have lovingly stated that you were the one that was thankfully 'reciting with Love'

This is what most posters on these threads have stated many times...that they meditate, focus their dyaan...with IK Man on shabad as their heart lovingly thirsts for awareness of waheguru...love just keeps enveloping the words...love being the primal power behind it all whether they are reciting verbally or mentally.

Thankfully you have shown yourself that this can be done...and is an important part of being a Sikh with your words
*" I recite Gurbani with love because it is a Miracle Gro for my love that I cultivate within through Gurbani. "*



> LOL . Now, you are trying to be a shrink. When I was in the group, for me everything made sense and I participated in it wholeheartedly, went to the Smagams all over the US and Canada till I found out about their  naughty shenanigans of affairs, rapes and jail time. They were taking advantage of the women because of the emotional drain that the Simran environment created. I was shell shocked once, when some women who were not happy in their marriages asked for help. They told them to just do Vaheguru Simran and everything would be OK and which was not.
> 
> I was also very uncomfortable from the very beginning about their way of hugging each other especially the women. I did hug the men but from day one I did not hug any woman.



unfortunately this is the way of the world...there are fake untrustworthy plumbers amongst the ones that work honestly and truthfully...good merchants and bad merchants, good sikhs and bad sikhs. light and dark..hot and cold...

I'm happy that you were the one who took reciting gurbani seriously....and did so with love and affection and a *REAL PURPOSE*

*I wouldn't let these hugging shenanigans of others put you off your Recitation and Simran...one musn't stop just because of the senseless parroting ones...*

me personally...i don't get this drug like high...i've taken drugs...different types...what i get from Simran does not compare in any way to the feeling of drugs.

what i do however feel is *waves of love*, i know i have been drawn into His Domain...i'm fully aware during this and the only thing that tries to pull me out of this loving sanctuary is my mind that starts to pull me into thoughts of Sex, Money, Anger, Ego and Desire...

*I know now that me and you are the same...we recite with love, longing and a thirst...our compasses are set in the correct direction...we are not the mindless, senseless parroters that do exists unfortunately....we are the reciters super charged with Love for Waheguru...*



> Any more questions? Please do not hesitate to ask.



For now i am content...i have learned a lot from just this brief discussion with you...God Bless Ji


----------



## Original (Sep 11, 2015)

H


chazSingh said:


> Ahhh the silent simran....i often used to fall asleep during that...with time my awareness and focus got me through that...but i guess sometimes you just have to listen to your own body and get some rest
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Meditator, grazing on the same field with the Gladiator ! WOW ! Miracles do happen !


----------



## Original (Sep 11, 2015)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Guru Fateh to All,


Gur Fateh, Veer Ji !


Tejwant Singh said:


> I know we have discussed this before here several times but it is worth bringing the subject back.


Be my guest !


Tejwant Singh said:


> Original ji posts the following one liner from Gurbani in his interesting post in order to justify his Sikhi thought process by saying this:
> 
> *"and directly from Akal Purakh [AP, nam, source]. Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible. It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]".
> 
> ...


This was to show that "gurbani" is divine revelation and mystical in places. I used the above verse to show what Nanak was trying to explain to Lalo, [exactly what I'm doing right now], that is, "hey Lalo, it aren't me who's voicing this here verse, voluntarily ? No ! But, Akal Purakh [*ਖਸਮ*, meaning husband] is himself, speaking through me, directly. I used the word comprehensible to show, hey wait, since this is coming dircet from AP [transcendental, beyond time n space], rationality [mind] and emperical data [senses] are bystanders, this is beyond their remit. What this does, it removes the subjective element of the object in question.

Consider the following :

Waho waho Bani Nirankar hai  [Bani is God, 515 SGGSJ]

Bani guru, guru hai bani            [Bani and Guru are the one and the same 982 SGGSJ]
Parbraham Gur nai pha'id         [Guru is God, between the 2 is no difference 1142 SGGSJ]
The following formula is pretty good:

God>Guru>Nanak>Word
If that'd be correct then it follows, Nanak was the instrument through which the word of God was REVEALED and not inspired.

There is a differnce between* revelation vs inspiration*, that is, where the former's source is* always *divine, the latter could sometime be otherwise [agent intervention], thus, rendering it suppostioin; revelation, absolute.

NOTE: whether one is Abrahamic or Vedic or Martian or Spok - Nanak's Ikonkar can accommodate them all. And, if they'd be up to no good to mislead the children of Waheguru, I'll have bit more of that coz journey so far, has been wkd !


Tejwant Singh said:


> What is *NOT inspired* by *Ik Ong Kaar *in our lives? Please take a note of the word *Inspire *in the view of positive action in this context. Please share your list here. I am still looking for the list which is *not inspired by Ik Ong Kaar in all of us. *Hence, it has nothing to do with* "Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible.It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]." *as Original ji mentioned in his post. But in my view, it has everything to do with pragmatic reasoning on which Guru Nanak based our Sikhi.


The day you'll archive pragmatic reasoning the day you'll get an out-of-body excursion with brother Chaz around another galaxy, compliments of the house of Nanak.

Love n leave ya - lunch time ! Long live Singh Kings and Prince Kaurs of the Five Alive Paradise


----------



## Ishna (Sep 18, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:


> I have also noticed the phrase "Philosophy, yes. Religion, no" under your username. Could you elaborate on this?



Apologies for the late reply, I have been very busy with work and my in-laws have been staying with us while they're in town.

I am nowhere near as knowledgeable or eloquent as dear Original Ji, and merely present here my point of view.

The 'Philosophy, yes. Religion, no' tag under my username is indicating that I am interested in the study of the Sikh philosophy as presented in Gurbani, and I am not interested in the religion as commonly seen today.  When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.

When I read Gurbani, I feel as though the Guru is the great philosopher, and I am His student, wondering in awe and searching for answers to questions like, "What is the nature of reality?" and, "How should I live life in the best way?" These questions can be asked (and answered) independently of religion, which brings with it so much cultural and traditional baggage.

Gurbani doesn't teach religion... It doesn't say 'do this, don't do that'.  It gets you to use your mind, and to question, assess situations for yourself, and act in the way of a Gurmukh.


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 18, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Apologies for the late reply, I have been very busy with work and my in-laws have been staying with us while they're in town.
> 
> I am nowhere near as knowledgeable or eloquent as dear Original Ji, and merely present here my point of view.
> 
> ...




to me these are all just mere words...religion, spirituality, philosophy...

they can mean whatever they like to each individual....

for example to me, religion is the seeking, the testing, the questioning...
for others it is a box to put yourself into, just as a labeling mechanism to belong to a group...to feel a part of a group to affirm identity..but there is no attempt to seek, test, question and breath.

we all individually decide what the words mean to us...

i hear often people saying, i don;t like using the word religion..i rather use spirituality....but even spirituality will start to be identified by our egotistical world as a religion in itself...then people who don;t want to associate with any kind of religion will develop a new word...truthists, new ageists

its always down to the individual...are you seeking...or just passing your life by and just labeling yourself...


----------



## Ishna (Sep 18, 2015)

That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias.


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 18, 2015)

Ishna said:


> That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias.



_[mass noun]_
1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: _ideas about the relationship between science and religion_
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1_ [count noun]_ A particular system of faith and worship: _the world’s great religions_
More example sentences
1.2_ [count noun]_ A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: _consumerism is the new religion_

which one of the above would you say you fall into? from your description of yourself, i would say 1.2? we can call your religion 'truthism' and you can be deemed a truth seeker...enjoy


----------



## Ishna (Sep 18, 2015)

It's fun to label me, isn't it? I know, I've been doing it my whole life.   Such is my lot, I suppose.

I like this one:

_Philosopher_
In the classical sense, a philosopher is someone who lives according to a way of life, whose focus is upon resolving existential questions about the human condition.​


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 18, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Apologies for the late reply, I have been very busy with work and my in-laws have been staying with us while they're in town.



No problem, thanks for replying. I'm going to go through this because I am unsure of how to draw a distinction between Sikh _religion _and Sikh _philosophy, _and would love to learn more.



> The 'Philosophy, yes. Religion, no' tag under my username is indicating that I am interested in the study of the Sikh philosophy as presented in Gurbani, *and I am not interested in the religion as commonly seen today*.  When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.



See that's the thing- I disagree with many of the practices I see Sikhs engaging in around me- but to say you are not interested in the religion as "commonly seen *today*" gives the impression there was a time in the past when you_ would _have been interested in the way the religion was "commonly" practiced.

I can't think of any time when there weren't some problem or the other in Sikhi. Whether it was the fusion with Hinduism that began under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the prohibition of women taking Amrit that developed in the 18th century as the Khalsa became more and more regal, it does not appear to me that any such time existed. Even during the era of the Gurus themselves you had the relatives of the Gurus trying to usurp the gurgaddi for themselves. You had masands during the times of the Gurus who became so corrupt they thought they could make or break the Guru. Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was barred from Sri Harmandir Sahib by these people. It took the establishment of Khalsa on Vaisakhi 1699 and the battles which followed for Sikh institutions to finally be back under the direct control of the Guru.

There has never been a time in any religion's history when the teachings were practiced consistently across all sections of the community. What does this tell us? That there is always both good and bad. It has never been one or the other. Even after Sikhi had become almost a branch of Hinduism following Ranjit Singh's reign, you still had great Sikhs like Kahn Singh Nabha rise up and lead the charge of the Singh Sabha movement, a movement which cemented Sikh identity in the SRM. Even during the era of when the masands barred Guru Teg Bahadur Ji from Sri Harmandir Sahib, we are provided with some of the greatest GurSikhs to have ever existed, people who chose to accompany the Guru to Delhi and be tortured to death by the Mughals rather than give up their Sikhi.

What, then, does this tell us? That good and bad always go together. Even during the worst of times there have always been and always will be great individuals who will rise up and open the floodgates of change. Banda Singh Bahadur did that right after Guru Gobind Singh ji. And even during the best of times there will always be individuals in the community who are apathetic towards the greater teachings and are happy with being tied to the Path on a nominal level. This applies not just to Sikhi, but to all religions.

As a result, if "not interested in the religion as commonly seen today", then at what point in history would the interest have been there? Furthermore I would argue that this is a _great _time to be a Sikh. Sikh history has been overwhelmingly married with holocaust, genocide and violence. The last 20-25 years have represented some of the most peaceful and stable times the Sikh community has ever experienced, perhaps _the single most _peaceful and stable time of all history. Same goes for practicing the religion, because as Sikhs have branched out all over the world it seems to me like the community has started moving closer and closer to Sikh teachings, not further away from them. This has particularly been the case in the last 5-10 years.



> When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.



In addition to what I mentioned above about being careful about glorifying Sikh past or being overly condemning of the present community, doesn't this really depend on the fundamental nature of Sikhi? I mean if we take the SGGS to be completely subjective because "it is poetry and interpreted differently by different people" as many say today, then what gives any of us the right to say that our interpretation of Gurbani is the _correct _one and as a result be able to say the "Sikh religion [today]" is not consistent with Gurbani?

To be able to make those claims, doesn't it require the existence of certain _objective _truths to be present in Gurbani, certain statements that _are_ actually meant to be taken 100% literally and not be subjective? Without this objectivity, how can any of us say our interpretation of Gurbani is the correct one or that what we believe to be true is actually true at all? Without some degree of objectivity, how do we know we are actually understanding Gurbani in the way the Gurus intended us to?



> When I read Gurbani, I feel as though the Guru is the great philosopher, and I am His student, wondering in awe and searching for answers to questions like, "What is the nature of reality?" and, "How should I live life in the best way?" These questions can be asked (and answered) independently of religion, which brings with it so much cultural and traditional baggage.



I agree there is much parallel between Sikhi and philosophical curiosity. But if "the Guru is the great philosopher", why should I follow the Guru over Socrates, Plato or Aristotle? They too were great philosophers and dealt with some of the most fundamental questions concerning "the nature of reality" and "How should I live life in the best way?" And many of their conclusions were at odds with what the Gurus said. So on which basis am I to trust the Guru's conclusions over those of the Greek powerhouses, three of the greatest philosophers if not _the _greatest philosophers to have ever walked the earth?



> Gurbani doesn't teach religion... It doesn't say 'do this, don't do that'.



Perhaps not to the same degree as a religion like Islam, and that is because Gurbani recognizes that change must come on the inside before it can translate to true virtue on the outside. But it does tell us to do certain actions which help bring about that change. One of those is to meditate/contemplate/absorb ourselves in the Naam when we awaken. Others include trying to make our speech sweet and singing kirtan in Sangat. It tells us to _not _speak harshly and to _not _associate with certain groups of people, among others. So to a degree Gurbani _does _tell us to "do this, don't do that".



> It gets you to use your mind, and to question, assess situations for yourself, and act in the way of a Gurmukh.



This is interesting because in many places Gurbani stresses the folly of simply following our own minds. No doubt it asks us to think, to be aware and to question, but someone who relies entirely on their own mind is arguably the dictionary definition of a _manmukh_- someone who faces towards their own mind. On the other hand, as you pointed out, Gurbani tries to get is to act in the way of _Gurmukh-_ someone who has positioned themselves to face in the direction of the Guru's hukam.

And this goes right back to what I was saying before... what is the Guru's hukam, and how do we know our interpretation of it is correct? And if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers to have walked the Earth across history? What authority did the Gurus have to tell us "the best way to live life?"


----------



## Ishna (Sep 18, 2015)

Thank you for your reply.   Please take what I say with a grain of salt, I am no university graduate.



JourneyOflife said:


> See that's the thing- I disagree with many of the practices I see Sikhs engaging in around me- but to say you are not interested in the religion as "commonly seen *today*" gives the impression there was a time in the past when you_ would _have been interested in the way the religion was "commonly" practiced.



What I mean to say is that many elements of the religion seem to be at odds with the message found in Gurbani.  Most likely I am just not understanding it all correctly.  When I read Gurbani, I see it saying that it doesn't matter if you are shaved bald or have matted hair, it's your thoughts and conduct that matter most, yet the Sikhs I meet either emphasize the 5Ks, or are content to be mona Sehajdharis believing they'll be more devout in their next life, or put more emphasis on the thought process and meaning behind outward appearance and get labeled as shaktas. 

I see it with three prayers purposefully set aside in its first 13 pages, yet a requirement to be a 'devout religious Sikh' is to add in all these other poems from another book, as if the Guru Granth Sahib Ji isn't enough.

I see a universal message talking about Reality, but so many Sikh denominations (and plenty of Sikhs denying the denominations even exist).

I see a stand-alone philosophy that endows a human with a compass to guide them in life, and not instructions on how to get married, how to get your daughter married, what gifts the groom should receive from the parents.  These are specific to Punjabi culture, and I understand why they are in the SRM, but it is not from Gurbani, it is one society's attempt to bring their society as a whole closer to the ideal taught by the Guru.  It is not relevant in all places or at all times.



> I can't think of any time when there weren't some problem or the other in Sikhi. Whether it was the fusion with Hinduism that began under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the prohibition of women taking Amrit that developed in the 18th century as the Khalsa became more and more regal, it does not appear to me that any such time existed. Even during the era of the Gurus themselves you had the relatives of the Gurus trying to usurp the gurgaddi for themselves. You had masands during the times of the Gurus who became so corrupt they thought they could make or break the Guru. Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was barred from Sri Harmandir Sahib by these people. It took the establishment of Khalsa on Vaisakhi 1699 and the battles which followed for Sikh institutions to finally be back under the direct control of the Guru.
> 
> There has never been a time in any religion's history when the teachings were practiced consistently across all sections of the community. What does this tell us? That there is always both good and bad. It has never been one or the other. Even after Sikhi had become almost a branch of Hinduism following Ranjit Singh's reign, you still had great Sikhs like Kahn Singh Nabha rise up and lead the charge of the Singh Sabha movement, a movement which cemented Sikh identity in the SRM. Even during the era of when the masands barred Guru Teg Bahadur Ji from Sri Harmandir Sahib, we are provided with some of the greatest GurSikhs to have ever existed, people who chose to accompany the Guru to Delhi and be tortured to death by the Mughals rather than give up their Sikhi.
> 
> What, then, does this tell us? That good and bad always go together. Even during the worst of times there have always been and always will be great individuals who will rise up and open the floodgates of change. Banda Singh Bahadur did that right after Guru Gobind Singh ji. And even during the best of times there will always be individuals in the community who are apathetic towards the greater teachings and are happy with being tied to the Path on a nominal level. This applies not just to Sikhi, but to all religions.



Correct.  It also tells us that religion is subject to societal pressure and interference.  It tells us that over time, religion changes.  It tells us that people will be people (the good and the bad), regardless of religion.



> As a result, if "not interested in the religion as commonly seen today", then at what point in history would the interest have been there?



I don't know - I can only work with what I see before me now.



> Furthermore I would argue that this is a _great _time to be a Sikh. Sikh history has been overwhelmingly married with holocaust, genocide and violence. The last 20-25 years have represented some of the most peaceful and stable times the Sikh community has ever experienced, perhaps _the single most _peaceful and stable time of all history. Same goes for practicing the religion, because as Sikhs have branched out all over the world it seems to me like the community has started moving closer and closer to Sikh teachings, not further away from them. This has particularly been the case in the last 5-10 years.



It's a great time to be a Sikh due to all the information and networking opportunities.  I'm not sure too much else has really changed.  There are still fights at Harmandir Sahib, it is still run by a bunch of interesting people (I'll leave it there), there are still denominations proclaiming IRL and online how theirs is the true path.



> In addition to what I mentioned above about being careful about glorifying Sikh past or being overly condemning of the present community, doesn't this really depend on the fundamental nature of Sikhi? I mean if we take the SGGS to be completely subjective because "it is poetry and interpreted differently by different people" as many say today, then what gives any of us the right to say that our interpretation of Gurbani is the _correct _one and as a result be able to say the "Sikh religion [today]" is not consistent with Gurbani?
> 
> To be able to make those claims, doesn't it require the existence of certain _objective _truths to be present in Gurbani, certain statements that _are_ actually meant to be taken 100% literally and not be subjective? Without this objectivity, how can any of us say our interpretation of Gurbani is the correct one or that what we believe to be true is actually true at all? Without some degree of objectivity, how do we know we are actually understanding Gurbani in the way the Gurus intended us to?



And therein lies the problem of all organised religion.



> I agree there is much parallel between Sikhi and philosophical curiosity. But if "the Guru is the great philosopher", why should I follow the Guru over Socrates, Plato or Aristotle? They too were great philosophers and dealt with some of the most fundamental questions concerning "the nature of reality" and "How should I live life in the best way?" And many of their conclusions were at odds with what the Gurus said. So on which basis am I to trust the Guru's conclusions over those of the Greek powerhouses, three of the greatest philosophers if not _the _greatest philosophers to have ever walked the earth?



Why choose Sikh _religion _over any of the others?  It could be said that Jesus is possibly the greatest prophet to have ever (potentially) walked the earth, so why not be a Christian?

You and I can probably agree it is because we perceive some kind of truth within Sikhi (however we connect with it).



> Perhaps not to the same degree as a religion like Islam, and that is because Gurbani recognizes that change must come on the inside before it can translate to true virtue on the outside. But it does tell us to do certain actions which help bring about that change. One of those is to meditate/contemplate/absorb ourselves in the Naam when we awaken. Others include trying to make our speech sweet and singing kirtan in Sangat. It tells us to _not _speak harshly and to _not _associate with certain groups of people, among others. So to a degree Gurbani _does _tell us to "do this, don't do that".



See, I could start disagreeing with you right here about what Gurbani actually says.  But I won't. 

Sure, Gurbani does tell us some "do this, don't do that" instructions.  But those instructions aren't 'Never wash your hair on Friday' or 'Chant So Dar over 40 days to make your man love you more" or even "Keep your hair long and wear a turban".  As you said, it is about causing change within, and the spirit with which to live.



> This is interesting because in many places Gurbani stresses the folly of simply following our own minds. No doubt it asks us to think, to be aware and to question, but someone who relies entirely on their own mind is arguably the dictionary definition of a _manmukh_- someone who faces towards their own mind. On the other hand, as you pointed out, Gurbani tries to get is to act in the way of _Gurmukh-_ someone who has positioned themselves to face in the direction of the Guru's hukam.
> 
> And this goes right back to what I was saying before... what is the Guru's hukam, and how do we know our interpretation of it is correct? And if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers to have walked the Earth across history? What authority did the Gurus have to tell us "the best way to live life?"



I don't think it's possible to have an interpretation of hukam.  Hukam cannot be described, so how can it be interpreted?  It just *is*.

Manmukh is someone who can't see past the veil of illusion and is convinced that they are separate from the Ik Onkar.

Gurmukh is someone who learns spiritual wisdom from the Guru and recognises the Oneness of everything.

And in answer to your "if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers [] ?" question, well, why follow Sikhism the religion instead of any of the other religions?  If someone believes the Gurus were mystical prophets delivering some kind of revelation spoken from God's mouth, then why believe them and not Jesus?


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 19, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Thank you for your reply.   Please take what I say with a grain of salt, I am no university graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would think belief is just the beginning. If you want to believe Jesus. ..then see what you can find from his teachings that highlights ways to experience God in the 'now'... then put into practice and see what happens..

I know many people are content with finding out the truth when they die...or in a next life...but what do you want...do you want it now?

Then study one or more paths if you want to...but separate them by what you can find that seems to give you things to put into practice today...then enjoy the experimenting...

You see..I.m a firm believer in...when you take one step towards god...he takes 100 towards you...so if he sees that you are 'genuinely' interested in the truth...he's already on his way (the gender less reality)


----------



## Original (Sep 21, 2015)

Dear All

Research in developmental psychology, cognitive anthropology and the cognitive science of religion has shown that religion comes as naturally to humans as language; vast majority of humans are "born believers". Besides, it being a human condition, it also serves a very useful function in the afterlife factor of providing some sort of synthesis in dealing with the prospect of dying, which arguably epitomises humankind's attempts to assuage the fear of finitude. Taken together with the pre-loaded condition of the mind's intrinsic engagement in trying to solve the riddle of the what, where, why, who, when and how, makes religion more of an evolutionary niche than Chaz's spiritual excursion to the promised land. Thus, the Durkheimian theory of religion suggests that religion, in one form or another, is a necessary and essential feature of society. How true, and indeed, it has been a vital and pervasive feature of human life, mechanics of which, especially in the contemporary world, deem its understanding indispensable, particularly within the "*meaning of life"* maxim as seen from perspectives often very different from our own. It is not something that can be seen from the outside without understanding the inner life of those who adhere to its fundamental principles and practices.

Religion bestows meaning and significance on human existence. It defines what is true, virtuous, absolute and how it can be realised. Moreover, it exerts an influence on national life and does more than merely give a flavour, or tone, to society. It determines and shapes the pattern of society, that is to say, politics, education, science, art, poetry, music, social class and culture. Even disbelievers cannot shake off its influence. Discussions about defining it gives the subject matter its vitality with which most academics n scholars, largely because of the cross currents are  appreciative and concurring.

Philosophy, generally regarded as perhaps the most abstruse and abstract of all disciplines, far removed from the affairs of ordinary life, is in many ways connected to human endeavours. It's an intrinsic part of human nature. Nearly all of us have some sort of philosophical inclinations, being aware of them or not is neither here nor there. The word philosophy is derived from the Greek expression, meaning, love of wisdom; but in current popular usage, many different ideas are involved in the way we employ the term. Sometime we mean by philosophy an attitude towards certain activities or systems adopted or preferred over others in the execution of our day-to-day affairs. By definition, philosophy is, the evaluation through which careful critical examination of the information and the systems of  beliefs we have of ourselves, of the universe and its relation to the world of human affairs are investigated. It addresses certain concepts and fundamental ideas in certain ways to ascertain what they mean, how knowledge is their base, what standards, methodology are employed in arriving at sound judgments. Although, it penetrates deep down metaphysical pastures to afford rational explanations, it cannot by Jove, offer solace to the many human miseries and inequalities inherent within both the social and religious domain of the provident world.

Whilst all this is well n good, philosophers have long concluded that they cannot adjudicate over the existence of God because reason and empirical observation fall short of its objective testing. Given the only toolkit available is the scientific method, deemed imperative by convention for it to be the only proper basis of evaluation of such a phenomena to the exclusion of all else, cannot for reasons detailed below provide absolute objectivity of the existence of God. Argued from an ontological perspective,Ikonkar being in *existence* [eternal] must within the grammatical expressions of the word Ikonkar be a predicate in order to qualify as such. Bhagat Kabir for this very reason removed the grammatical expression altogether [page 340 SGGSJ]. In order to be a predicate is to ascribe to something a quality or a property. Nanak's Ikonkar [nirgun] is attributive-less, therefore, falls outside the ambit of a predicate by definition, but not per se. Describing something as having an existence does not automatically ascribe to it a quality or a property, for some things, such as the one in question, are not to be considered as property of things, but rather, as a numerical concept. For example, comparing humans and angels [with wings] brings one to the point where one concludes there are many humans, but no angels, meaning, existence is not a quality or a property that angels lack. It follows therefore, that existence is not a predicate. One can describe something perfectly [Eternal] and then add that it exists. It is not a quality in a list of qualities. Describing someone as handsome adds to our understanding of that person - it ascribes a quality to them, describing someone as *existing* does not. Technical obscurities of this kind have driven philosophers to render it a matter of religious experience in relation to existence, left to the faith of the individual. It is this faith that constitutes belief , which in turn is classified as religion. Quite rightly, Philosophers have removed the notion of belief from their radar, notwithstanding the fact that they can promise a safe passage up to the door [*so dar, *composed by Nanak to illustrate the depth of human conceptualisation] of Ikonkar, but cannot objectively and satisfactorily adjudicate over its ontological [reality] definitions. [Edit: this paragraph is written in a roundabout way for Ishna Ji re "What is the nature of reality?". I'd like at some point to illustrate the relative position between "reality" [anhad shabd] and "truth" [satnam]. That will help pave way to understand the wisdom of SGGSJ - our only Guru, as Veer Tejwant would say. Ishna Ji's second observation ["How should I live life in the best way?"] is an ethical proposition, the answer of which Guru Nanak Dev Ji gave as a tasty piece-meal, KK, VS and Nam Jap].

In conclusion, the subject you and the object God concept seems relevant here to home in on the importance of being connected to the "word" [shabd, at SPN], which overrides all else. Whether you're a believer or a non-believer, you'd still fall under one of the categories of a "being" [ontologically speaking], from a perspective say, creationists, evolutionists, scientologists and existentialists. The human condition is such that those who've resolved the riddle of the self before us, have as a result, proclaimed and laid-bare for humankind the form and the substance of their experience of the unseen. That experience is crucial for preservation and continuity of a system of belief. It is to be revered as divine, sacred and believed [Sikh] unconditionally, ensuring allowances are made for revelation or mystical messages to be tested subjectively by the adept and not simply refuted on the basis, it is illogical and unreal.

To nit-pick religion on account it being too ritualistic, outdated and inconsistent with religious text is more a view of one's personal lifestyle choices and current disposition, rather than, it being an ideological radicalisation, corruption or mutation by evolution or an agency to render it as such. This in a way is  seen as a form of self-alienation on part the dissident resulting from lack rather than want of conformance. Indeed, it is not only proper and permissible but suggestive an enterprise from a religious point of view because it procures and modifies future evolutionary anomalies, giving it an edge over competing systems of belief. Point to be noted is that evolution will only advance what it favours to be a need rather than a want. Reformation perhaps would be something young Sikh scholars want to entertain against encroaching evolutionary demands of the cosmopolitan society.


----------



## Ishna (Sep 21, 2015)

Very awesome post, Original Ji.  It is a privilege that you share your level of knowledge and insight here.  Thank you.


----------



## Original (Sep 21, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Very awesome post, Original Ji.  It is a privilege that you share your level of knowledge and insight here.  Thank you.


It's my pleasure to be sharing it with the future custodians of Sikhism.


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 23, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Thank you for your reply.   Please take what I say with a grain of salt, *I am no university graduate.*



No wonder you're so smart. Most university degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on these days, tbh 

So I see a lot of interesting points of discussion here. Just like you mentioned in your reply to me, I too "could start disagreeing with you right here" about "what Gurbani actually says", about Sikh history and the distinction between "Sikh philosophy" and "Sikh religion". If you would like a full-reply to your post, please let me know. But the reason I am not going to do it here is because it appears to me that when we get past the surface, the following points are at the heart of our different approaches to Sikhi.



> Why choose Sikh _religion _over any of the others?  It could be said that Jesus is possibly the greatest prophet to have ever (potentially) walked the earth, so why not be a Christian?



Are those the only two options here? Do we either have to accept the Gurus as Abrahamic/Jesus-esque prophets or as philosophers? Is there nothing else they could have possibly been?



> And in answer to your "if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers [] ?" question, well, why follow Sikhism the religion instead of any of the other religions?  If someone believes the Gurus were mystical prophets delivering some kind of revelation spoken from God's mouth, then why believe them and not Jesus?



Again, are Jesus-esque prophets or philosophers the only two options for who the Gurus were?

And this is _exactly _what I've been stressing over and over again. We can go into deep discussions on hukam, on whether Sikhs are practicing Sikhi in line with Gurmat, or who has the best interpretation of this concept or that. But none of this matters one bit unless we first know why we should accept Gurbani and why we listen to the Gurus in the first place.

The crux of my argument thus far can be summarized as such: "if the Gurus were philosophers, then there is no real reason for us to follow them or accept their teachings. No matter how nice of human beings they may have been, no matter how feel-good their teachings may be, even if they were the greatest philosophers the world has ever seen, at the end of the day they were simply presenting what they felt to be the best way to live human life. There is no reason to accept their way of living life over the way of any other philosophers, thinkers, or even a way of life we come up with ourselves because at the end of the day it is all arbitrary. None of it is based on any independent truth, how we choose to live our lives then is simply based on our own whims, our own desires and what is most convenient and comfortable to us."

You then presented the counterargument of  (paraphrase) "well if they are prophets, then why not follow Jesus who is (potentially) the greatest prophet of all?". That's actually _exactly _what I'm advocating Sikhs start doing. If the Gurus were more than simply philosophers then there is (potentially) a real, non-arbitrary reason to follow them and accept their Gurbani. Because then their message isn't simply based on what _they felt_ to be the best way to live human life, but some _external, independent truth_ that remains valid whether you, myself or anyone else accepts it or not. It then becomes the responsibility of Sikhs to present the case for Gurbani to the entire world and show people how the message of the Gurus has real meaning and is not just arbitrary. The Gurus didn't need to be Abrahamic or Jesus-esque prophets for that to be the case. It is not simply a case of "were they Abrahamic prophets or philosophers?" There are more options than that and we should look to Gurbani and the accompanying literature of great GurSikhs like Bhai Gurdas before we decide who the Gurus really were. But if we say they were philosophers, then they may have been the greatest philosophers the world has ever seen. It doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day there is no real reason to accept their Gurbani beyond personal whims and appeal.


----------



## Ishna (Sep 24, 2015)

First of all, JourneyOflife Ji, I'd like to defer to Original Ji's most excellent post about religion vs philosophy.



> Are those the only two options here? Do we either have to accept the Gurus as Abrahamic/Jesus-esque prophets or as philosophers? Is there nothing else they could have possibly been?



The Jesus reference was merely an example of what I understood your argument to be - "Why should we follow the Guru, instead of Jesus?"  Substitute Jesus for any other religious figure of equal importance within its related religion and the example would still stand.  There is no deeper meaning to my choice of 'Jesus' for the example.



> The crux of my argument thus far can be summarized as such: "if the Gurus were philosophers, then there is no real reason for us to follow them or accept their teachings. No matter how nice of human beings they may have been, no matter how feel-good their teachings may be, even if they were the greatest philosophers the world has ever seen, at the end of the day they were simply presenting what they felt to be the best way to live human life. There is no reason to accept their way of living life over the way of any other philosophers, thinkers, or even a way of life we come up with ourselves because at the end of the day it is all arbitrary. None of it is based on any independent truth, how we choose to live our lives then is simply based on our own whims, our own desires and what is most convenient and comfortable to us."



The reason to accept their teachings, is that their teachings are the most pragmatic and make the most sense.  They don't make so many supernatural claims, or proclaim time-bound laws for a specific society.  They simply describe life, and the sukhmani available for the devotee and lover of the Creator.

I'm not sure I understand how you get from following the Guru's teachings, to living our own lives based on whims, desires and what is most convenient and comfortable to us?



> If the Gurus were more than simply philosophers then there is (potentially) a real, non-arbitrary reason to follow them and accept their Gurbani. Because then their message isn't simply based on what _they felt_ to be the best way to live human life, but some _external, independent truth_ that remains valid whether you, myself or anyone else accepts it or not.



I take your point.  However, the Gurus themselves say how they are often at a loss for words to explain or describe the Sat Naam.  Can we ever access the _external, independent truth_ in any way but through our own experience and relationship with the Creator, the Creation, and our generous Guru's greatest endeavour to try to teach and reveal it to us?  We can't.  We can only perceive the _external, independent truth_ ourselves, with Gurprasaad.



> It doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day there is no real reason to accept their Gurbani beyond personal whims and appeal.



No, it doesn't.  By what standard do you measure claims before deciding they can be accepted, and aren't followed due to personal whims and appeal?


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 24, 2015)

I tell you why i take what Guru Ji says as the complete truth...

I came across a whole load of funky stuff in Gurbani that sounded completely out of this world...

a lot of people told me...its just a metaphor, its just this and that 

but i put what i understood certain parts of Gurbani to mean....into practice..

and one day.... *booom!*....that whole load of funky stuff that sounded completely bogus and out of this world...

well...

it turned out to be true  ...

and the even crazier thing is...i'm no more special than anyone else because of it....we all have it in us. how amazing is that?


----------



## JourneyOflife (Sep 29, 2015)

Ishna said:


> First of all, JourneyOflife Ji, I'd like to defer to Original Ji's most excellent post about religion vs philosophy.



I'll check it out, thank you.





> The Jesus reference was merely an example of what I understood your argument to be - "Why should we follow the Guru, instead of Jesus?"  Substitute Jesus for any other religious figure of equal importance within its related religion and the example would still stand.  There is no deeper meaning to my choice of 'Jesus' for the example.



And this is exactly what I am trying to get Sikhs to think about. Why _should _we follow the Guru instead of Jesus, or "any other religious figure of equal importance within its related religion"? The point I am trying to make in this discussion is not to list those reasons, but to simply put forth the proposition that if they are mere philosophers then there is no actual reason to do so beyond your own desires. But if the Gurus weren't just philosophers, then there is (potentially) an actual objective reason to follow them and their teachings. Whether you or I or anyone else followed them or not would have no effect on the truth of their message.



> The reason to accept their teachings, is that their teachings are the most pragmatic



Pragmatic in what sense? According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of 'pragmatic' is "dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories."

What is 'pragmatic' about choosing to be tortured to death on a hot plate instead of taking out a few verses from Gurbani and changing your religion, as Guru Arjan Dev Ji had done?

What is pragmatic about choosing to be sawed in half and burned alive rather than changing your religion, as the companions of the 9th Guru chose to do in Delhi?

What is pragmatic about choosing to keep your long hair even when there is a warrant demanding your death, as the Khalsa of the 18th century chose to do?



> and make the most sense.



This is highly subjective. I know many Sikhs who have tried explaining Sikhi to others only for the other person to turn around and say "this is so confusing and makes no sense."



> They don't make so many supernatural claims, or proclaim time-bound laws for a specific society.  They simply describe life, and the sukhmani available for the devotee and lover of the Creator.



Many people in the 21st century would claim it is unnecessary to even talk of a 'Creator' at all. Besides, if "rejection of supernatural claims" and "time-bound laws for a specific society" are the reasons we should accept Sikhi, then why not just accept secular humanism? It doesn't make any supernatural claims, not is it time-bound for a specific society...



> I'm not sure I understand how you get from following the Guru's teachings, to living our own lives based on whims, desires and what is most convenient and comfortable to us?



If the Gurus were philosophers, then there is no reason to accept their teachings aside from our own subjective whims, desires and convenience. If the Gurus were philosophers, what reason do you or I have to follow the Gurus if we don't "feel like it"?



> I take your point.  However, the Gurus themselves say how they are often at a loss for words to explain or describe the Sat Naam.  Can we ever access the _external, independent truth_ in any way but through our own experience and relationship with the Creator, the Creation, and our generous Guru's greatest endeavour to try to teach and reveal it to us?  We can't.  We can only perceive the _external, independent truth_ ourselves, with Gurprasaad.



Once again, if the Gurus were philosophers, then on which basis am I to accept this worldview of our connection with Sat Naam over anything written by Aristotle, Plato, Socrates or any of the other great philosophers of history, aside from my own subjective "whim, desire or convenience?"



> No, it doesn't.  By what standard do you measure claims before deciding they can be accepted, and aren't followed due to personal whims and appeal?



Objectivity vs. subjectivity.


----------



## Shaheen (Sep 29, 2015)

The issue is: What does SGGS or the Gurus say about themselves? Are they philosophers (like Aristotle or Gautam Buddha) or messengers of God?


----------



## Ishna (Sep 29, 2015)

I'm sorry Ji, but I'm not understanding the point.  Please don't take that the wrong way, I would love to continue the discussion at your discretion.

Can you please tell me how you have applied objectivity vs subjectivity in choosing Sikhi over, say, Islam?



JourneyOflife said:


> But if the Gurus weren't just philosophers, then there is (potentially) an actual objective reason to follow them and their teachings. Whether you or I or anyone else followed them or not would have no effect on the truth of their message.



"Just philosophers" is a belittling statement.  A philosopher is at least someone who rationally looks at the world and presents some explanations to existential questions, and usually provides an ethical structure.  When you look at what Guru Sahib achieved, and the community that exists today as His legacy, then surely He is one of the greatest.

From what I understand so far, they do present objective reasons to follow their teachings.  We can look to the Gurus themselves, and the great Sikhs they inspired.

The Gurus taught real-life truth.  Aad such, jugaad such, hai bhi such, Nanak hosi bhi such.  It will continue whether the human race even exists or not, let alone you or I!



> Pragmatic in what sense? According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of 'pragmatic' is "dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories."
> 
> What is 'pragmatic' about choosing to be tortured to death on a hot plate instead of taking out a few verses from Gurbani and changing your religion, as Guru Arjan Dev Ji had done?
> 
> ...



I am not about to analyse the reasons for why Guru Arjan Sahib Ji did what he did.  Bt I see no problem with these examples here.  Indeed, they are examples of the kind of genuine character that Sikh teachings can produce.  If following these teachings, this philosophy, this way of life can make me even a fraction of what these people were, I would die a happy woman.



> Many people in the 21st century would claim it is unnecessary to even talk of a 'Creator' at all. Besides, if "rejection of supernatural claims" and "time-bound laws for a specific society" are the reasons we should accept Sikhi, then why not just accept secular humanism? It doesn't make any supernatural claims, not is it time-bound for a specific society...



I've tried, actually.  But secular humanism is only part of the story.  Sikhi is the whole package.  My experience of secular humanism was dry, like cereal without milk.  Sustaining, but lacking depth and completeness of the Sikh way of life.



> If the Gurus were philosophers, then there is no reason to accept their teachings aside from our own subjective whims, desires and convenience. If the Gurus were philosophers, what reason do you or I have to follow the Gurus if we don't "feel like it"?



Read their work, look at history, then tell me what more you need?



> Once again, if the Gurus were philosophers, then on which basis am I to accept this worldview of our connection with Sat Naam over anything written by Aristotle, Plato, Socrates or any of the other great philosophers of history, aside from my own subjective "whim, desire or convenience?"



Guru Sahib tells the Muslim how to be a good Muslim.  The Muslim is not instructed to keep up with meaningless ritual, but to turn to good, pragmatic actions.  The Muslim can still be a Muslim, Guru Sahib was simply teaching the underlying philosophy of good actions and simran.

Please tell me how choosing one religion over another is not subject to "whim, desire or convenience"?


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 29, 2015)

Ishna said:


> I'm sorry Ji, but I'm not understanding the point.  Please don't take that the wrong way, I would love to continue the discussion at your discretion.
> 
> Can you please tell me how you have applied objectivity vs subjectivity in choosing Sikhi over, say, Islam?
> 
> ...




I think what he might be getting at is...

a philosopher might have some ideas and interesting thoughts and concepts based on what he/she see's around them....but does the philosopher have a method by which me, you or someone else can prove it...for ourselves...to ourselves?

if they were just philosophers..i don;t think i would be following them...
they used language like..."now is the time....don;t waste this opportunity of human birth'...that to me signals...they know the truth...and spoke the truth, and want us to waste not a single breath to experience and see it for ourselves whilst we still have the opportunity...


----------



## Ishna (Sep 29, 2015)

Thanks Chaz Ji.

The proof of a philosopher's teaching is in the fruit of their students.  I think Sikhi demonstrates this perfectly well.  What other kind of objective proof do you suggest there could be for Sikhi?

What is the measure you and JourneyOflife are using?


----------



## Original (Sep 29, 2015)

Dear All

The lore of religion is built around moments of revelation and mystical experiences, pretty much like the eurekas of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein. Together they've given us in succession valuable incremental insights that has transformed our lives beyond belief.

Nanak saw further because he stood on the shoulders of the giants like Islam n Hinduism [re ontology n theology] and gave the world Sikhism. His transcendental truth-reality cannot be understood without the understand and initiation of "nam". Debate n discuss until the cows come home for Nanaks Subject Object will remain aloof. 

Nanak, Muhammed Sahib n the like we're people who made spirituality the focus of their lives. Living with this focus, they embody the finest human qualities and transcended normal human limitations which otherwise is assigned to philosophers. They were to teach humankind the truth n reality that was beyond the reach of science n philosophy, the prerequisite of which was and still is the "belief" in God. Moreover, they had developed themselves to their full potential and having mastered the science of the soul, having "personally" experienced the realms beyond mind n matter. By virtue thereof they were the best qualified to instruct others on the road to lead humankind to develop their potential to max and "experience" the divine.


----------



## Shaheen (Sep 29, 2015)

Original said:


> Nanak, Muhammed Sahib n the like we're people who made spirituality the focus of their lives. Living with this focus, they embody the finest human qualities and transcended normal human limitations which otherwise is assigned to philosophers



Since, you have mentioned the name - it gives me more of an incentive to join in.  Muhammad (peace be upon him) claimed that he was authorised by God to reveal what was revealed to him. Was it the case with Guru Nanak Sahib according to the Sikhi beliefs?


----------



## Ishna (Sep 29, 2015)

Original said:


> Dear All
> 
> The lore of religion is built around moments of revelation and mystical experiences, pretty much like the eurekas of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein. Together they've given us in succession valuable incremental insights that has transformed our lives beyond belief.
> 
> ...



Thank you Ji.  Worded this way, I can understand and accept.  Perhaps it is time to soften my 'philosophy philosophy' approach somewhat.

The prerequisite "belief" in God is the kicker here - but the Ik Onkar does not appear to be a supernatural force, but rather part and parcel of existence.  Therefore I'm not sure 'supernatural' is the word I'd use to describe It - seems perfectly natural to me.

I have an odd brain, quite linear in its processing ability.  Thank you for having patience with me.


----------



## Original (Sep 29, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Thank you Ji. Worded this way, I can understand and accept.


.....young lady, you needn't thank me nor be surprised about your metamorphosis in general, its the *word *[waheguru], the invisible behind the visible that is responsible. Like the butterfly who knows nothing of lift, wind speed, air resistance, vacuum or indeed, physics in general. This does not prevent it from flying coz it was born to fly. Emerged from the homogeneous of nature with the ability to do something it could never understand. That caterpillar is you, wait until your a butterfly - read *p938 SGGSJ* !


Ishna said:


> Perhaps it is time to soften my 'philosophy philosophy' approach somewhat.


...no, instead be a philosopher-disciple of SGGSJ! A philosopher is someone who recognises that there is a lot she/he does not understand and is troubled by it. And, that as a result, prompts the GURU to do something about it, like right now for instance.


Ishna said:


> but the Ik Onkar does not appear to be a supernatural force


..who said anything about "supernatural", the weak survive and the mild persist by His hukam. Nanak's Nirgun cannot be pigeon-holed for the want of western conventional accommodation, so look for Gurmukh intention and meaning in the first instance.


Ishna said:


> but rather part and parcel of existence.


....yes, ad sach jugad sach.....Nanak is sach [truth], therefore His prescribed way is truth. Similarly, Muhammed Sahib to the Muslims, Jesus to the Christians n Buddha to the Buddhists is the way, the light and the truth.


Ishna said:


> I have an odd brain, quite linear in its processing ability


...Gur Ghar offers an alternative, and that alternative IG comes gradually - Gur Prasad. One becomes static from the dynamic. 


Ishna said:


> Thank you for having patience with me.


...you're the future, Gurbani comes from behind the clouds where there is no time [Akal]. You're not connected to me but to the word that was in the very "beginning" - SATNAM WAHEGURU JI ! It is the word of our forefathers. They were not philosophers but servants and knew they could only serve the ONE, the philosopher [mind] or the master [Guru] - AP. They chose the latter - so will we by understanding and accepting the word enshrined within the pages of SGGSJ.


----------



## Original (Sep 29, 2015)

Shaheen said:


> Since, you have mentioned the name - it gives me more of an incentive to join in


..you're welcome, but pls, few ground rules ! I'm a Sikh, I take Quran Sharif, The Holy Bible and all else professing the love n wisdom of God to be gospel, kindly repay me with the same should you fancy chit-chat.


Shaheen said:


> Muhammad (peace be upon him) claimed that he was authorised by God to reveal what was revealed to him. Was it the case with Guru Nanak Sahib according to the Sikhi beliefs?


...both Muhammed Sahib Ji and Baba Nanak Ji had a divine experience, result of which as you know is Islam n Sikh, respectively. The use of the word claim renders it willy nilly and robs it majestic divinity. But, yes, from a mystical perspective they could be classed as transcendental.


----------



## chazSingh (Sep 29, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Thanks Chaz Ji.
> 
> The proof of a philosopher's teaching is in the fruit of their students.  I think Sikhi demonstrates this perfectly well.  What other kind of objective proof do you suggest there could be for Sikhi?
> 
> What is the measure you and JourneyOflife are using?



Once upon a time I used to read Gurbani and think....some of this stuff just sounds way too out of this world...and often wondered what it meant for a nobody like me...

Over the past three years...there have been occasions I come out of meditation thinking 'holy holy shizzle!...this stuff is the real deal' completely wonders truck...I.Ve sat there completely silent...no movement.. trying to put some logic into what just took place...

Yes' as sikh we try to live truthfully... share with others...to live without harming others...understand nature and creation...etc etc

But beyond that there is a very real...very personal experience awaiting us...of something words cannot describe....for me..I am just skimming the surface of this...my mind hurts trying to contemplate the possibilities of what could lie ahead.

What helps is that much of what I. Ve come across is there in gurbani...it's just that I never 'saw' it there before...this is my measure..

To know it is speaking the truth...

Everyone's journey is unique but this inner experience is there for us all to one day dive into...


----------



## Ishna (Sep 29, 2015)

chazSingh said:


> Once upon a time I used to read Gurbani and think....some of this stuff just sounds way too out of this world...and often wondered what it meant for a nobody like me...
> 
> Over the past three years...there have been occasions I come out of meditation thinking 'holy holy shizzle!...this stuff is the real deal' completely wonders truck...I.Ve sat there completely silent...no movement.. trying to put some logic into what just took place...
> 
> ...



Brother, I understand what you're saying here.   I have those same 'omg!!' moments when I'm carried away reading page after page of Gurbani.  A kind of meditation in and of itself.

Yet, you have given me an entirely subjective reason to follow the Guru instead of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha.  JourneyOflife Ji (unless I'm mistaken) is looking for objective reasons why we should follow our Guru, as only objective reasons set them apart from being "just philosophers", and therefore worthy of our dedication.


----------



## Original (Sep 30, 2015)

Good morning Everyone

The beauty of Sikhism is the science of subject [you] object [God] and the "oneness" experienced, meaning non-duality, transcendental state of being, hence,

Waho waho Bani Nirankar hai [Bani is God, 515 SGGSJ]
Bani guru, guru hai bani [Bani and Guru are the one and the same 982 SGGSJ]
Parbraham Gur nai pha'id [Guru is God, between the 2 is no difference 1142 SGGSJ]
Warrior Arjun on the battlefield of Kurukreshtra questions Krishna, "O' Lord where will I find you ?". Krishna replies, "I will never leave you for I am sat [truth, nam, dharm]. It is only when you [Arjun] move away from sat [meaning, asat and not religious, ie, manmukh] will I leave you". The illustration here is to show the oneness of subject object. Thus the relationship between Guru n Disciple is founded and is central to the understanding of Sikhism.

Classic example is afforded by Heer [subject] n Ranjha [object], "*Ranjha Ranjha kardi nee main apay Ranjha hoyee II sado nee manuu dee dao Ranjha, Heer na akhay koi II Ranjha main, vich main Ranjha'y vich hoar khayal na koi II main nahi O aap ha aapna aap kara dil joyee"*

Guru Gobind went as far as saying, 'look people, I don't expect you to chew over the entire SGGSJ, just one shabd [Ranjha, for example] is enough to get you across the ocean of life [...khoj shabd main lay], meaning, the power of the word when religiously practiced will reveal all.

That said, "love" for the self is essential [meaning, love yourself, be of righteous disposition] it is through the love of the self that will culminate into the the transcendental love of the real self, the formless, shapeless, timeless being.


----------



## Ishna (Oct 4, 2015)

JourneyOflife said:
			
		

> There are more options than that and we should look to Gurbani and the accompanying literature of great GurSikhs like Bhai Gurdas before we decide who the Gurus really were.



Okay, I've spent the day reading Bhai Gurdas Ji's Vaaran.  For me, it confirmed the philosophical nature of Guru Sahib.  Would it be safe to say that you relate more with Bhai Ji's examples of miracles performed by Guru Sahib?


----------

