# Are The Important Scriptures Of World Religions, Simply Opinions?



## sunmukh (Sep 29, 2010)

Hi Lovely people:

Just wanted your opinion on this to see if it worth trying to discuss anything civilly, and thus submitting any posts on this forum:

I am self-confessed Dasam Granth cynic. I don't believe in its authorship, and don't need the Dasam Granth anyway, as I have Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and God to guide me, and that is more than enough for me. I am also very much against excluding people who believe in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and one God alone, from being treated by defined Sikhs as sikhs because they don't keep all rehat. 

I wrote this on another forum but the comment was termed offensive to Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, and it was given as the reason why I was immediately banned temporarily from the site:

*"All holy texts, and that includes the Bible, Koran, Vedas,Torah and now Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as well, are ALL opinion."*

I based this on stanza 3 of Japji Sahib.

Question to you: "Would you see this as such  an offensive comment, that such thoughts should not be allowed to be expressed on a Sikh forum? "

Personally, I do not take anybody past or present, as a prophet/messenger/ambassador of God, so therefore anybody writing scriptures had to be giving an opinion,, albeit very wise words.  I think this is in accord with Japji Sahib, and Guru Nanak Dev ji recognised the same after his great investigations into many religions and practices.

It is unbelievable that some Sikhs, have sunk to such levels that they resort to trying to stop people from expressing such thoughts, even when these people such as myself openly confess to have faith in only Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and One God. Even if I saw myself as a muslim, hindu or something else, what I wrote was no big deal.  This paranoia in some Sikhs is bad news as it shows some are now very intolerant and live in deep fear of what their children, or non-sikhs,  will learn from opinions expressed on the internet.  Banning people from self-expression stinks of attitude of Taliban type Muslims, and it is an ironic tragedy it comes from successors of Sikhs who suffered greatly from persecution.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sat Sri Akal

Himmat Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 29, 2010)

*Re: Dasam Granth Cynics Now Attacking Guru Granth Sahib*

Himmat Singh ji

You should give us an opportunity. The comment is not deleted; however, I have moved it to its own thread for independent discussion.

Please check your private messages.


----------



## Seeker9 (Sep 30, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*

Good question

A good test for any Scripture would be to consider the answers to the following questions:

1) Who actually wrote it? Humans? (i.e did Jesus write any part of the Bible? Did the Prophet Mohammed write any part of the Koran)

2) Do the Scriptures still remain in their first and original form or do we only have access to translations?

3) Have the Scriptures been changed in any way, e.g old bits taken aaway, new bits added, and then x thousand years later, some old bits found again in earthen jars in caves and appear to contradict the currently accepted version...(I/m referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls here and the Councils of Nicea and their impact on The Bible!)

When you apply these questions to any Scriptures then Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji very much stands out from the crowd!
:blueturban:

Edited post:
Just realised I forgot a very important fourth element! So to the above list I would add:

4) Timing / When were the Scriptures written? - were they written at the time the people and events they portary occurred? Or were they written decades even centuries later?


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 9, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*



Seeker9 said:


> Good question
> 
> A good test for any Scripture would be to consider the answers to the following questions:
> 
> ...


 
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Thank you for your response Seeker9 ji.

I completely agree it is possible to rank scriptures. Using such criteria as you list it is possible to select  the ones that meet or exceed the set criteria. 

SGGS ji does stand out for me, but  to be fair, I only come to this conclusion from my upbringing, and without reading anything other than part of the new testament,  the book of genesis, and very, very few  snippets from buddhist and hindu works. 
Had I been born into another faith, I expect I would have seen that faith as standing out above the crowd as well.

The point you made about when scriptures were written will usually make a difference with regards to authenticity -  how much any scriptures can be expected to be in accord with the original "prophets'"  scripts/words. 

However, setting any points about authenticity, reliablity, and even merit aside, the point I was attempting to make was that absolutely all scriptures are based on the thoughts arising in somebody or another's mind, rather than through actual factual knowledge of God.

This makes them all opinion, and based on such a presumption that they have no subtantive evidence to support them, with regards to God, (rather than human behavioural traits), this makes everyone elses opinion on the same subject matter (God) potentially just as valuable, as what is already recorded in any scriptures.  

This is what I was trying to suggest when I was informed this was very offensive to SGGS ji. 

Of course it challenges current opinions about Sikhi. However any seekers of truth, in my opinion, should not be afraid of challenging any norms. If Guru Nanak Dev ji had not done so then Sikhi would not be what it is today. 

The stanza I used at that time to support this claim that all the claims with regards to God in SGGS ji are based on opinion alone and that Guru Nanak Dev ji was of the same opinion, that they were all opinion,   was pauri 3 in Japji Sahib:



> Some sing of His Power.who has that Power? Some sing of His Gifts, and know His Sign and Insignia. Some sing of His Glorious Virtues,
> Greatness and Beauty. Some sing of knowledge obtained of Him, through difficult philosophical studies. Some sing that He fashions the body, and then again reduces it to dust. Some sing that He takes life away, and then again restores it. Some sing that He seems so very far away. Some sing that He watches over us, face to face, ever-present. There is no shortage of those who preach and teach. Millions upon millions offer millions of sermons and stories. The Great Giver keeps on
> giving, while those who receive grow weary of receiving. Throughout the ages, consumers consume. The Commander, by His Command, leads us to walk on the Path. O Nanak, He blossoms forth, Carefree and Untroubled. || 3 ||


​ 

I did not get a chance to elaborate further, but I will try to here:

To me this is quite clear cut. Guru Nanak is reconising that all the opinions about God are mere stories and there are countless variations of them. Regardless of their nature, people swallow the stories untill they tire and move on to a revised or new version. Regardless of the stories, it is the One who positions us, by virtue of His Hukam, to listen to such tales. When one recognises them to be nothing but tales, then one breaks the bonds and chains to the set established norms of any religion, as one shifts from attachment from religion, to attachment to God (ie a higher plane). It leaves one enlightened, liberated or emancipated (from religion) ie neither Hindu/Mussalman (or an attached Sikh), but still worshipping God. 

There is of course much more bani to support Guru Nanak's opinion that nobody really knows the nature of God:

eg:

P5:


> How can we describe Him? How can we know Him? O Nanak, everyone speaks of Him, each one wiser than the rest. Great is the Master, Great is His Name. Whatever happens is according to His Will. O Nanak, one who claims to know everything shall not be decorated in the world hereafter. || 21 ||


 
If Guru Nanak Dev ji, the founder of Sikhi, does not know everything, and is not afraid  to say so, then what is the problem of some current day sikhs when someone else says SGGS ji expresses opinion alone? Why should this be offensive?  I would have thought, they would be pleased to note that Guru ji is not so arrogant to claim all knwledge of God, like some adherents to faiths with prophets do, when they claim their prophets were all knowing. However it seems to me a number of "sikhs" have now become very intolerant gatekeepers to the current norms of "their" religion, yet don't even consider just how perceptive and tolerant Guru Nanak was. He and subsequent gurus made sikhi universal, as evidenced in SGGS ji, but current sikhs have shut up shop and pulled down the shutters, with arrows pointed outwards through holes in the shutters, at anybody who comments on SGGS ji. Their first and foremost thought is to protect the Guru. I guess they are attached not  to the universal truth of the bani, and hence to God, but to the form of Guru ji. I further guess that whilst in that state, they cannot progress spiritually and cannot move from being a sikh of the guru, in deference  to the guru, to becoming a sikh of the lord, with no religion - neither Hindu, Mussalman or Sikh. The shabd will not strike their hearts, as their hearts are not attached to bani and the message it carries, but is attached to one particular manifestation of the Lord. The all pervasivenes of the Lord can never be recognised in this fashion, if one worships and protects one form of the Lord but not the next. "sarbat da bhalla" cannot be realised and never will be fully realised, as sarbat is ranked. 

Let us look at more bani:

P875:


> The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye. The spiritual teacher is wiser than both of them. The Hindu worships at the temple, the Muslim at the mosque. Naam Dayv serves that Lord, who is not limited to either the temple or the mosque. || 4 || 3 || 7 ||


 
Guru ji, via Naam Dev,  is pointing to worship of the Lord and not to worship of the trappings of a religion. 

P327:​

> KABEER JEE, TI-PADAS: He cannot be obtained by offering your weight in gold. But I have bought the Lord by giving my mind to Him. || 1 || Now I recognize that He is my Lord. My mind is intuitively pleased with Him. || 1 || Pause || Brahma spoke of Him continually, but could not find His limit. Because of my devotion to the Lord, He has come to sit within the home
> of my inner being. || 2 || Says Kabeer, I have renounced my restless intellect. It is my destiny to worship the Lord alone. || 3 || 1 || 19 ||


​​ 
Guru ji, via Kabeer ji, speaks of  hindus' offerings of gold to the Lord (whch persists to this day)but states this  cannot buy the Lord; some sikhs make big offerings as well;  Guru ji speaks of the Hindu scriptures - Brahma could not fully describe the Lord (as no-one can); Guru ji advises to worship the Lord alone and not the trappings of religion.

P83:



> PAUREE: The Lord alone is the One Creator; there is only the One Court of the Lord. The One Lord's Command is the One and Only.enshrine the One Lord in your consciousness. Without that Lord, there is no other at all. Remove your fear, doubt and dread. Praise that Lord who protects
> you, inside your home, and outside as well. When that Lord becomes merciful, and one comes to chant the Lord's Name, one swims across the ocean of fear. || 1 ||


​ 
Guru Ram Das ji advises to worship the One Lord alone. This will remove all doubts and fear, including the fears in the hearts of gatekeepers of religions. Religions are God's paths, so there is no fear of losing what he creates, destroys and recreates. 

P66:



> SIREE RAAG, THIRD MEHL: The soul-bird in the beautiful tree of the body pecks at Truth, with love for the Guru. She drinks in the Sublime Essence of the Lord, and abides in intuitive ease; she does not fly around coming and going. She obtains her home within her own heart; she is absorbed into the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. || 1 || O mind, work to serve the Guru. If you walk in harmony with the Guru's Will, you shall remain immersed in the Lord' s Name, night and day. || 1 || Pause || The birds in the beautiful trees fly around in all four directions. The more they fly
> around, the more they suffer; they burn and cry out in pain. Without the Guru, they do not find the Mansion of the Lord's Presence, and they do not obtain the Ambrosial Fruit. || 2 || The Gurmukh is like God's tree, always green, blessed with the Sublime Love of the True One, with intuitive peace and poise. He cuts off the three branches of the three qualities, and embraces love for the One Word of the Shabad. The Lord alone is the Ambrosial Fruit; He Himself gives it to us to eat. || 3 ||
> The self-willed manmukhs stand there and dry up; they do not bear any fruit, and they do not provide any shade. Don't even bother to sit near them-they have no home or village. They are cut down and burnt each day; they have neither the Shabad, nor the Lord's Name. || 4 || According to the Lord's Command, people perform their actions; they wander around, driven by the karma of their past actions. By the Lord's Command, they behold the Blessed Vision of His Darshan. Wherever He sends them, there they go. By His Command, the Lord, Har, Har, abides within our minds; by His Command we merge in Truth. || 5|| The wretched fools do not know the Lord's Will; they wander around making mistakes. They go about their business stubborn-mindedly; they are disgraced forever and ever. Inner peace does not come to them; they do not embrace love for the True Lord. || 6 || Beautiful are the faces of the Gurmukhs, who bear love and affection for the Guru. Through true devotional worship, they are attuned to Truth; at the True Door, they are found to be true. Blessed is their coming into being; they redeem all their ancestors. || 7 || All do their deeds under the Lord's Glance of Grace; no one is beyond His Vision. According to the Glance of Grace with which the True Lord beholds us, so do we become. O Nanak, the Glorious Greatness of the Naam, the Name of the Lord, is received only by His Mercy. || 8 || 3 || 20 ||


 
a) Guru Amar Das ji goes into the overriding nature of the Grace of the Lord (not of the practices of a religion). He will do as He pleases, so any readers should not get emotionally attached to any religion
b) The Truth is already within - no need to look outside
c) Follow the Guru - this reference to Guru is not any arrogant reference  to Guru Amar Das ji, not Guru Angad Dev ji and not Guru Nanak Dev ji. This is Sat Guru, the ever resident Guru within, the best friend of the soul, the sajan that one works to meet, one can then interact with and one asks to introduce one to the Lord. It is the seed of the Lord within, that bestows inner conscience, that shows flamingoes offspring that are left behind, on how to feed and grow, and become parents themselves - it is innate knowledge - and is hence, yet again an incitation to break free from the chains of religion, and shift to worship of the One Lord​p10 and p495:



> The flamingoes fly hundreds of miles, leaving their young ones behind. Who feeds them, and who teaches them to feed themselves? Have you ever thought of this in your mind?


 
d) The Lord alone is the ambrosial fruit. The Gurmukh is the tree, and in this context is now SGGS ji. We know SGGS ji embodies the joyt of liberated Gurmukhs, Guru Sahiban. However Guru ji is not saying we should be like the birds that fly around the tree.  Reading the shabd should not result in stopping at the tree and worshipping the tree, or flitting in and around it. Reading the shabd should be engendering love for the One Lord, and causing one to settle on the tree with real purpose, that being to  peck at the fruit ; if God so wills, this could yield the fruit - the Lord Himself. Ignorance of the fruit yet with knowledge of the tree, will leave one like the birds that fly around the trees, but never enjoy the fruit. 

Sat Sri Akal​​​


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 9, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*

Dear Sunmukh Ji

Many thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking post

Some thoughts I would offer in return:



> However, setting any points about authenticity, reliablity, and even  merit aside, the point I was attempting to make was that absolutely all  scriptures are based on the thoughts arising in somebody or another's  mind, rather than through actual factual knowledge of God.



Hmmnn...The Gurus and the Bhagats had achieved a level of knowledge and experience well beyond average had they not? 



> This makes them all opinion, and based on such a presumption that they  have no subtantive evidence to support them, with regards to God,  (rather than human behavioural traits), this makes everyone elses  opinion on the same subject matter (God) potentially just as valuable,  as what is already recorded in any scriptures.



Generally yes, but one would hope the contributors to SGGSJ were drawing more on actual knowledge and experience and less on opinion. But it is a very interesting viewpoint that does in a way highlight again the unique integrity of the Sikh Scriptures in terms of who wrote them and when



> Of course it challenges current opinions about Sikhi. However any  seekers of truth, in my opinion, should not be afraid of challenging any  norms. If Guru Nanak Dev ji had not done so then Sikhi would not be  what it is today.



With you on that one!

I am a complete novice re the Bani, but I can understand the way you have interpreted it. 

I also like to think of SGGSj as an instruction manual written by experts...so you're right, unlike other scriptures, it does not contain a lot of pie in the sky nonsense about the nature of the afterlife and God and other spiritual beings..... but it does contain a method for achieving spiritual enlightenment...which has to be experienced and cannot be put into words

I was not offended by anything in your post and enjoyed reading it

Thanks


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 9, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*

I asked this question earlier, and it seems to have disappeared. Opinion and truth are two different things, in fact irreconcilably different. How then is it possible for a scripture like Sri Guru Granth Sahib to be both an expression of Guru Nanak's opinion and a banee of truth? 

QFT This question was asked earlier in the day and is referenced to the most recent comments by sunmukh ji.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 10, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> I am self-confessed Dasam Granth cynic. I don't believe in its authorship, and don't need the Dasam Granth anyway,



So am I and my position is expressed quite nitidly in many posts in various threads here in this forum.



> as I have Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and God to guide me, and that is more than enough for me.



Yes, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is our only Guru, our Teacher, our Guide, our only GPS, not for any theological reasons but for the pragmatic ones on which Sikhi way of life is based. I have no idea what you mean by the word God in Sikhi because, again as my other posts would indicate that Ik Ong Kaar is not god as considered in other faiths because god is based on dogmas of the particular religion and the demarcation of each of them is very clear and is visible from their dogmatic fences. Sikhi has nothing to do with any dogmas. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru is its proof. Pragmatism needs no dogma. The best is explained in the first Pauri of Jap which shows us that TRUTH needs no dogmatic crutches of any belief system. It stands on its own. Thus, Sikhi is not a belief system as other religions are.



> I am also very much against excluding people who believe in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and one God alone, from being treated by defined Sikhs as sikhs because they don't keep all rehat.



Here, you are mixing apples and oranges, I am afraid. Sikhi is a gumbo of oral traditions, oral history and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru. If the first two do not compliment the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, then one can not have a Sikhi tripod on which its kaleidoscope stands for all of us to look through it. 

What do you mean by “don't keep all rehat”? How would you define the Sehajdharis? Did all who gathered on the Vaisakhi day of 1699 take khandei di pahul that day?

I would appreciate if you would clarify your thoughts on that.



> I wrote this on another forum but the comment was termed offensive to Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, and it was given as the reason why I was immediately banned temporarily from the site:
> 
> "All holy texts, and that includes the Bible, Koran, Vedas,Torah and now Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as well, are ALL opinion."



I have no idea which forums you have been visiting and have no interest in knowing  that either, nor am I interested in their reasons for the ban. I have a basic problem with your claim because to me it lacks coherence. Your claim is bewildering to say the least.

Before we go any further, let’s check the definitions of o•pin•ion and hear•say

o•pin•ion
   [uh-pin-yuh n]   Show IPA
–noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

hear•say
   [heer-sey]   Show IPA
–noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.
Origin: 
1525–35; orig. in phrase by hear say, trans. of MF par ouïr dire

—Synonyms 
1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay

All the above scriptures except Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are nothing but based on hearsays, hence can not be opinions of the original authors. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your claim?

“I based this on stanza 3 of Japji Sahib.”

What do you mean by the above? Please elaborate your basis according to the definitions given above.



> Question to you: "Would you see this as such an offensive comment, that such thoughts should not be allowed to be expressed on a Sikh forum? "



Once you are able to distinguish between the two, then the answer is self evident.



> Personally, I do not take anybody past or present, as a prophet/messenger/ambassador of God, so therefore anybody writing scriptures had to be giving an opinion,, albeit very wise words. I think this is in accord with Japji Sahib, and Guru Nanak Dev ji recognised the same after his great investigations into many religions and practices.



Sikhi is not based on “prophet/messenger/ambassador of God” as these are all based on dogmas which has nothing to do with Sikhi. There is a thread where Prophecy is discussed from the Sikhi view point in great length. I would suggest you to go through that and share your thoughts.

Once again, hearsays can not be opinions. Secondly, a pragmatic vision and usage of common sense is not an opinion either. To express this a bit further, I would like to use our oral Sikh history and also Gurbani. When Guru Nanak started throwing water to the West in Haridwar while Hindus were throwing towards the East is not an opinion but just common sense. The same could also be said about the episode in Mecca when Guru Nanak’s feet were facing the holy site of the Muslims and he asked the mullah to move them in the direction where Ik Ong Kaar _*IS NOT*_.

It is not an opinion when Guru Nanak says in Japji pauri 22:

ਪਾਤਾਲਾ ਪਾਤਾਲ ਲਖ ਆਗਾਸਾ ਆਗਾਸ ll
Pāṯālā pāṯāl lakẖ āgāsā āgās. 

"There are innumeral planets/galaxies and Milky ways". 

So,pardon my ignorance but I fail to understand what you mean by opinion.



> It is unbelievable that some Sikhs, have sunk to such levels that they resort to trying to stop people from expressing such thoughts, even when these people such as myself openly confess to have faith in only Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and One God. Even if I saw myself as a muslim, hindu or something else, what I wrote was no big deal. This paranoia in some Sikhs is bad news as it shows some are now very intolerant and live in deep fear of what their children, or non-sikhs, will learn from opinions expressed on the internet. Banning people from self-expression stinks of attitude of Taliban type Muslims, and it is an ironic tragedy it comes from successors of Sikhs who suffered greatly from persecution.



I am not here to judge others but to interact and learn from this process. Sikhi is the journey of the individual and of the individual only. Each one of us carry our own spiritual torch and only Ik Ong Kaar knows which milestone we as individuals are at. Neither myself, nor you or anyone else can find it out no matter how much we pretend to delve into it.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 11, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Dear Seeker9 ji

Thanks for your further post.



> Hmmnn...The Gurus and the Bhagats had achieved a level of knowledge and experience well beyond average had they not?


 
Indeed, very much above average.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*



sunmukh said:


> If Guru Nanak Dev ji, the founder of Sikhi, does not know everything, and is not afraid  to say so, then what is the problem of some current day sikhs when someone else says Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji expresses opinion alone?




Sunmukh Ji,
Please can I request that you also include the original Gurmukhi in your posts. I find English translations very misleading and would appreciate the opportunity to check my own understanding from the origincal shabads. Thank you.

Regarding the above statement, like any good teacher Guru Nanak Dev Ji knows his limitations. However, that does not invalidate his entire teachings as mere opinion! If an English teacher is asked a physics question or the physics teacher is asked about quantom mechanics, of which they haven't as much knowledge, does that mean everything else those teachers have taught becomes invalid? Guru Nanak Dev Ji admits that nobody can describe all the attributes of God but that does not mean that what he did describe is any less factual.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*

*I am still struggling with the assertion that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is an opinion.*


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 11, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



> I asked this question earlier, and it seems to have disappeared. Opinion and truth are two different things, in fact irreconcilably different. How then is it possible for a scripture like Sri Guru Granth Sahib to be both an expression of Guru Nanak's opinion and a banee of truth


 
Dear SPNadmin ji

Thanks for your post - I don't know what happened to the earlier post !

Some ways of looking at Truth: 

The ones who perceive somebody's ideas as Truth will not have any doubts as to whether it is Truth or not. Their minds will believe it is Truth whether it is true or not. eg Muslims with no doubts will believe Koran to represent Truth, and strong minded Christians will believe the Bible to be Truth and so on.

On the other hand all opinions, whether written up in a Bible, Vedas, Koran or Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji could all be regarded as variant manifestations of the Truth. As there is only the One, then all variations are part of the same, and in this case my opinion, your opinion, or anybody else's opinion becomes as valid as anybody elses, past, present or future.

Writings seen in scriptures are all based on what the author thought and then decided to write, whether it was written directly by a founder of a religion or a subsequent scribe hundreds of years later. The true Truth itself, just as you say, cannot be categorically reconciled with mere opinion. For example it takes God to know God. However, as the Truth is unknown and cannot be known as it is quite limitless, all that can be witnessed and known to a human mind is opinions, or somebody's ideas. They may be perceived by others to be supremely wise, agreeable, logical and reasonable, but ultimately it is the author's creative imagination and thoughts that resulted in the scriptures seen today.


Sat Sri Akal


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 11, 2010)

> Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji could all be regarded as variant manifestations of the Truth. As there is only the One, then all variations are part of the same, and in this case my opinion, your opinion, or anybody else's opinion becomes as valid as anybody elses, past, present or future.



If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then Sri Guru Granth Sahib is manmukh and manmat.


After the word "jap" in Japji Sahib ji we read

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥

aadh sach jugaadh sach ||

आदि सचु जुगादि सचु ॥

True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages.

ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥

hai bhee sach naanak hosee bhee sach ||1||

है भी सचु नानक होसी भी सचु ॥१॥

True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True. ||1||

It seems also that you projecting various opinions onto the cinema screen and then commenting about that. Which evades my question. 

So we return to place of bewilderment. How can "True" be an "Opinion?"


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 11, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Dear Tejwant Singh ji

Gurfateh ji

Thank you for your post.



> Yes, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is our only Guru, our Teacher, our Guide, our only GPS, not for any theological reasons but for the pragmatic ones on which Sikhi way of life is based. I have no idea what you mean by the word God in Sikhi because, again as my other posts would indicate that Ik Ong Kaar is not god as considered in other faiths because god is based on dogmas of the particular religion and the demarcation of each of them is very clear and is visible from their dogmatic fences. Sikhi has nothing to do with any dogmas. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru is its proof. Pragmatism needs no dogma. The best is explained in the first Pauri of Jap which shows us that TRUTH needs no dogmatic crutches of any belief system. It stands on its own. Thus, Sikhi is not a belief system as other religions are.


 

I am not, at the moment, convinced that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not based on theological reasons. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji appears to me to have been compiled principally to enshrine the theological studies and conclusions of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats. 

There also appears to me to be great emphasis on "God". Whether "God" is referenced as "Ik Ong Kaar", parmeswar, brahma, prabhu, parmatama, or not seems to be a technical point. However I will search for your previous posts on this site, that go into this point, and if need be will come back to you to discuss further, if you also wish to. 

I fully agree with you that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji does not set out a dogmatic way of life. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji on its own does not prescribe a proscriptive way of life, but does provide much spiritual guidance, and intimates principles of socially tolerant, constructive and truthful conduct. 


I wrote:
Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>I am also very much against excluding people who believe in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and one God alone, from being treated by defined Sikhs as sikhs because they don't keep all rehat. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


and you kindly replied:



> Here, you are mixing apples and oranges, I am afraid. Sikhi is a gumbo of oral traditions, oral history and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru. If the first two do not compliment the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, then one can not have a Sikhi tripod on which its kaleidoscope stands for all of us to look through it.
> 
> What do you mean by “don't keep all rehat”? How would you define the Sehajdharis? Did all who gathered on the Vaisakhi day of 1699 take khandei di pahul that day?
> 
> I would appreciate if you would clarify your thoughts on that.


 
This is a very deep topic. It is not really appropriate to discuss it with respect to scriptures being the result of humans' imaginations.
Very briefly, it is based on the outcome of the Gurleen Kaur vs SGPC Indian High Court case, in which people who claimed to be sikhs and previously acknowledged by all their relatives and local society to be sikhs, who believed in and held up Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as their Guru and beleived in only one God, were deemed to be non-sikhs as a result of trimming their eyebrows. These people, including myself (as I trim my beard occasionally) were essentially left in limbo with no religion. I deeply resent that, as I see it as a most intolerant action on part of the ones left as Sikhs, which is a very small minority of those who claim to be sikh (including myself).


Opinion/hearsay

One definition you give for opinion is:



> 1.
> a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.


 
I would say this applies well to what I am referring to. 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has passages which refer to the Lord as unknowable. This confirms, IMHO, that what is written therein, and in other scriptures, with respect to the Lord, is based on the authors thoughts and judgement alone. Hence what is written with regards to the Lord is an act of faith (ie not absolute "Truth", or complete certainty"

This act of faith is captured in this couplet:



> aisaa naam niranjan ho-ay.
> Such is the Name of the Immaculate Lord.
> jay ko man jaanai man ko-ay. ||13||
> Only one who has faith comes to know such a state of mind. ||13||​


(Page: 3, Line: 8, Jap, Author: Guru Nanak Dev)​



I am not really referring to hearsay. Hearsay is akin to rumours, which then as a result of a "Chinese whispers" action can end up as nothing like the original comments/statements. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji is quite authentic, although the oral traditions and history your referred to may have contentious elements, and may have a major bearing on what is now practised. That is bye the bye though, as it is scriptures I would be pleased to limit discussion to.



> All the above scriptures except Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are nothing but based on hearsays, hence can not be opinions of the original authors. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your claim?


 
I am not disputing the content of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji are authentic compositions, of the claimed contributors. All that I was intimating was that they are not revelations, not words of God, not sacred, not holy, but are written thoughts, that arose from human beings imaginations, albeit gifted human beings. They happen to convey messages, but ultimately the messages conveyed are perceptions of the authors. With this in mind, any statement that suggests that the compositions are opinion, should not be slammed as offensive. It may be insensitive to say this to Sikhs, but they should really be able to understand and stay calm. 
I am not into Guru worship, and only wish to learn from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji and apply what I learn,, but I can easily bow to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and do so in defernce to Sikhs feelings. Likewise they should be able to tolerate expression of others opinions on discussion forums. 

Please forgive me, but I have to leave for the moment, but will answer your other queries and respond to the further points you made in another post.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 11, 2010)

This is a fascinating discussion and I have enjoyed very much all contributions to date.

With my limited knowledge and understanding I am trying to get my head around this deep discussion...

In so far as the compilation of SGGS was not of the type of say God directly writing on tablets of stone with his finger which Moses subsequently presented to others, then yes I can see what Sunmukh Ji is saying

But then let's look at who wrote the other great Scriptures and who wrote SGGS and compare them........having compared them then, if we conclude that the authors of SGGS, i.e the Gurus and Bhagats, were in a completely different world (never mind ballpark!) spiritually to the authors of the other texts, then I would ask, how important is the core question on this thread about opinion V truth?

Like I said earlier, if we regard SGGS as an instruction manual written by world leading experts, unrivalled in their field by any other human at the time, then one can hopefully  be satisfied they have drawn more on actual knowledge and experience than opinion....

That's how I am trying to understand this discussion and hope it makes some sort of sense...

rangesingh:


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



findingmyway said:


> Sunmukh Ji,
> Please can I request that you also include the original Gurmukhi in your posts. I find English translations very misleading and would appreciate the opportunity to check my own understanding from the origincal shabads. Thank you.
> 
> Regarding the above statement, like any good teacher Guru Nanak Dev Ji knows his limitations. However, that does not invalidate his entire teachings as mere opinion! If an English teacher is asked a physics question or the physics teacher is asked about quantom mechanics, of which they haven't as much knowledge, does that mean everything else those teachers have taught becomes invalid? Guru Nanak Dev Ji admits that nobody can describe all the attributes of God but that does not mean that what he did describe is any less factual.


 
My apologies to you Findingmyway ji. I am always in two minds as to whether to include the original Gurmukhi as I get the sense its adding to the size of the posts. I will do so in future. 

I am not disputing the merit of any of the contributors opinions. I learn from them and am ignorant of their  wisdom, and have so much to learn from them. We do  not learn from pure facts alone. What I was suggesting is that in the final analysis that they are somebody's  thoughts on an unknowable subject. The fact that it was openly declared that the actual knowledge of the Truth was missing, was very commendable.  (I do not agree with you about the factual point)

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 11, 2010)

sunmukh said:


> I am not, at the moment, convinced that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not based on theological reasons. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji appears to me to have been compiled principally to enshrine the theological studies and conclusions of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats.



Sunmukh ji,
Forgive me but a few things confuse me still. I looked up the meaning of theological just ot be sure:
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="4" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="tr3" valign="top"><td class="td3n1" align="right" width="1%"> 
</td><td class="td3n2">based on God's revelation to man of his nature, his designs, and his will </td></tr></tbody></table>The Guru Granth Sahib Ji says we cannot FULLY know his nature, designs or will. I think you will agree that is the TRUTH. This is where the fact of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji being written by the original teachers comes in as that means the truth has not been distorted or misninterpreted by others.



> There also appears to me to be great emphasis on "God". Whether "God" is referenced as "Ik Ong Kaar", parmeswar, brahma, prabhu, parmatama, or not seems to be a technical point. However I will search for your previous posts on this site, that go into this point, and if need be will come back to you to discuss further, if you also wish to.



The name used does not matter but the fundamental belief is defining. In Sikhi, God is not a being or an entity but is present everywhere. Belief in God or otherwise does not affect Akaal Purakh's existence. This is a different concpet from other religions which try and second guess everything. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji also goes way beyond belief in God-it is guidance for living. 



> I fully agree with you that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji does not set out a dogmatic way of life. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji on its own does not prescribe a proscriptive way of life, but does provide much spiritual guidance, and intimates principles of socially tolerant, constructive and truthful conduct.



But if its opinion how do you know the conduct advised is truthful? An opinion cannot be described as truth! If you also refer back to spnadmin ji's post which quotes the 1st pauri of Japji by Guru Nanak Dev Ji an talks about truth, you saying that is opinion says you believ he was lying?!!!



> This is a very deep topic. It is not really appropriate to discuss it with respect to scriptures being the result of humans' imaginations.
> Very briefly, it is based on the outcome of the Gurleen Kaur vs SGPC Indian High Court case, in which people who claimed to be sikhs and previously acknowledged by all their relatives and local society to be sikhs, who believed in and held up Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as their Guru and beleived in only one God, were deemed to be non-sikhs as a result of trimming their eyebrows. These people, including myself (as I trim my beard occasionally) were essentially left in limbo with no religion. I deeply resent that, as I see it as a most intolerant action on part of the ones left as Sikhs, which is a very small minority of those who claim to be sikh (including myself).



It sounds like you are confusing your bitterness with religion with belief in the Guru? 




> One definition you give for opinion is:
> 
> I would say this applies well to what I am referring to.
> Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has passages which refer to the Lord as unknowable. This confirms, IMHO, that what is written therein, and in other scriptures, with respect to the Lord, is based on the authors thoughts and judgement alone. Hence what is written with regards to the Lord is an act of faith (ie not absolute "Truth", or complete certainty"



Actually I would say the fact that Guru Ji admits that Waheguru is not completely knowable shows how truthful the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is, as Guru Ji is not making up things beyond what can be known by humans.




> I am not disputing the content of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji are authentic compositions, of the claimed contributors. All that I was intimating was that they are not revelations, not words of God, not sacred, not holy, but are written thoughts, that arose from human beings imaginations, albeit gifted human beings.



Why follow them is the words are from imaginations? This is very contradictory in many ways so please explain.



> any statement that suggests that the compositions are opinion, should not be slammed as offensive. It may be insensitive to say this to Sikhs, but they should really be able to understand and stay calm.



So far this discussion has been very calm. We are confused and asking for clarification-is that so wrong? Again I'm sensing bitterness from past experiences...



> I am not into Guru worship, and only wish to learn from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji and apply what I learn,, but I can easily bow to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and do so in defernce to Sikhs feelings.



Following the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Guru worship. Applying it to your life is Guru worship. Bowing to it in a ritual motion is not! 



> Likewise they should be able to tolerate expression of others opinions on discussion forums.



Has this forum not accpeted you expressing your opinion? However, in any discussion other viewpoints will also be expressed and we should all be able to hear those too.

I look forward to your responses.


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



spnadmin said:


> *I am still struggling with the assertion that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is an opinion.*


 
Dear SPNadmin ji

Let's say you wrote a series of lyrics, and put them together. You were actually trying to convey a serious message, but chose to use song rather than by prose.You started to sing the lyrics and others liked them. Then others joined in and sang in the same manner, in the same vein. They also wrote on the same theme. 

If you happened to attract a lot of followers, and they continued to enjoy your songs even after your passing, and this continued for hundreds of years, does that imply that what you originally wrote was a result of your gifted creative and artistic skill, which you were able to utilise to change people's lives for the common good, or does it imply that you were sent by God for a purpose, or was holy, or was a sant or was God Himself ( as some people see Guru Nanak). 

Would you be content with people falling at your feet, or would you prefer them tp follow your advice based on your thoughts, research, analyis and conclusions.  If you would not prefer them to fall at your feet now, even though you will not be here in the future, would you like to think they will worship your writings in the future? 

The point I am making is that although the advice comprised in SGGS ji is pure unadulterated wonderful wisdom, it is written by humans, based on their reasoning rather than actual knowledge of God (which they admit) and only arrogant humans would would wish their writings to be treated even more respectfully than they themselves would be in life, and even that would not nowadays include falling at their feet.  Treatment of SGGS ji and issues of disrespect run against the actual way compassionate tolerant people think. (I am not referring to people who deliberately go out of their way to disrespect Guru ji - they are clearly out of order )

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 11, 2010)

Dear Sunmukh Ji

I think I understand your line of reasoning

The Gurus & Bhagats were human...but they were special as well

Even if the physical process of creating SGGS on this Earth required human hands that put pen to paper, the resulting scriptures are a unique revelation, which you have also recognised

I am continuing to enjoy this discussion and am not offended by it


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*



sunmukh said:


> Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
> The point I am making is that although the advice comprised in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji is pure unadulterated wonderful wisdom, it is written by humans, based on their reasoning rather than actual knowledge of God (which they admit) and only arrogant humans would would wish their writings to be treated even more respectfully than they themselves would be in life, and even that would not nowadays include falling at their feet.  Treatment of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji and issues of disrespect run against the actual way compassionate tolerant people think. (I am not referring to people who deliberately go out of their way to disrespect Guru ji - they are clearly out of order )
> Sat Sri Akal



Sunmukh Ji,
Again I think you are confusing the way people behave now with the authenticity of the writings. These are 2 separate issues completely. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji shoud be treated with respect, this is not worship. Even if some people do behave in a worshipful way, it does not change the meaning of the original scriptures. It is illogical to judge the Guru on the way it is treated now


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 11, 2010)

Just had another thought which I wanted to share.....

Dear Sunmukh Ji

If I have followed what you have said to date, I wonder if "opinion" is the best word to use?

Are you also saying that by transferring anything to a written form puts it within the boundaries of that written form and this is not the same as actually experiencing something...i.e there is only so much that can be articulated via the written word?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 11, 2010)

*Re: Are the important scriptures of world religions simply opinions?*



sunmukh said:


> What I was suggesting is that in the final analysis that they are somebody's  thoughts on an unknowable subject. )



Unless I am misunderstanding you, Sri Guru Granth Sahib does not represent somebody's thoughts, but rather revealed truth.



> on an unknowable subject



Yes unknowable in the ordinary ways of knowing.



> The fact that it was openly declared that the actual knowledge of the Truth was missing, was very commendable.



Neither gurus, nor bhagats, nor sants would have stated the "actual knowledge of the Truth was missing" but rather they are saying imho that a critical mass  of us are "missing" the Truth.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 11, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru fateh.

Thanks for the response.



> I am not, at the moment, convinced that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji  is not based on theological reasons. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji appears  to me to have been compiled principally to enshrine the theological  studies and conclusions of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats.


So do you mean the above is your own personal opinion and nothing more?
If it is something beyond that then I would like your to elaborate that by stating  your theological reasons or facts.

What in your opinion is a difference between theology and pragmatism?

Isn't theology a part of dogmas that Sikhi rejects?



> There also appears to me to be great emphasis on "God". Whether  "God" is referenced as "Ik Ong Kaar", parmeswar, brahma, prabhu,  parmatama, or not seems to be a technical point. However I will search  for your previous posts on this site, that go into this point, and if  need be will come back to you to discuss further, if you also wish to.


I will wait for your response but just to simplify and focus on what  Sikhi is based on, we have to understand Mool Mantar first which describes what  Ik Ong Kaar _*IS,*_ which is totally different than "God" which involves a  deity and a dogma. The rest of the names which are more than a few  mentioned above compliment Ik Ong Kaar in a poetic manner but for a Sikh  it is a must to understand and grasp the distinction between Ik Ong  Kaar and "God" otherwise all discussions become futile and become tugs of wars  of egos. Nothing more. Mool Mantar is the blue print of Sikhi. In fact,  you can find my little essay about it in the forum.



> I fully agree with you that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji does not  set out a dogmatic way of life. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji on its own  does not prescribe a proscriptive way of life, but does provide much  spiritual guidance, and intimates principles of socially tolerant,  constructive and truthful conduct.


Well, if your above statement is true than it contradicts with your  claim that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is based on theological reasons because as mentioned  before any theology requires dogmas. 
So, which is it?



> This is a very deep topic. It is not really appropriate to  discuss it with respect to scriptures being the result of humans'  imaginations.
> Very briefly, it is based on the outcome of the Gurleen Kaur vs SGPC  Indian High Court case, in which people who claimed to be sikhs and  previously acknowledged by all their relatives and local society to be  sikhs, who believed in and held up Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as their  Guru and beleived in only one God, were deemed to be non-sikhs as a  result of trimming their eyebrows. These people, including myself (as I  trim my beard occasionally) were essentially left in limbo with no  religion. I deeply resent that, as I see it as a most intolerant action  on part of the ones left as Sikhs, which is a very small minority of  those who claim to be sikh (including myself).


Here, you are once again confusing yourself between the pragmatic Sikhi  and the rules, regulations and archaic laws of the Indian constitution.  These have nothing to do with the spiritual side of Sikhi but just the  political side. You must be very much aware that there is a quota system  for people to enter into the universities in India. SGPC which sponsors  and manages many Sikh colleges wanted the court to decide how to define  a Sikh for this very purpose so that the preferences are given to the  Sikhs and the court decided what a Sikh is. It is your right to disagree  with the court's decision but it has nothing to do with the thread you  have started. This is a separate matter all together. I do not  understand your resentment towards Sikhs and Sikhi when the decision was  made by the High court.

Hopefully, one day when we get rid of the caste systems from all aspects  including in Sikhi and the quota system is eliminated, then we will not  have to go to the courts to decide who is a Sikh or not, however the  purpose of this was very narrow and it has nothing to do with you or  with me as we are not seeking the admission to any Sikh college in  Punjab. So, this resentment is unfounded and irrelevant in our  discussion about Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.



> Opinion/hearsay
> 
> One definition you give for opinion is:
> 1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
> ...


Once again, for me Lord has nothing to do with Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi. As  the original translators were non Sikhs and were Christians, they gave  Sikhi a Biblical slant and many of their Sikh students who translated  the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji carried on with the same. Bhai Manmohan Singh is one of them.

In the fear of tooting my own horn and immersing into me-ism while  talking about One-ism, I do apologise in advance and would like to share  with you that I did write a little piece which can be also found in  this forum." Lord as Ik Ong Kaar", which in my opinion is an insult and  distortion of the true meaning of Ik Ong Kaar.

If I am not mistaken, I think you are confused about the word  "unknowable" in Gurbani and used this as part of the definition of  an opinion by our Gurus.

Unknowable talks about the immensity of Ik Ong Kaar. It has nothing to do with,





> "One definition you give for opinion is:
> 1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty".


 But to the contrary.

Secondly, there is nothing called Absolute "Truth" in Sikhi like in the  dogmatic religions, however Truth is absolute and it is explained very  well in the first pauri of Jap by Guru Nanak. 



> This act of faith is captured in this couplet:
> 
> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width=""> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> aisaa naam niranjan ho-ay.
> Such is the Name of the Immaculate Lord.
> ...


This couplet is repeated  4 times at the end of Pauri 12 to 15. Pauri number 12  has the word ਮੰਨੇ Manei which means one who understands and accepts which is different from Pauris 13 to 15 where the word is ਮੰਨੈ Maneiei  meaning one who has understood and accepted. This is nothing to do with  faith as you claim. As mentioned before Mool Mantar is the Blue print of  Sikhi, Jap ji is the foundation of Sikhi and the rest of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji  leaves us to our own individual endeavours of what kinds of buildings we  want to construct with the help of the blue print and the foundation.

Lastly, before these 4 pauris, there are pauris that show us how to be  good listeners. Gurbani shows us the steps how to breed goodness within  and gives us the tools to become better as beings. It has nothing to do with faith. Hence, we do  injustice to Gurbani and to our visionary Gurus when we pick a couple of  lines just to prove our point. It is like the ends justifying the means  rather than the other way around.



> I am not really referring to hearsay. Hearsay is akin to rumours, which  then as a result of a "Chinese whispers" action can end up as nothing  like the original comments/statements. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji is  quite authentic, although the oral traditions and history your referred  to may have contentious elements, and may have a major bearing on what  is now practised. That is bye the bye though, as it is scriptures I  would be pleased to limit discussion to.


Now, you are contradicting yourself. Here is your original statement:



> "All holy texts, and that includes the Bible, Koran, Vedas,Torah and now Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as well, are ALL opinion."


You know it very well that all other Scriptures except Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are based on  hearsays which are akin to rumours especially when something is written  60 to 120 years after the words had been supposedly uttered. These are  like "Chinese Whispers", using your terminology.

I have said repeatedly that if the oral traditions and the oral history  like Sakhis contradict Gurmat ideals of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji then they should be  rejected vehemently and can not be made part of the Miri-Piri concept of  Sikhi. 



> I am not disputing the content of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji are  authentic compositions, of the claimed contributors.* All that I was  intimating was that they are not revelations, not words of God, not  sacred, not holy, *but are written thoughts, that arose from human beings  imaginations, albeit gifted human beings*.*They happen to convey  messages, but ultimately the messages conveyed are perceptions of the  authors.


Pardon my ignorance but what is in bold seems like more a dogmatic  babble with a Biblical slant. Would you be kind enough to elaborate what  you mean by the above?

Everything is written and expressed by men unless the "God" you believe  in is a deity and dogmatic. I would also like you to express this distinction that  you have in your mind.



> With this in mind, any statement that suggests that the  compositions are opinion, should not be slammed as offensive. It may be  insensitive to say this to Sikhs, but they should really be able to  understand and stay calm.


You have to explain how you have come to the conclusions that the  compositions are opinions rather than visions. What made you conclude  that? Aren't you a Sikh as well? Are you directing the above to  yourself?



> I am not into Guru worship, and only wish to learn from Sri Guru Granth  Sahib Ji ji and apply what I learn,, but I can easily bow to Sri Guru  Granth Sahib Ji, and do so in defernce to Sikhs feelings. Likewise they  should be able to tolerate expression of others opinions on discussion  forums.


Once again you have shown your dogmatic trait in the above. There is  nothing called Guru worship in Sikhi. I have no idea where you got that  from. Guru means a teacher and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is our only teacher. Do you bow or matha tek to your elders who have been your  teachers? This is nothing but a sign of respect in our tradition as is  kissing the Bible or putting one's forehead on it.

More after hearing from you. I must confess that I am learning a lot through our interaction and I want to thank you for that.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 12, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Dear Sangat ji, please forgive me for referring to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji in this topic. 

On reflection, it would have better for me to have refrained from referring to any particular scriptures at all. 

By naming them, and in particular Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji, I have probably very much over complicated the point I was trying to make - that all scriptures, irrespective of who wrote them, when they were written, and how authentic they are, are all rooted in creative thinking of human beings alone, as opposed to revelations from any supreme beings, entities, energies or forces. They are no different to any other unproven theory. Some facets are subsequently seen to be true, such as elements related to human behaviour, but other facets such as references to God, heaven, hell, karma, reincarnation are all unproven and unprovable concepts. They rely on faith alone, and often these unprovable aspects are what binds somebody to a particular faith as opposed to another. Some people develop fear of what will happen if they do not believe, even though there is no substantive evidence. Likewise some people feel very contented and happy, by holding a faith, but still without any substantive evidence. Unsubstantiated theories are very powerful, and are able to make people develop all sorts of emotions. 

As such I was trying to suggest that anybody who gets attached to any scripture to the point of getting emotive when anybody else makes comments that contradict their own strong views, is in a way showing that they are very attached to what is in essence only a worldly item. The same applies if someone gets attached to the author(s), or practices.

IMHO any form of attachment to what is left behind upon death runs against the grain of bani (whether it is found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji or other scriptures). 


The fact I even mentioned Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji, has possibly raised some emotional responses. I am sorry to do that, and that is my error for which probably lead to me being admonished on a previous forum. However it is also in hands of those who get emotional, to control their emotions, if they do fully follow what the scripture is suggesting - avoid emotional attachment. This is the conundrum that I finding it very difficult to understand.



Each of you who have kindly responded have made much appreciated comments which I need to ponder over. If need be, I will respond in course but am time limited.

Tejwant Singh ji, I really need to read what you have previously written with regards to the Mool Mantar. As you rightly state I may be involved in an egotistical tug of war. I will read what you have written. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 12, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Disagreements are part and parcel of the learning process. Gurbani shows us how our Gurus disagreed with people from other religions and expressed their reasons of disagreement. This proves how our Gurus were visionaries  in human behaviour psychology especially in a tribal, patriarchal society they lived in at that time where disagreements were and still are a form of disrespect and insult especially when one disagrees with one's elders.

During our Guru's time, if  one disagreed with the rulers, then he/she was slaughtered as history is  its evidence. Our Gurus taught us how to start a conversation  with those ones whom they had disagreements with especially at the time when sword was wielded at will. League of Nations by Woodrow Wilson and UN came hundreds of years later. Even during the G20 summit held in Seoul, South Korea  this week, there was hardly any agreement. Boardrooms are  filled with disagreements which help the companies to grow daily through consensus which is the  natural consequence of disagreements provided all parties are willing and the objective is growth and improvement in any aspect.

What I am trying to say is that our visionary Gurus were ions ahead  in their thought process and if we follow their teachings,we can improve ourselves as human beings and it is not an opinion but proven facts and practiced daily by all consensus seeking peoples and countries whether they are Sikhs or not. However, sadly to say that the honchos who control the panth  through their self grabbed power and money in the guises of SGPC,DGMC and the Hukumnaamas through the Takhats have not grasped this wonderful concept.They have corrupted the essence of Sikhi which our Gurus had envisioned. We need a total overhaul from the top and it should be solely based on Gurmat ideals given to us in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru. 

Our Gurus gave us the tools to start a conversation and also showed us how to control the five vices- kaam krodh,lobh, moh, hankaar- because we can not get rid of them as they are part of the human DNA. So, it  is okay to be emotional.

You write:



> They are no different to any other unproven theory. Some facets are  subsequently seen to be true, such as elements related to human  behaviour, *but other facets such as references to God, heaven, hell,  karma, reincarnation are all unproven and unprovable concepts.* They rely  on faith alone, and often these unprovable aspects are what binds  somebody to a particular faith as opposed to another. Some people  develop fear of what will happen if they do not believe, even though  there is no substantive evidence. Likewise some people feel very  contented and happy, by holding a faith, but still without any  substantive evidence. Unsubstantiated theories are very powerful, and  are able to make people develop all sorts of emotions.


I agree with you that Hell, Heaven, Reincarnation are unproven facts, hence they are not part of Sikhi because they are based on subjective truths on which the dogmatic religions are based, unlike Sikhi which is based on objective reality. As I mentioned in my earlier posts to you that it seems that you at times find it difficult in your mind how to distinguish between Sikhi and other religions, and there IS a difference which I have tried to express.

Karma is again different than it is in the Hindu concept. Karma in Sikhi means,"we reap what we sow" in this life as reincarnation does  not come in the equation. Hence, Karma in Sikhi is a proven fact.



> Tejwant Singh ji, I really need to read what you have previously written  with regards to the Mool Mantar. *As you rightly state I may be involved  in an egotistical tug of war.* I will read what you have written.


I apologise, if I gave you that impression. I used the word *WE* which includes all of us.Afterall we are all humans and Sikhs- students, learners, seekers- which at times make us trip on our self created dust mounds piled under our rugs by us.

Thanks for the interesting interaction.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

*Confused Ji, your queries were taking us off topic so I have started a new thread here:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikhism-belief/33225-what-is-karma.html

Regards,
Jasleen
*


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 14, 2010)

Info Today 13:37 PM sunmukh Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
Dear SPNadmin – Gurfateh ji 


> by sunmukh ji
> Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji could all be regarded as variant manifestations of the Truth. As there is only the One, then all variations are part of the same, and in this case my opinion, your opinion, or anybody else's opinion becomes as valid as anybody elses, past, present or future.





> by spnadmin
> If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then Sri Guru Granth Sahib is manmukh and manmat.


I can understand why you may see that as the logical conclusion. However it would seem to be valid if we only go back only as far as origins of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. I don’t see Guru Nanak Dev ji having any Guru as his guide, other than the creator. Ultimately all creation has divine origins, and all others are in the same situation. If we go back to this stage, then there is no basis for anybody to be termed manmukh, or any perceptions to be termed manmat. There is no reason why any individual should get judgemental about what represents a manmukh and what is manmat, unless one wishes to categorise people. We can simply mentally note those affected by the world, and ensnared by it, and those who are able to survive and thrive spiritually, physically, mentally and emotionally despite the world. All are God’s creation, and is with all at all times. I would not wish to term anybody a manmukh, in a pejorative way, least of all Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji 



> by spnadmin
> 
> After the word "jap" in Japji Sahib ji we read
> 
> ...



I tried to explain in the previous post that truth as any one individual knows it, is based on one’s perceptions of it. I apologise for my failure to convey this. With respect to the particular lines you quote, I understand “sach” as an objective, absolute reality – creation as it exists including all laws and principles that govern it. . This is unchanging but it does not imply I or anybody else, knows it, least of completely. This implies that any representation made of it is limited to one’s knowledge and experiences to any point in time, and what is expressed will be one’s perception, or opinion of that collected knowledge and experience. It changes over time. What may have been perceived as cast-iron truth 2000 years ago, would not necessarily by seen as truth today. What an animal/beast perceives as truth will not be what the average human perceives as truth, and what some higher life form sees as truth on some distant planet will not be what we perceive as truth. Despite these fluctuations “sach” remains as is, and unchanging, and collectively all the variant understandings/perceptions/opinions are comprised within “sach”. When one acknowledges the variations, as all part of “sach”, then one may stop believing one’s opinion as the truth. 


Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 14, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
Dear Seeker9 

Gurfateh ji 


> by Seeker9
> But then let's look at who wrote the other great Scriptures and who wrote Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and compare them........having compared them then, if we conclude that the authors of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, i.e the Gurus and Bhagats, were in a completely different world (never mind ballpark!) spiritually to the authors of the other texts, then I would ask, how important is the core question on this thread about opinion V truth?
> 
> Like I said earlier, if we regard Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as an instruction manual written by world leading experts, unrivalled in their field by any other human at the time, then one can hopefully be satisfied they have drawn more on actual knowledge and experience than opinion....



It depends entirely on how one wishes to perceive Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, or any other scripture if one valued that instead. It may be of no concern at all, but on the other hand may be very important to one. 

The same is true of the actual compositions then as well. Some are happy to recite, and are fully satisfied by that, some wish to read into each and every individual letter, with attention to any grammatical marks, and some are happy to just pay nominal obeisance. 

IMHO Guru Nanak Dev ji made clear that others had expressed many thoughts upon the nature of the creator yet had done so without knowledge. He also expressed that no knowledge of the creator existed, and that anybody who thought they knew would be unwise to make out they knew. These are powerful and commendable statements and should IMHO be leading followers of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji to lose their bonds to any set practices of religion altogether. Faith in a formless creator, is all that is advocated by Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, together with a truthful, compassionate, tolerant way of life, yet the attachment to religion persists, to the point that adherents are offended by contrary statements. Yet Guru Nanak Dev ji made radical statements, and Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji recognises the range of beliefs. It would seem a body of people have over time set up to protect any deviation from their own perceptions and opinions as to what Sikhi is, and along with that goes a considerable degree of intolerance to any expression of opinion. Although the intolerance can be expected to a degree, as some do get passionate and emotional over “their” religion, and this occurs across religions, there seems to be a lack of willingness to understand that Sikhi did not develop without revolutionary and evolutionary changes being found acceptable. It has to accept changes will still have to be made if it is to survive in the long term. It has been empowered to make changes, if the changes are more likely to serve its sangat. If the empowered managers of the religion see fit to exclude sangat that do not make the grade, whether because they do not look like sikhs, or because they express opinions in articles or newspapers or over the internet, then they are neither recognising the universality of sikhi and how it used to treat all as equals, not are they recognising how sikhi developed from human beings rejecting existing practices. A failure to practice what is written in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, without any ritual, and move with the times to endear Sikhi to people in need of spiritual guidance, is most likely to continue to impact heavily upon those who fail to follow truthful ways of life, such as in Punjab. If lay people see possible role models as not able to perform truthfully, or see them as following superstitious practices, they themselves will not become role models at a later date. If they see role models as becoming isolationist and putting down shutters upon them on account of appearances, even though they remain theistic, they will move to sects and deras who welcome them. 

What people say, write and do changes others lives. What Guru Sahiban managed to do despite the odds epitomises that. It takes people to do that, and it requires open-minded attitudes to allow any positive, constructive changes to take place. Such people are termed sikhs because they are learners, not because they have closed minds.


Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 14, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat NaamDear Jasleen Kaur ji

Gurfateh ji



> Originally Posted by sunmukh http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/inter...ptures-world-religions-simply-opinions-2.html - post136792
> 
> 
> I am not, at the moment, convinced that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not based on theological reasons. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji appears to me to have been compiled principally to enshrine the theological studies and conclusions of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats.





> by findinmyway ji
> 
> Sunmukh ji,
> Forgive me but a few things confuse me still. I looked up the meaning of theological just ot be sure:
> ...



Agreed. 



> by sunmukh ji
> There also appears to me to be great emphasis on "God". Whether "God" is referenced as "Ik Ong Kaar", parmeswar, brahma, prabhu, parmatama, or not seems to be a technical point. However I will search for your previous posts on this site, that go into this point, and if need be will come back to you to discuss further, if you also wish to.





> by findingmywayji
> 
> The name used does not matter but the fundamental belief is defining. In Sikhi, God is not a being or an entity but is present everywhere. Belief in God or otherwise does not affect Akaal Purakh's existence. This is a different concpet from other religions which try and second guess everything. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji also goes way beyond belief in God-it is guidance for living.




Agreed, although I would also say it does not matter what the nature of a supreme power is. Faith that there is such a higher power is all that is required. 




> by sunmukhi ji
> 
> I fully agree with you that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji does not set out a dogmatic way of life. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji on its own does not prescribe a proscriptive way of life, but does provide much spiritual guidance, and intimates principles of socially tolerant, constructive and truthful conduct.






> by findingmyway ji
> 
> But if its opinion how do you know the conduct advised is truthful? An opinion cannot be described as truth! If you also refer back to spnadmin ji's post which quotes the 1st pauri of Japji by Guru Nanak Dev Ji an talks about truth, you saying that is opinion says you believ he was lying?!!!



I am neither suggesting Guru Nanak Dev Ji was lying or not lying. There is no reason for me to suggest he was lying and I do not believe he was, so I do not need to or wish to. Advice on conduct is based on historic and current knowledge of effects of human behaviour, how individuals’ conduct affects and individual, and how it affect society, and also on how collective actions affect individuals and society as a whole. Guru Sahiban had knowledge of such behaviour and of deeds, and hence is based on experiential or observed matters of fact, or effectively truth . This is not disputed in any way. What is suggested is that knowledge of the creator, or a higher force, was no more known than by any other members of any other faiths. Any comments on such aspects ought, IMHO, to be treated as opinion and perceptions on the part of the relevant authors. This does not mean does not have to have faith in the perceptions expressed. Having faith transforms a person. It changes the persons’ state of mind altogether. One can have hope when there is no cause for hope, and one can undertake actions that may otherwise appear unrealistic. The faith does not have to be built on any form of truth at all. 



> by sunmukhi ji
> 
> This is a very deep topic. It is not really appropriate to discuss it with respect to scriptures being the result of humans' imaginations.
> Very briefly, it is based on the outcome of the Gurleen Kaur vs SGPC Indian High Court case, in which people who claimed to be sikhs and previously acknowledged by all their relatives and local society to be sikhs, who believed in and held up Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as their Guru and beleived in only one God, were deemed to be non-sikhs as a result of trimming their eyebrows. These people, including myself (as I trim my beard occasionally) were essentially left in limbo with no religion. I deeply resent that, as I see it as a most intolerant action on part of the ones left as Sikhs, which is a very small minority of those who claim to be sikh (including myself).





> by findingmyway ji
> 
> It sounds like you are confusing your bitterness with religion with belief in the Guru?




I am still a bit bitter about this fact, but I don’t think I have lost the slightest faith in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. It has in fact strengthened it considerably, as I see Guru as the only real reliable source of spiritual guidance, and unlike humans, actions of the Guru will not deviate from outward expressions of equality. 




> by sunmukhi ji
> 
> One definition you give for opinion is:
> 
> ...






> by findinmyway ji
> Actually I would say the fact that Guru Ji admits that Waheguru is not completely knowable shows how truthful the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is, as Guru Ji is not making up things beyond what can be known by humans.




Exactly. Thank you. Now why couldn’t I say that so succinctly ? 




> by sunmukhi ji
> 
> I am not disputing the content of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji are authentic compositions, of the claimed contributors. All that I was intimating was that they are not revelations, not words of God, not sacred, not holy, but are written thoughts, that arose from human beings imaginations, albeit gifted human beings.





> by sunmukhi ji
> 
> Why follow them is the words are from imaginations? This is very contradictory in many ways so please explain.




All thoughts are rooted in the mind. When perceptions are not based on fact, they are the consequence of an amalgam of thoughts processes which are subject to outside influences, as well as being the outcome of creative thought based on experiences. This to me represents somebody’s imagination. It is based on a variant mixture of knowledge, experiences, traumas, achievements, analysis and creative thinking. It produces a perception which may or may not be based on fact, or on an intermediate level of fact. 




> by sunmukhi ji
> any statement that suggests that the compositions are opinion, should not be slammed as offensive. It may be insensitive to say this to Sikhs, but they should really be able to understand and stay calm.





> by findingmyway
> 
> So far this discussion has been very calm. We are confused and asking for clarification-is that so wrong? Again I'm sensing bitterness from past experiences...




You are fully entitled to seek any from of clarification you request, and I will try to reply. I may struggle at times, as I have to go to work, sleep etc. There is some resentment that people who claim to the outside world to be tolerant, are at times not so tolerant of opinion within its circles. I am beginning to accept it though, and Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji helps me to accept. 



> by sunmukhi ji
> 
> I am not into Guru worship, and only wish to learn from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji and apply what I learn,, but I can easily bow to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and do so in defernce to Sikhs feelings.






> by findinmyway ji
> 
> Following the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Guru worship. Applying it to your life is Guru worship. Bowing to it in a ritual motion is not!



Agreed, but that is not what is obvious to the western world.. Additionally there really is an increasing form of Guru worship, extending from circling of Guru ji a number of times by some, more elaborate manji sahibs/chananis and building of sachkhands. 




> by sunmukh ji
> 
> Likewise they should be able to tolerate expression of others opinions on discussion forums.





> by findingmyway ji
> 
> Has this forum not accpeted you expressing your opinion? However, in any discussion other viewpoints will also be expressed and we should all be able to hear those too.




Very much so. Thank you for your patience and the positive feedback.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 14, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Dear Tejwant Singh ji

Gurfateh ji 

Thank you for your further post and feedback.




> by sunmukh ji
> 
> I am not, at the moment, convinced that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not based on theological reasons. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji appears to me to have been compiled principally to enshrine the theological studies and conclusions of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats.





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> So do you mean the above is your own personal opinion and nothing more?
> ]If it is something beyond that then I would like your to elaborate that by stating your theological reasons or facts.


 
Guru Nanak Dev Ji paid considerable attention to Bhagats such as Ravidaas ji, Farid ji, Kabeer ji, Naam Dev ji and Trilochan ji. They possibly influenced him to a big degree

These Bhagats have shabds enshrined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.Guru Arjan Dev ji decided they were of sufficient merit to be included therein. 

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji includes abundant references to Hindu practices and deities, and to practices of other religions such as Islam and Jainism. There are some common features with some other religions, such as dharma, karma, sangat. 

There is a theme of pushing one to attain mukti or enlightment whilst living, through dealing with emotions that affect how one thinks, to realise the Truth. Dealing with emotions is common with Buddhism. The idea of a “lotus” developing and blossoming whilst still living in the mud (of the external world), is common with Buddhist ideology




> by Tejwant Singh ji
> 
> What in your opinion is a difference between theology and pragmatism?



Theology I had understood to be the study of God, based on the latin roots of “theo” and “logy
.
Pragmatism, I had understood to be a very commonsensical, practical way of viewing matters, which lead to a more objective and discerning perspective

Today I looked up the words and found these definitions on dictionary.reference.com

Theology:: 1. the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity. 
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study. 

Pragmatism
1. character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. 

2. a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value. 


I don’t feel I am way out with my understanding of the words, although I may be misapplying them when I use them. I am currently of the understanding that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is pragmatic, but advocates full faith in a single deity. 




> by Tejwant Singh ji
> Isn't theology a part of dogmas that Sikhi rejects?



I don’t believe so. Dogma is related to obdurate, obstinate, stubborn close-minded attitudes. Theology is not necessarily dogmatic. Theology is simply study of divinity. The concepts of divine spirits, studied by theologians such as Guru Nanak Dev Ji have evolved over time. Techniques to study divinity have also evolved, from speaking to people of various beliefs (eg as by Guru Nanak Dev Ji) to laboratory studies to what happens to the mind when in a meditative state. Then Guru Nanak Dev Ji version of Sikhi gradually evolved further and was added to with concepts such as langar during 3 Nanaks time, miri being enhanced under 6  Nanaks time, and introduction of Khalsa in 10  Nanak’s time. This required analysis and review of what was important at the time, and this implies a study, even if it was not academic in any significant way. However as stated above, decision making on which bani was to be included and what was to be excluded, suggests a prior theological study. 




> by sunmukhi ji
> There also appears to me to be great emphasis on "God". Whether "God" is referenced as "Ik Ong Kaar", parmeswar, brahma, prabhu, parmatama, or not seems to be a technical point. However I will search for your previous posts on this site, that go into this point, and if need be will come back to you to discuss further, if you also wish to.





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> I will wait for your response but just to simplify and focus on what Sikhi is based on, we have to understand Mool Mantar first which describes what Ik Ong Kaar which is totally different than "God" which involves a deity and a dogma. The rest of the names which are more than a few mentioned above compliment Ik Ong Kaar in a poetic manner but for a Sikh it is a must to understand and grasp the distinction between Ik Ong Kaar and "God" otherwise all discussions become futile and become tugs of wars of egos. Nothing more. Mool Mantar is the blue print of Sikhi. In fact, you can find my little essay about it in the forum.



I found two essays, which are similar save for the responses. On one, an essay from a Ek Ong Kaar Kaur is included as a form of reply and some of it is in common with what I believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji was driving at. 

http://www.sikhdharma.org/pages/mool-mantra-eokk?page=0,0

(Mool Mantar - The Blueprint of Sikhi Marg.)http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/16256-mool-mantar-the-blueprint-sikhi-marg.html
I will write a little on that thread in a few days time. 

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji portrays a vision of a creator, although the various names given to such creator are wide-ranging. 



> By sunmukh ji
> I fully agree with you that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji does not set out a dogmatic way of life. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji on its own does not prescribe a proscriptive way of life, but does provide much spiritual guidance, and intimates principles of socially tolerant, constructive and truthful conduct.





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> Well, if your above statement is true than it contradicts with your claim that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is based on theological reasons because as mentioned before any theology requires dogmas.
> So, which is it?



I don’t think theology is limited to any dogma. Theology is simply a study of beliefs related to God/divinity. Dogma on the other hand is a rigid way of perceiving matters. Ego is very much in control. One then puts faith in a fixed set of concepts, which is the dogma. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji does not suggest a dogmatic way of life, and in fact advocates totally the opposite. It does refer to sikhs, and in the generic sense sikhs are learners. This implies study of spiritual matters. It would be pointless to study, if there was a dogmatic attitude. If one is not willing to change direction based on what one has learned through a theological study ( as Guru Nanak Dev Ji conducted) , then one need not consider oneself a sikh, as one will be dogmatic and egotistical. Studies can continue throughout life. Fixed rehats and hukamnamas run against the very idea of being a sikh. This is dogma. No doubt it will be argued that one is learning from 11 Guru Sahiban. 



> by sunmukh ji
> This is a very deep topic. It is not really appropriate to discuss it with respect to scriptures being the result of humans' imaginations.
> 
> Very briefly, it is based on the outcome of the Gurleen Kaur vs SGPC Indian High Court case, in which people who claimed to be sikhs and previously acknowledged by all their relatives and local society to be sikhs, who believed in and held up Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as their Guru and beleived in only one God, were deemed to be non-sikhs as a result of trimming their eyebrows. These people, including myself (as I trim my beard occasionally) were essentially left in limbo with no religion. I deeply resent that, as I see it as a most intolerant action on part of the ones left as Sikhs, which is a very small minority of those who claim to be sikh (including myself).





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> Here, you are once again confusing yourself between the pragmatic Sikhi and the rules, regulations and archaic laws of the Indian constitution. These have nothing to do with the spiritual side of Sikhi but just the political side. You must be very much aware that there is a quota system for people to enter into the universities in India which sponsors and manages many Sikh colleges wanted the court to decide how to define a Sikh for this very purpose so that the preferences are given to the Sikhs and the court decided what a Sikh is. It is your right to disagree with the court's decision but it has nothing to do with the thread you have started. This is a separate matter all together. I do not understand your resentment towards Sikhs and Sikhi when the decision was made by the High court.



Please forgive me for muddling up this thread with politics. Essentially this thread has over-spilled into many different aspects, and I am principally to blame. I prefer to stay out of politics, but when people are disenfranchised I do get interested. These are as you say separate topics, so I will stop here





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> Hopefully, one day when we get rid of the caste systems from all aspects including in Sikhi and the quota system is eliminated, then we will not have to go to the courts to decide who is a Sikh or not, however the purpose of this was very narrow and it has nothing to do with you or with me as we are not seeking the admission to any Sikh college in Punjab. So, this resentment is unfounded and irrelevant in our discussion about Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.



All noted. 



> by sunmukh ji
> 
> One definition you give for opinion is
> 
> ...





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> 
> Once again, for me Lord has nothing to do with Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi. As the original translators were non Sikhs and were Christians, they gave Sikhi a Biblical slant and many of their Sikh students who translated the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji carried on with the same. Bhai Manmohan Singh is one of them.



I will write on the Blueprint of Sikhi Marg thread soon. Thank you for sharing your thoughts thereon and above, which I read with interest. It does open up new ways of thinking for me, but I do believe in a single God, and my mind is blocking any idea of not believing in God/Waheguru. My life revolves around such belief.



> by Tejwant Singh ji
> In the fear of tooting my own horn and immersing into me-ism while talking about One-ism, I do apologise in advance and would like to share with you that I did write a little piece which can be also found in this forum." Lord as Ik Ong Kaar", which in my opinion is an insult and distortion of the true meaning of Ik Ong Kaar.


 

I came across that thread when searching for the one related to the Mool Mantar. I don’t think it matters too much if a term is borrowed from an abrahmic religion, or any religion, to epitomise “Ik Ong Kaar”, unless you feel words like prabhu, waheguru, takhar, malik do not do sufficient justice to “Ik Ong Kaar”, but then you will meet a problem as such words do appear very frequently in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji (save for waheguru). People tend to use a limited section of their vocabulary, and others tend to understand from just this small range. 



> by Tejwant Singh ji
> If I am not mistaken, I think you are confused about the word "unknowable" in Gurbani and used this as part of the definition of an opinion by our Gurus.
> Unknowable talks about the immensity of Ik Ong Kaar. It has nothing to do with






> by sunmukhi ji
> One definition you give for opinion is
> 
> 1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty".





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> 
> But to the contrary.



I agree “Unknowable”does convey a sense of the infinite nature of Ik Ong Kaar. It also conveys a sense a lack of certainty about the nature of Ik Ong Kaar. By virtue of such statements all the sections relating to the nature of Ik Ong Kaar are then opinion. 
ਪਾਰਬਰ੍ਹਮਅਪਰੰਪਰਦੇਵਾ॥
paarbarahm aprampar dayvaa.
The Supreme Lord God is Infinite and Divine;
ਅਗਮਅਗੋਚਰਅਲਖਅਭੇਵਾ॥
agam agochar alakh abhayvaa.
He is Inaccessible, Incomprehensible, Invisible and Inscrutable. 


 It is commendable that Gurus and Bhagats admitted this. In unison with acknowledging the lack of knowledge, they principally turned to faith as the means to achieve the state of mind that was sought. Along with this ran psychological techniques to control behaviour and emotions. This is exactly what made Sikhi unique and a pragmatic way of life, and distinguished if from faiths that claimed knowledge of the Lord. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]



> by Tejwant Singh ji
> 
> Secondly, there is nothing called Absolute "Truth" in Sikhi like in the dogmatic religions, however Truth is absolute and it is explained very well in the first pauri of Jap by Guru Nanak.





> by sunmukhi ji
> This act of faith is captured in this couplet
> 
> naam niranjan ho-ay
> ...





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> This couplet is repeated 4 times at the end of Pauri 12 to 15. Pauri number 12 has the word ਮੰਨੇ Manei which means one who understands and accepts which is different from Pauris 13 to 15 where the word is ਮੰਨੈ Maneiei meaning one who has understood and accepted.




I feel this difference only differentiates between *an individual* who accepts in pauri 12, as opposed to *groups* who accept in pauris 13 to 15. I don’t think either refer to understanding – only acceptance/surrender in faith. 



> by Tejwant Singh ji
> 
> This is nothing to do with faith as you claim. As mentioned before Mool Mantar is the Blue print of Sikhi, Jap ji is the foundation of Sikhi and the rest of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji leaves us to our own individual endeavours of what kinds of buildings we want to construct with the help of the blue print and the foundation.




Faith is the keystone that continues to keep away doubt when there is lack of knowledge of Ik Ong Kaar, and leads to a nirankaar, (or formless creative enactor), both nirgun and sargun (both without attributes and with attributes). Without the keystone of faith all the walls fall down. Each of us will develop understanding as we do vichaar/contemplate bani. Likewise all contributors to Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji will have developed an understanding of the nature of Ik Ong Kaar, how to live their lives, and what to suggest to any followers. This can be carried back in human history to time immemorial. It can be carried forward likewise. All this time, whilst individuals continue to express their opinions on the nature of Ik Ong Kaar, the nature of Ik Ong Kaar is neither lessened or increased, and Truth unchanges. 



> by  Tejwant Singh ji
> Lastly, before these 4 pauris, there are pauris that show us how to be good listeners. Gurbani shows us the steps how to breed goodness within and gives us the tools to become better as beings. It has nothing to do with faith. Hence, we do injustice to Gurbani and to our visionary Gurus when we pick a couple of lines just to prove our point. It is like the ends justifying the means rather than the other way around. (



I guess you are referring to pauris 8 through 11. It is best this is discussed on another thread. You may be right about references to listening, in those particular pauris, but you may not. I think there may be a big difference between in pauris 8 through 11.

 The sihari in place of a bihari may be making a huge difference. 



> by sunmukh ji I am not really referring to hearsay. Hearsay is akin to rumours, which then as a result of a "Chinese whispers" action can end up as nothing like the original comments/statements. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji is quite authentic, although the oral traditions and history your referred to may have contentious elements, and may have a major bearing on what is now practised. That is bye the bye though, as it is scriptures I would be pleased to limit discussion to.





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> Now, you are contradicting yourself. Here is your original statement:





> sunmukhi ji "All holy texts, and that includes the Bible, Koran, Vedas,Torah and now Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as well, are ALL opinion."





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> You know it very well that all other Scriptures except Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are based on hearsays which are akin to rumours especially when something is written 60 to 120 years after the words had been supposedly uttered. These are like "Chinese Whispers", using your terminology.


 
I do contradict myself sometimes, and over time probably quite frequently. What I understood 2 years ago will not be the same as I what I understand today. 
I don’t think I have contradicted myself here though. One refers to expression of opinion, ie a speculative theory, (opinions relating to a creator in this case) and the other relates to onward communication of statements (hearsay) I have said repeatedly that if the oral traditions and the oral history like Sakhis contradict Gurmat ideals of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji then they should be rejected vehemently and can not be made part of the Miri-Piri concept of Sikhi. 
I agree with you, but it is up to individuals to decide what to believe, and Sikhi is evolving however much people deny it and try to prevent such evolution.



> by sunmukh ji
> 
> I am not disputing the content of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji are authentic compositions, of the claimed contributors.* All that I was intimating was that they are not revelations, not words of God, not sacred, not holy, *but are written thoughts, that arose from human beings imaginations, albeit gifted human beings*.*They happen to convey messages, but ultimately the messages conveyed are perceptions of the authors.





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> 
> Pardon my ignorance but what is in bold seems like more a dogmatic babble with a Biblical slant. Would you be kind enough to elaborate what you mean by the above?
> 
> Everything is written and expressed by men unless the "God" you believe in is a deity and dogmatic. I would also like you to express this distinction that you have in your mind.



Your last paragraph above suggests you have fully understood what I have been trying to suggest all along, when I have been suggesting all scriptures represent opinions of humans, so no-one should be offended if another human passes any comments on them. That is all the section in bold is re-emphasising. That there is only human input and no other. As to the God I believe in, I will leave to the Blueprint of Sikhi Marg thread



> by sunmukhi jiWith this in mind, any statement that suggests that the compositions are opinion, should not be slammed as offensive. It may be insensitive to say this to Sikhs, but they should really be able to understand and stay calm.





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> You have to explain how you have come to the conclusions that the compositions are opinions rather than visions. What made you conclude that? Aren't you a Sikh as well? Are you directing the above to yourself?



A vision when expressed in words is a form of opinion. Both can be substantiated or not. When there is no knowledge of Ik Ong Kaar, and the authors themselves (Sikh Gurus in this case) openly admit to this within their own words, they emphasise their opinions are theory. They also urge one to be a sikh. To be a sikh is to be a learner, and I wish to learn. Whilst doing so, I can believe in One God and try hard to follow the teachings in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. I can await SatGuru’s grace, and any understanding I develop will be in accord with Sikhi. Sikhi does not require one to have prior knowledge of a set path, and to stay on such a narrow path. That runs against Sikhi, as Sikhi is complete freedom from such dogma.



> by sunmukh ji
> I am not into Guru worship, and only wish to learn from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji and apply what I learn,, but I can easily bow to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and do so in defernce to Sikhs feelings. Likewise they should be able to tolerate expression of others opinions on discussion forums.





> by Tejwant Singh ji
> Once again you have shown your dogmatic trait in the above. There is nothing called Guru worship in Sikhi. I have no idea where you got that from. Guru means a teacher and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is our only teacher. Do you bow or matha tek to your elders who have been your teachers? This is nothing but a sign of respect in our tradition as is kissing the Bible or putting one's forehead on it.



I haven’t said I don’t do this. If I resisted you might claim I am being obstinate or dogmatic. 

I don’t think I need to add to what I have written now, and I have tried at great length to explain why it is important to recognise and accept any scriptures as expressions of humans, made with limited knowledge of Ik Ong Kaar. When one begins to treat them as more than what they are, then one shifts to emotional attachment which in the case of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is against advice therein. 
Thank you all for your patience and your insight. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 14, 2010)

sunmukhi ji

I have deleted 4 replies because the fonts and quotes included major format distortions that are not permissible. 

When posting use default fonts in a normal size.
Do not include PADDING when you quote sections from another thread.

In all fairness I tried to correct this myself. I clean up formatting for members as a matter of habit. However, the time to clean up one reply came to more than 20 minutes. It has been impossible to see what was stated by Tejwant ji or findingmyway or me,  and what was stated by you. without considerable analysis. Color fonts only confused  matters rather than clarify. At the risk of whining a bit - there is a difference between seva and servitude.

*Deleted posts are being returned in reverse chronological order.* This is not something that can be left in its unsightly form as things stand now. spnadmin


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 14, 2010)

sunmukh said:


> Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
> 
> Dear SPNadmin ji
> 
> ...



Dear Sunmukh Ji

I used to have the same issues....one possible workaround is to do everything in plain text, e.g in notepad instead of Word and then format within the SPN forum reply box

If you paste your Word text into Notepad, that will kill all the formatting and turn it into plain text

There are then options in SPN for colours and italics and a useful quotes button, as per the attached image, which will put your quoted sections in a box, thus making the original response and your corresponding reply easier to read side-by-side

Hope this is helpful


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 14, 2010)

Himmat Singh Ji,
I still don't see your point of view as there seem to be many contradictions in your statements and you are mixing up your discontent with sangat with your opinion of the Guru. So many of your posts on this thread reference Sikh politics or practices of Sikhs. These have nothing to do with the Guru's message so please can you keep these things separate and just focus on the writings in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. They are 2 completely separate issues. By allowing your judgment to be coloured, I would say that is biasing your views and therefore you need to re-examine your thoughts carefully. If you are doing metha tek to Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it should be due to your respect for the Shabadguru and desire to learn from the words, not for any other reason.
I have said before and I shall repeat. The fact that Guru Ji says not everything can be known shows he was a good teacher by knowing his limitations. It makes what he has said all the more true as we know he will not try and mislead us. You agree with this yet still claim it is not truth? On another thread you say sadh sangat is Waheguru Himself and therefore you accept a person can get their teaching from Waheguru. Yet here you insist that Guru Nanak Dev Ji and the other Guru's were just men. The whole of Gurbani is a way towards enlightenment but you show doubt that the Guru's reached this stage (by the fact you call their experience of it opinion) therefore you doubt in such a state. This begs the question why follow the Guru's words?

My final question to you is name me one concept in the Guru Granth Sahib ji that is not true as I cannot think of any. The lines you posted earlier confirm to me that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is truth as it shows that Guru Ji only shares the knowledge he has and does not try and guess at anything further. Guru's were humans but were enlightened humans like the other contributors to the Guru Granth Sahib ji and that is why they were able to know as much as they did about Akaal Purakh. We are very lucky they shared that knowledge with us.

Regards,
Jasleen Kaur


----------



## Admin (Nov 14, 2010)

*Admin Note: We recommend exactly what Seeker9 Ji has stated... Microsoft Word is always problematic... and it is the best to avoid posting from it directly... it is requested to type the message in notepad and then paste it in the SPN message box and then use the Quote button 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 just above message box to quote the message like below:

**

Quoting the message like above would make a quoted message link below:




			
				Aman Singh said:
			
		


			Test Message!
		
Click to expand...

**

This will make it more readable and spare yours & ours precious time wasted in reformatting lengthy posts, which can better be invested in more constructive jobs.**

If anybody finds there posts disappearing without a clue then this could be the major reason.**

All the Best!**

Thank you for the understanding!**

Gurfateh!*


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 14, 2010)

Himmat ji,

My last post in this thread was moved to a new location by Jasleen ji. I guess that she was focusing on one aspect of what was being said, although when I wrote it, I did so with an understanding that it in fact was relevant to general theme of this thread. What I was hinting at is that the teaching on Karma is not just another opinion, but a truth, a universal one. That anyone who perceives it as opinion is his /her opinion and this is because of lack of understanding (and this is my opinion ;-)). But allow me to comment based on this part of your message:



			
				sunmukh said:
			
		

> I tried to explain in the previous post that truth as any one individual knows it, is based on one’s perceptions of it.
> 
> and
> 
> What may have been perceived as cast-iron truth 2000 years ago, would not necessarily by seen as truth today. What an animal/beast perceives as truth will not be what the average human perceives as truth, and what some higher life form sees as truth on some distant planet will not be what we perceive as truth.




Perhaps I am missing your point and I must admit that I’ve not read all the messages here. Also I realize that you were speaking mainly within the context of a belief in God. But you have compared the ‘perception of truth’ experienced by an animal with that of an average human being and also refer to the difference in terms of time and location, it impresses upon me therefore, that you are making a general statement about ‘truth’ as being relative to the perceiver. And this may be part of what has motivated you to think that *all* teachings are merely opinions. Would this be correct? If so, that would be your opinion, and here are some of my own ;-) :

I’ll start off by suggesting that there is truth and there is illusion. The former is the function of ‘wisdom’, the latter, of ‘ignorance’. These two, namely wisdom and ignorance are themselves very real. Also equally real is ‘perception’. So in the case of an animal, since surely it can’t be having any wisdom, all it ever perceives is illusion. Likewise this is for the human being and any other being here or on some other planet, now or 2000 years ago, if there is no wisdom, what he knows is illusion.

But I’ll just pause here and ask; is what I said above sound totally like ‘opinion’ to you or does some part of it impresses as being ‘truth’, one which is not relative but in fact universal?
But I’ll continue…
Wisdom / understanding serves a particular function and achieves what ignorance can never do but will keep speculating wrongly about. This is what someone has said about wisdom:

Quote: 
“Understanding has the penetration of intrinsic nature, unfaltering penetration as its characteristic, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; illumination of the object as its function, as it were a lamp; non perplexity as its proximate cause, as it were a good guide in the forest.” <end quote="">

So apparently we have perceptions informed by understanding, without understanding and by ignorance. You could say therefore that what most people state about anything is opinion, since it would not be informed by wisdom but by ignorance. However if and when wisdom does arise to understand any reality now, including the ignorance and perception, then this surely must lead to expressions of “truth” wouldn’t it? 

I had continued with further comments, but changed my mind and decided instead to stop and ask for your response.  
So what do you think Himmat ji?</end>


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 15, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



spnadmin said:


> Sunmukh
> 
> PLEASE DO NOT RESUBMIT ANYTHING. Part of the problem is the use of Office Word and the bigger problems are the irregular use of fonts and also the confusion in the use of quoted material. I have it all cleaned up now.


 

 I am so really sorry for having caused these problems, and am indebted to you for having spent time and effort sorting them out. Thank you very much indeed. Time to recompense with a few coppers.

Thank you and Kind Regards 

Himmat

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 15, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Jasleen Kaur Ji

Gurfateh Ji

I am sorry for intermingling posts with unrelated discontentment issues, I will try harder to keep  on track.

With regards to Waheguru being the supreme saadhsangat, I do not see any contradiction. When one has faith in Waheguru ji then one has to beleive Waheguru will guide one, and "He" is receivng feedback as well. It is two way interaction and so is sangat. Is this opinion ? Of course it is,  but I can still put full faith in it, just as I can still put full faith in whatever is written in SGGS ji, whether it seems like opinion to me, or seems like truth. I don't know what Truth really is - only the Creator knows this, and I believe Guru Sahiban and Bhagats are pointing to the same _ they did not know. However, this does not in any way rule out the ability to put faith into anything what one wishes to believe. It is mind control to produce a state of mind in which a nirankaar/formless Lord constantly abides with one. By surrender to such a belief, all doubts are removed and all the vedic aspects like rituals, worship to stones etc are all rationalised into one simple belief  that Ik Ong Kaar is all around and is with one all the time as well, and will be with one hereafter as well, but one's fate is always in His hands (ie subject to His grace, kirpa) . There is no fear of death,no need to engage in complex rituals, pilgrimages etc etc.  Accepting that humans form concepts without knowledge, but can still put faith into so formed concepts is a very strong tool indeed. This leads to a fearless, carefree  spirit. Gurus/Bhagats did not care if somone else did not believe the same (ie followers of other religions during times of Gurus/Bhagats did not beleive the same). They could only think in this novel carefree attitude because they say everthing to date was based on lack of knowledge (of the Creator). As this was the case, they could also do likewise, rewrite the books exactly to fit the concept that they wanted. Worshipping a stone probably did cause doubt, as did making a pilgrimage,  as did never pointing feet towards Mecca, and so and so forth. So they sorted out what they needed, and ensured that there was a rational pragmatic concept that they could put full faith into. This is incredible use of what is now derogotarily termed manmat, to forge a system that can withstand any doubts that might otherwise arise. The minds of humans has been used to create a rational faith. Other religions were also created by human minds but were seen by Bhagats and Guru Sahiban to be flawed. 

I am not here to pick out flaws in SGGS ji and am not looking for them either, so respectfully decline to answer your question to point out aspects that are untrue. Whether there is truth or untruth does not matter, as combined it is a very rational way to put faith in a creator, stay contented, and find inner peace. However people who do not see the object will look outside and will try to shield Guru Ji, instead of using  Guru ji to forge and mould their inner minds, to create the virtues and traits one visualises as desirable.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 15, 2010)

sunmukh said:


> I don't know what Truth really is - only the Creator knows this, and I believe Guru Sahiban and Bhagats are pointing to the same _ they did not know.



But Guru Nanak Dev Ji says Ik Oankar is truth, has always been truth and always will be truth. Therefore they did know this much. They shared what they knew as TRUTH and said the rest is unknowable. Therefore this cannot be opinion. Where there is opinion, it is stated.



> However, this does not in any way rule out the ability to put faith into anything what one wishes to believe. It is mind control to produce a state of mind in which a nirankaar/formless Lord constantly abides with one. By surrender to such a belief, all doubts are removed and all the vedic aspects like rituals, worship to stones etc are all rationalised



Actually it is such faith that leads to these rituals you keep mentioning. If more people understood the Guru then more would follow the Guru's guidance as they would realise the truth in what is being said. Following opinion is what causes so many problems and tensions in the world. I am a scientist through and through and would not believe something I don't believe is truth. That is why I constantly stress to people to look at what Guru Granth Sahib Ji tells us rather than people's actions. People err and bring in opinion. Guru Ji tells us only the truth. The Bible and others were written years after so they are the opinion of the followers about what was said before. But Guruji tells us in his own words. By following opinion you can fall into the trap of following an ego driven path. Guru Granth Sahib Ji lays the truth, it is us humans who do not fully understand.



> into one simple belief  that Ik Ong Kaar is all around and is with one all the time as well, and will be with one hereafter as well, but one's fate is always in His hands (ie subject to His grace, kirpa) . There is no fear of death,no need to engage in complex rituals, pilgrimages etc etc.  Accepting that humans form concepts without knowledge, but can still put faith into so formed concepts is a very strong tool indeed. This leads to a fearless, carefree  spirit. Gurus/Bhagats did not care if somone else did not believe the same (ie followers of other religions during times of Gurus/Bhagats did not beleive the same). They could only think in this novel carefree attitude because they say everthing to date was based on lack of knowledge (of the Creator).



But they had more knowledge and that is where they differ and that is where why their Bani is so pure.



> As this was the case, they could also do likewise, rewrite the books exactly to fit the concept that they wanted.



That is saying they are ego driven. Their action and words prove otherwise.



> Worshipping a stone probably did cause doubt, as did making a pilgrimage,  as did never pointing feet towards Mecca, and so and so forth. So they sorted out what they needed, and ensured that there was a rational pragmatic concept that they could put full faith into.



Hence the truth!! Everything makes sense, nothing is irrational.



> This is incredible use of what is now derogotarily termed manmat, to forge a system that can withstand any doubts that might otherwise arise. The minds of humans has been used to create a rational faith. Other religions were also created by human minds but were seen by Bhagats and Guru Sahiban to be flawed.



Which is why they gave us so many truths to work with, otherwise we would also have fallen into those traps which require faith only nad little knowledge.



> I am not here to pick out flaws in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji and am not looking for them either,



Because there are none! Several atheist societies have also tried and failed to find anything which is not true.



> However people who do not see the object will look outside and will try to shield Guru Ji, instead of using  Guru ji to forge and mould their inner minds, to create the virtues and traits one visualises as desirable.
> Sat Sri Akal



I refuse to follow with blind faith. I see only truth in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, therefore I follow the advice and guidance of Guru Ji. If someone says it is just opinion then I will defend as it is questioning the integrity of my Guru which I have already established is beyond question. This is not defence of the entity Guru Granth Sahib Ji, but is trust in the Shabadguru-the wisdom/knowledge as that cannot be anything but truth. If it mere opinion, there is no reason to follow. Faith alone is not good enough. If I wanted to rely just on faith I would have become catholic when I attended a catholic school or remained atheist when I was in that phase!


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 15, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam 

Gurfateh Confused ji 



			
				 Confused said:
			
		

> I realize that you were speaking mainly within the context of a belief in God. But you have compared the ‘perception of truth’ experienced by an animal with that of an average human being and also refer to the difference in terms of time and location, it impresses upon me therefore, that you are making a general statement about ‘truth’ as being relative to the perceiver. And this may be part of what has motivated you to think that *all* teachings are merely opinions. Would this be correct?


 
I would just like to emphasise, that the initial point being made was definitely in the context of a God/Gods/supreme divine force/Ik Ong Kaar and claims in scriptures. The point about animals cf other forms of life was only an example to try to show different levels of perception of truth, does not make the truth change. 



			
				 Confused said:
			
		

> I’ll start off by suggesting that there is truth and there is illusion. The former is the function of ‘wisdom’, the latter, of ‘ignorance’. These two, namely wisdom and ignorance are themselves very real. Also equally real is ‘perception’. So in the case of an animal, since surely it can’t be having any wisdom, all it ever perceives is illusion. Likewise this is for the human being and any other being here or on some other planet, now or 2000 years ago, if there is no wisdom, what he knows is illusion.
> But I’ll just pause here and ask; is what I said above sound totally like ‘opinion’ to you or does some part of it impresses as being ‘truth’, one which is not relative but in fact universal?


 
It sounds like truth, but the truth I know and rank as universal, does not make it absolute truth. My “wisdom” is always going to be limited to what I make of my experiences and what I have learned. This makes it a perception, which is not the same as truth. Hence what you have written is your opinion, but may be seen by many as truth, even though its not necessarily.



			
				 Confused said:
			
		

> But I’ll continue…
> Wisdom / understanding serves a particular function and achieves what ignorance can never do but will keep speculating wrongly about. This is what someone has said about wisdom:
> Quote:
> “Understanding has the penetration of intrinsic nature, unfaltering penetration as its characteristic, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; illumination of the object as its function, as it were a lamp; non perplexity as its proximate cause, as it were a good guide in the forest.”
> So apparently we have perceptions informed by understanding, without understanding and by ignorance. You could say therefore that what most people state about anything is opinion, since it would not be informed by wisdom but by ignorance. However if and when wisdom does arise to understand any reality now, including the ignorance and perception, then this surely must lead to expressions of “truth” wouldn’t it?


There are indeed different ways one could classify perceptions. Just as you say, some will be formed despite total ignorance ( eg blind faith). Then there are going to be perceptions based on anecdotal evidence, or hearsay and rumours. Then there are going to be perceptions based on empirical or experiential evidence. Then there is going to be understanding based on logical proofs. 
Here we have the lowest form, based on total ignorance when it comes to a creator. It does not make the perceptions redundant though. It is simply recognised that they are based on speculation. This makes it plain that it is mental tool to soothe the mind, and knowing this makes it easier to handle it as such, as the mind is not then bound to any norms established by any ancestors, who developed their own methods but with concomitant insistence that what they preached was truth. 



			
				 Confused said:
			
		

> I had continued with further comments, but changed my mind and decided instead to stop and ask for your response.


 
I look forward to your further comments

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 15, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam 

Gurfateh Jasleen Kaur ji,

Thank you for your further feedback. I agree with much of what you have written, so have commented further on just the points where we seem to digress. 


			
				Findingmyway said:
			
		

> Actually it is such faith that leads to these rituals you keep mentioning.


Faith can lead one both ways. The direction (ie the degree of superstition and ritual) depends on what one puts faith in. One can put faith into rational perceptions or into irrational perceptions. Whatever one chooses, can content the mind and lead to virtuous behaviour, if there is full faith and truthful adherence. 


			
				Findingmyway said:
			
		

> People err and bring in opinion. Guru Ji tells us only the truth.


Guru ji tells us there is Truth, and offers opinions. This is truthful presentation by Guru ji. I am not saying Guru ji is lying or is withholding any facts, but am saying that what is being presented is a series of perceptions, and can always only express part of the Truth. 


			
				Findingmyway said:
			
		

> By following opinion you can fall into the trap of following an ego driven path. Guru Granth Sahib Ji lays the truth, it is us humans who do not fully understand.


Which is why one should recognise what is opinion and what is not, otherwise ego increases as one begins to see perceive opinions as truth. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji makes clear that no-one knows the creator, yet most will be more comfortable if they overlook this crucial aspect. Denial of something that is obvious is a characteristic of ego. 


			
				Findingmyway said:
			
		

> Quote:
> As this was the case, they could also do likewise, rewrite the books exactly to fit the concept that they wanted.
> That is saying they are ego driven. Their action and words prove otherwise.


?? This doesn’t imply Gurus were ego driven at all. It implies the opposite. They were not stuck in ego, and were open-minded and prepared to abandon predecessor religions. This is not what egotistical people do. Egotistical people hang on to all the beliefs they are predisposed to, in their complete stubbornness even if all the evidence points to them being wrong to do so. 


			
				 Findingmyway said:
			
		

> I refuse to follow with blind faith. I see only truth in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, therefore I follow the advice and guidance of Guru Ji. If someone says it is just opinion then I will defend as it is questioning the integrity of my Guru which I have already established is beyond question. This is not defence of the entity Guru Granth Sahib Ji, but is trust in the Shabadguru-the wisdom/knowledge as that cannot be anything but truth. If it mere opinion, there is no reason to follow. Faith alone is not good enough. If I wanted to rely just on faith I would have become catholic when I attended a catholic school or remained atheist when I was in that phase!


I fully respect your wishes and intent, and there is good reason in what you say. This is how you feel so that has to be fine. The fact you write in this manner also shows you have faith. 

We will have to continue to differ slightly as for me blind faith in the nirankaar akaal purakh (formless timeless supreme spirit)is more than good enough, and with the rationality of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji there is nothing to beat the combination. 

Kind Regards

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 16, 2010)

Himmat ji,


Himmat:
I would just like to emphasise, that the initial point being made was definitely in the context of a God/Gods/supreme divine force/Ik Ong Kaar and claims in scriptures. The point about animals cf other forms of life was only an example to try to show different levels of perception of truth, does not make the truth change. 

C: Thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps it is in the use of the word ‘truth’. But what I am now hearing you say is that there is an underlying truth which different beings perceive as per their level of understanding / misunderstanding. But if there is indeed ‘misunderstanding’, should we class this along with ‘understanding’ and then differentiate in terms of levels? Why don’t we just make a distinction between right vs. wrong where wrong is wrong and the right has many levels? Or do you think that this distinction between understanding and misunderstanding does not apply here? 
Could you clarify further?

=========
Quote:Originally Posted by Confused 
I’ll start off by suggesting that there is truth and there is illusion. The former is the function of ‘wisdom’, the latter, of ‘ignorance’. These two, namely wisdom and ignorance are themselves very real. Also equally real is ‘perception’. So in the case of an animal, since surely it can’t be having any wisdom, all it ever perceives is illusion. Likewise this is for the human being and any other being here or on some other planet, now or 2000 years ago, if there is no wisdom, what he knows is illusion. 
But I’ll just pause here and ask; is what I said above sound totally like ‘opinion’ to you or does some part of it impresses as being ‘truth’, one which is not relative but in fact universal?

Himmat:
It sounds like truth, but the truth I know and rank as universal, does not make it absolute truth. 

C: So are you differentiating between universal truth and absolute truth? Please explain.

===========
Himmat:
My “wisdom” is always going to be limited to what I make of my experiences and what I have learned. This makes it a perception, which is not the same as truth. Hence what you have written is your opinion, but may be seen by many as truth, even though its not necessarily.

C: I have been pointing to such things as ignorance, wisdom and perception itself as being truths. And I’ll add such things as thinking, seeing, hearing, taste, feeling, attachment, kindness, generosity, anger, the fire element, impermanence and insubstantiality as being similarly, truths.  

Now it may be that I speak about these from a kindergarten level of understanding, but surely his does not make it opinion, does it? After all, even as I make this distinction between truth and opinion, I’d acknowledge the fact of ‘thinking’ taking place and this will be the very evidence that what I have been talking about are indeed truths. In the same way, when you talk about your wisdom being limited and differentiate between your perceptions of the truth from the truth itself, you are making statements about these same universal truths, namely wisdom and perception which I refer to. 

But I agree with you, that not everyone will agree with what I’ve said; in fact I think very few will, although they will keep referring to these very things all the time. Since it is not just a matter of having such things being pointed out and in theory agreeing with it, but understanding its relevance in terms of the need to develop more understanding about them. The problem with most people is that they’d rather flit off to ideas they are so used to entertaining, in other words, to be lost in thoughts about the past and future and never seeing any need to understanding what is the reality *now*.

=========
Himmat:
There are indeed different ways one could classify perceptions. Just as you say, some will be formed despite total ignorance ( eg blind faith). Then there are going to be perceptions based on anecdotal evidence, or hearsay and rumours. Then there are going to be perceptions based on empirical or experiential evidence. Then there is going to be understanding based on logical proofs. 

C: So you are using perception differently from how I use it?
Anyway, the way I understand it is that perception arise with *all* states. So the focus should be on what all is influencing the perception. And there is such a thing as direct penetration into the intrinsic nature of what is real. And this would have been the result of gradual development involving deeper and deeper understanding of all kinds of conditioned realities.

==========
Himmat:
Here we have the lowest form, based on total ignorance when it comes to a creator. It does not make the perceptions redundant though. It is simply recognised that they are based on speculation. 

C: You are referring to ignorance not of what is ‘now’ which will include the ignorance itself, but something outside of this, namely the creator. This is why you go on to saying that it is alright to speculate as long as one knows that this is what one is doing. From my side, if speculating / thinking is the reality of the present moment, understanding its nature is the be all and end all. So apparently we are not talking about the same kind of ‘knowing’.

But we do not have to go into a debate about this if you think….

==========
 Himmat:
This makes it plain that it is mental tool to soothe the mind, and knowing this makes it easier to handle it as such, as the mind is not then bound to any norms established by any ancestors, who developed their own methods but with concomitant insistence that what they preached was truth. 

C: According to the way things are as I understand it, any such tool to soothe the mind is an encouragement to not look at what is happening now. The real cause for all the troubles in whatever form, is ignorance. And attachment to ideas including what seems to make us feel better, makes it even worse. The only real cure is the development of wisdom. But of course since the ignorance is so overwhelming including the attachment to having measurable results, we are tempted to find quick remedies. But know that this could turn out to be a case of licking honey off a razor blade, each time that we enjoy the taste, we also bruise our tongue and one day we find out that its in quite a bad shape.


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 16, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Gurfateh Confused ji

Thanks for your further feedback and insight



> I am now hearing you say is that there is an underlying truth which different beings perceive as per their level of understanding / misunderstanding. But if there is indeed ‘misunderstanding’, should we class this along with ‘understanding’ and then differentiate in terms of levels? Why don’t we just make a distinction between right vs. wrong where wrong is wrong and the right has many levels? Or do you think that this distinction between understanding and misunderstanding does not apply here?
> Could you clarify further?


 
Ji, one of the objectives of following Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji is to stop being judgemental. If I keep maintaining a hard distinction between those who are right and those who are wrong, or those who understand and those who misunderstand, then this is a form of duality, which I would like to remove. By having different levels of understanding, and passing the buck as it were, to the Creator and His Hukam, as per Pauri 2 of Japji Sahib, then there is less likelihood of such duality, and less ego. 




> hukmee utam neech hukam likh dukh sukh paa-ee-ah.
> By His Command, some are high and some are low; by His Written
> Command, pain and pleasure are obtained.
> iknaa hukmee bakhsees ik hukmee sadaa bhavaa-ee-ah.
> ...


(Page: 1, Lines : 8-10, Jap, Author: Guru Nanak Dev)​

(Sorry sanghat ji, I tried to cut and paste Gurmukhi as well, but fonts did not come across correctly from the Adobe pdf file I was copying from)​ 


> Himmat:
> It sounds like truth, but the truth I know and rank as universal, does not make it absolute truth.​
> C: So are you differentiating between universal truth and absolute truth? Please explain.​


 
Ji, the implication is that 
1) Universal truth is what is commonly perceived as "truth", ie generally recognised as "truth" or "facts" in the general realm/sphere of human knowledge and
2) Absolute truth is actual intrinsic unchangeable eternal reality, that may or may not be the same as universal truth.​ 
eg There have been times when people believed the sun circled the earth, or the earth was the centre of the universe. This for such believers was truth, and remained truth until they accepted a revised theory. Such theories that we "know" now, may still be modified in the future, and hence they fall in realm of universal truth. Absolute truth is what the reality actually is, encompassing all laws and principles of the universe, and any unknown dimensions. 
I am not trying to imply there is no value in recognising and accepting the current "truth". I just like to bear in mind that there may well be far more to the current story ​ 




> C: I have been pointing to such things as ignorance, wisdom and perception itself as being truths. And I’ll add such things as thinking, seeing, hearing, taste, feeling, attachment, kindness, generosity, anger, the fire element, impermanence and insubstantiality as being similarly, truths.





> Now it may be that I speak about these from a kindergarten level of understanding, but surely his does not make it opinion, does it? After all, even as I make this distinction between truth and opinion, I’d acknowledge the fact of ‘thinking’ taking place and this will be the very evidence that what I have been talking about are indeed truths. In the same way, when you talk about your wisdom being limited and differentiate between your perceptions of the truth from the truth itself, you are making statements about these same universal truths, namely wisdom and perception which I refer to.
> ​




There are always going to be differences in how people percieve even matters such as taste smell, anger etc. The fact that there is a differnce and only the perceiver actually knows how they feel, makes the perception an opinion. When we rank them all as different opinions on a scale that has no limits at either end, then it is all just opinion.​ 
Gurbani urges one to see friends and enemies as one and the same, or see praise and slander and one and the same. To do this one has to accept that even things like taste, or smell are all part of something that is part of the infinite variation found in the Creator's creation. By doing so, one may possibly merge into the creation, and the creation merges into a single unity with infinite variety with no ending and no beginning. By trying to form a difference between "truth" and "non-truth" is a way to maintain distinction. However all opinion, whether false or true, is part and parcel of Creation, and has value. Keeping Gurbani aloof as "truth" and oneself as incapable of knowing "truth" is a way to maintain duality, which is opposite to what Gurbani is actually teaching one to do. By recognising it as a level of opinion, and one's opinion on the same scale, then there is greater chance of less duality and less egoism ( Again Pauri 2 of Japji Sahib)​ 



> Himmat:





> Here we have the lowest form, based on total ignorance when it comes to a creator. It does not make the perceptions redundant though. It is simply recognised that they are based on speculation.
> 
> C: You are referring to ignorance not of what is ‘now’ which will include the ignorance itself, but something outside of this, namely the creator. This is why you go on to saying that it is alright to speculate as long as one knows that this is what one is doing. From my side, if speculating / thinking is the reality of the present moment, understanding its nature is the be all and end all. So apparently we are not talking about the same kind of ‘knowing’.​




We will have to differ on this point. There are somethings that are beyond comprehension, and I do not like to waste time trying to comprehend them. You have probably come across Marx's idea that religion is the opium of the masses. I like such opium as it contents me without causing any harm to me. By sticking to what is realistically possible, whilst maintaining faith in unknowns, belief in which satisfy the mind, I believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji is pointing to the same, throughout Japji Sahib.​ 


> C: According to the way things are as I understand it, any such tool to soothe the mind is an encouragement to not look at what is happening now. The real cause for all the troubles in whatever form, is ignorance. And attachment to ideas including what seems to make us feel better, makes it even worse. The only real cure is the development of wisdom. But of course since the ignorance is so overwhelming including the attachment to having measurable results, we are tempted to find quick remedies. But know that this could turn out to be a case of licking honey off a razor blade, each time that we enjoy the taste, we also bruise our tongue and one day we find out that its in quite a bad shape.​


 
Ego and dogmatic persistence on truthfulness of one's perceptions and trying to impose them on others can cause problems between people, rather than ignorance. Whole societies and species have been wiped out as people imposed their will and version of truth upon others.​ 
We don't "have" to know what we are ignorant of. We can just choose to "live" in peace and harmony with neighbours, and share. People have been around for more than a million years without huge amounts of "knowledge" to hand. They lived and survived, although higher proportions may have suffered from famines, droughts, diseases as now do. If they had not done so we would not be here now. Now, we have exponential growth in "knowledge", but it is also accompanied with exponential growth in use of limited resources, which may be unsustainable and lead to complete destruction of climate and the environment; introduction of GM foods,and synthetic biotechnology are all unknowns, and this "knowledge" or increased "understanding" may not be wise at all. It may lead to self-destruction in a very short timescale, whilst people live for the moment. So I agree with you about the effects of quick remedies, but I do feel it is related to an increase in unwise use of knowledge as well.​ 
Kind Regards

Himmat
Sat Sri Akal​


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 16, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

  Guru Fateh.

  Thanks for your response.

  Language is a very important thing, especially in Sikhi and that is what interests us the most as we are talking about Gurbani. However, when we use words from another language, for example in this case English, we have to be extra cautious and careful of what words we are trying to use for what meaning. Our Gurus were experts in the usage of the language and if we fail to grasp what our Gurus are talking about, then the whole effort becomes futile.

  I will be using the words and  the definitions given by you  to express what I am trying to convey.

  You write:



> Theology: 1. the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
> 2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.


  Yes, Theo means God and logy means knowledge/study. It comes from Greek and then translated to Latin as _Theologia._ This is based on the Christian doctrine, which was based on Greek and/or Egyptian Mithra. Both of them have virgin births.  

  There are two main kinds of fields in theology.


Dogmatic      Theology: This involves dogmas of the religion. The term became famous      after Martin Luther  and his      protestant reformation in Christianity
Liberation      Theology: This started in Latin/South America against the oppressed      indigenous people and other poor people by the Roman Catholic priests.      This combined Catholic theology and Socialist principles was started in      effort to bring about improved conditions for the poor in Latin/South      America. It is worth noting that the latter was frowned by the Catholic Church      especially by the present Pope Benedict  the XVI who was then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger      who as the perfect of Congregation for the      Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)  penned his own criticism about the      movement in 1985.
 
  The people who started the Liberation theology  which started in 1971 were the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement's most famous books, _A Theology of Liberation,_ Leonardo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of El Salvador, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.

  Leonardo Boff of Brazil spent some years behind bars during the military regimes of General Ernesto Geisel and General Joao Figueiredo in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

  Now, let’s try to define the word *God as a deity* which you have used for Ik Ong Kaar.
_*God *_*:* The supreme or ultimate reality: as*:** the Being* perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. 
*Deity:* *Any supernatural being* worshiped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You write:



> I don’t feel I am way out with my understanding of the words, although I may be misapplying them when I use them. I am currently of the understanding that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is pragmatic, *but advocates full faith in a single deity*.


  Yes, you are because Ik Ong Kaar is neither *a God nor any personified single deity* as you claim. I would look for the description of Ik Ong Kaar  once again.



> There also appears to me to be great emphasis on "God". Whether "God" is referenced as "Ik Ong Kaar", parmeswar, brahma, prabhu, parmatama, or not seems to be a technical point. However I will search for your previous posts on this site, that go into this point, and if need be will come back to you to discuss further, if you also wish to.


  The reasons are given above and in my previous post.



> I am not, at the moment, convinced that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not based on theological reasons. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji appears to me to have been compiled principally to enshrine the theological studies and conclusions of Sikh Gurus and Bhagats.


  Not according to the definition of theology as mentioned above.

  One can use the word Theology in different religions provided what they offer in an abstract sense. For example Islamic theology, Buddhist theology etc. etc but Sikhi is quite a unique way of life and Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru has the writings from people of different religions, hence the term theology is not applicable to Sikhi because it always has dogmas of the particular religions involved in it. Theology is not a stand alone term when we talk about the religions discussed because of the description of Theo- God which comes packaged with dogmas, unlike Sikhi.



> I came across that thread when searching for the one related to the Mool Mantar. I don’t think it matters too much if a term is borrowed from an abrahmic religion, or any religion, to epitomise “Ik Ong Kaar”, unless you feel words like prabhu, waheguru, takhar, malik do not do sufficient justice to “Ik Ong Kaar”, but then you will meet a problem as such words do appear very frequently in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji (save for waheguru). People tend to use a limited section of their vocabulary, and others tend to understand from just this small range.


  It does matter, as mentioned in the beginning, the language and its usage are very important in Sikhi. Our Gurus showed us that. God in Abrahamic religion is totally a different thing than Ik Ong kaar.



> I agree “Unknowable”does convey a sense of the infinite nature of Ik Ong Kaar*. It also conveys a sense a lack of certainty about the nature of Ik Ong Kaar.* *By virtue of such statements all the sections relating to the nature of Ik Ong Kaar are then opinion.*


  Please elaborate what you mean by lack of certainty? What I understand by lack of certainty means that one has a glimpse of something that one is not certain about what it  actually is. In other words one knows a bit about it. However, what is not known is simply unknowable and our Gurus kept an open mind and also urge us to do the same through Gurbani for the new discoveries as new planets are found daily. In fact, yesterday the scientists discovered a new black hole and they know its exact date. Unknowable means open to learn about what is not known today.  It has nothing to do with uncertainty. I have no idea how unknowable becomes an opinion in your mind. It is a simple contradiction. This is one more reason there is no Absolute Truth as sold in the dogmatic religions. Truth in Sikhi is quite fluid due to the dynamic universes that surround us and also because of our own daily discoveries. We as Sikhs, learn,unlearn and relearn daily.

ਪਾਰਬਰ੍ਹਮਅਪਰੰਪਰਦੇਵਾ॥
paarbarahm aprampar dayvaa.
The Supreme Lord God is Infinite and Divine;
ਅਗਮਅਗੋਚਰਅਲਖਅਭੇਵਾ॥
agam agochar alakh abhayvaa.
He is Inaccessible, Incomprehensible, Invisible and Inscrutable.

  Next time, please indicate the page number from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji when you refer to it. What I understand by the above is that:

It is hard to meet the Creator of the Universe and beyond, our Divine Master ( the name " Divine Master" is used in a metaphorical sense). Ik Ong Kaar's form is immeasurable, inaccessible and unfathomable. Ik Ong Kaar is all-pervading everywhere. 

Ik Ong Kaar is above all formless and indescribable, so sublime as to be totally beyond human powers of recognition, description, or conception. 

Hence Ik Ong Kaar is called AJUNI- SEHBHUNG- THE CREATIVE ENERGY which is neither a deity nor a god in the meanings given above.



> I feel this difference only differentiates between *an individual* who accepts in pauri 12, as opposed to *groups* who accept in pauris 13 to 15. I don’t think either refer to understanding – only acceptance/surrender in faith.


 One can not accept anything without understanding it first. This is the basic human behavioural trait. Accepting  without understanding anything is called blind faith that makes people blind which again Sikhi is not about.

The usage of surrender is often used in the English translation of Gurbani which in my opinion is incorrect. Surrender from what? The relationship between Ik Ong Kaar and  us is like the Father and the Son, the Husband and the Wife. The relationship is not of surrender but of embracing each other, having a shoulder to lean on, having an ear to listen to, having a hand to hold. Nothing more. It is more a Sangam- the merger than a surrender.

So,surrender is again one more word that should be stricken out from the Sikhi English vocabulary.
 



> Faith is the keystone that continues to keep away doubt when there is lack of knowledge of Ik Ong Kaar, and leads to a nirankaar, (or formless creative enactor), both nirgun and sargun (both without attributes and with attributes). Without the keystone of faith all the walls fall down. Each of us will develop understanding as we do vichaar/contemplate bani.


The same goes for faith which is another name for a dogmatic blind belief system which is nothing to do with Sikhi. Having faith or belief is different than faith or belief used in the religious aspect. Faith is dogmatic, it is nothing to do with the pragmatism of Sikhi.



> I do contradict myself sometimes, and over time probably quite frequently. What I understood 2 years ago will not be the same as I what I understand today.
> I don’t think I have contradicted myself here though. One refers to expression of opinion, ie a speculative theory, (opinions relating to a creator in this case) and the other relates to onward communication of statements (hearsay) I have said repeatedly that if the oral traditions and the oral history like Sakhis contradict Gurmat ideals of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji then they should be rejected vehemently and can not be made part of the Miri-Piri concept of Sikhi.
> I agree with you, but it is up to individuals to decide what to believe, and Sikhi is evolving however much people deny it and try to prevent such evolution.


 In the above, my post is mixed up with yours, so I do not quite get it what you are trying to say. Would appreciate your clarification.

Thanks & regards 

Tejwant Singh



[/FONT]


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Gurfateh

Tejwant Singh ji, thank you for your further comments.

I am not sure whether you are happy with continuing this dialogue, but am happy to do as long as you wish  to and I am able to. Whenever you get irked by me,perhaps by my touching on sensitive issues, please do openly let me know, and I will desist from discussing with you any or all of those sections that you do not wish to be discussed.  

I sense we are not in the same camps with respect to our individual interest in Sikhi and this may be influencing the difference in our thoughts, or perceptions. 

I see Sikhi only as one of many methodologies with a set of  techniques to take one  through life;  I am not attached to it and am free to pick and choose the parts that I see will serve a purpose, and that is to produce a contented mind during my life, despite what goes on in the surrounding environment, and with faith in doing the right things as God would wish me to. There is faith in God and learning from SGGS ji. If I perceive concepts in SGGS that I do not understand, I will set them aside. Any parts of Sikhi (as opposed to SGGS) that I view as not purposeful will be deliberately neglected. This is what is sometimes termed as manmat by some, but I am happy with that. It serves a  purpose, instead of following in vain hope, or struggling when there is no realistic hope of understanding. 

I cannot know what you hope to gain from Sikhi. There could be so many reasons driving your interest so I would be unwise to guess. 

I will now comment on your post, but will do so in subposts so you can reply further, if you wish,  to only those sections that interest you further. In addition I might avoid being logged out automatically. 

Please forgive me if these words seem a little harsh. I only wish to be open and honest, and make you aware of my perspective, so you do not waste your energy if you feel it is not worthwhile.

 

Kind Regards

Himmat

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				 Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> Language is a very important thing, especially in Sikhi and that is what interests us the most as we are talking about Gurbani. However, when we use words from another language, for example in this case English, we have to be extra cautious and careful of what words we are trying to use for what meaning. Our Gurus were experts in the usage of the language and if we fail to grasp what our Gurus are talking about, then the whole effort becomes futile.


 

Gurfateh ji

Language is important. We can try to understand and should try to do so. However most people are not scholars and do not have time to analyse grammar or learn mutilple Indic languages. We must accept language is dynamic and constantly evolves. What is understood by a word today is not necessarily what was meant when even the same word was used 500 years ago. 
It is for Sikhs to accept this as a fact instead of insisting Gurbani is unchangeable. 
If there is no recognition of the changing nature of language, then it inevitable understanding will become incomplete and will be different to that of yesteryear. All that will happen is that one opinion will be challenged by another, with no idea which, if any, presents a true picture of the intent of the author. 
Perhaps Sikhs should try to read Egyptian hieroglyphics and then try to suggest exactly and very precisely what was on mind of the writers. It is impossible. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Gurfateh

Tejwant Singh Ji, I have read all the further points you have made about theology. I believe we are at cross-purposes. You appear to be interested in ensuring SGGS is not represented as dogma, or represented as theological dogma. I do not have such an interest. I don't mind if it is dogma, or isn't dogma, as I see it only as valuable guidance irrespective of whether it is dogmatic or pragmatic. I do happen to see it as pragmatic, but other aspects of Sikhi as dogmatic. All I wished to note by suggesting there were theological reasons behind SGGS, was that some form of studies had been made by the contributors, and these studies were associated with their interest in a creator (or God) hence "theology". 

You have also linked in this use of a personal deity, to represent Ik Ong Kaar. Again, I do not mind viewing Ik Ong Kaar as personal. My viewing Ik Ong Kaar  as personal  makes it easy to associate with Ik Ong Kaar, despite the unfathomable nature of Ik Ong Kaar. I would find it very difficult to undertand how to try to please a non-personal concept of Ik Ong Kaar, and trying to please Ik Ong Kaar is one of my main aims.  I could not, for example try to please a brick wall. 

The terms ajuni and saibhang, seen in the Mool Mantar, I believe are characteristics of the human soul, common with that of Ik Ong Kaar. Guru Nanak Dev ji is not specifically speaking only of Ik Ong Kaar when these words are used in the Mool Mantar, but is making a comparison to help in the self-realisation process. I have briefly mentioned this in the Blueprint -Sikhi Marg thread you initiated some time ago, and if you see fit we can discuss further thereon.


Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> One can not accept anything without understanding it first. This is the basic human behavioural trait. Accepting without understanding anything is called blind faith that makes people blind which again Sikhi is not about.
> 
> The usage of surrender is often used in the English translation of Gurbani which in my opinion is incorrect. Surrender from what? The relationship between Ik Ong Kaar and us is like the Father and the Son, the Husband and the Wife. The relationship is not of surrender but of embracing each other, having a shoulder to lean on, having an ear to listen to, having a hand to hold. Nothing more. It is more a Sangam- the merger than a surrender.
> 
> So,surrender is again one more word that should be stricken out from the Sikhi English vocabulary.


 
Gurfateh ji

I disagree with you. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji acknowledges one cannot understand the Creator, Ik Ong Kaar. 
Ik Ong Kaar is the bedrock of Sikhi. Without a concept of Ik Ong Kaar, Sikhi is not anywhere near as useful as it is with a concept of Ik Ong Kaar.
Therefore one has to accept in blind faith, and in blind faith alone. This implies one accepts in ignorance. 

Surrender:
Use of surrender here is to imply surrender of one's mind to the innate Guru within, who provides intuitive guidance. It is not surrender to Ik Ong Kaar, who has no need to make one surrender. However one can accept and abide by His Hukam instead of being egotistical or pining for what one does not have. One can acknowledge the diversity of Hukam and accept the diversity as all rooted in the same origins as one's own origins. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				 Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> The same goes for faith which is another name for a dogmatic blind belief system which is nothing to do with Sikhi. Having faith or belief is different than faith or belief used in the religious aspect. Faith is dogmatic, it is nothing to do with the pragmatism of Sikhi.


 
You appear to be trying to protect Sikhi from any association with dogma. Faith is what Sikhi is about. Without faith in Ik Ong Kaar, there is only a set of practices, some of symbolise compassion, generosity, tolerance and equality, but others are ritualistic, and yet others are mind control techinques.  All of these are available outside Sikhi. 
The pragmatisim is enhanced by faith. Sikhs have faith in 5 ks, in Ik Ong Kaar, and in daily nitnem. Without blind faith in them they are reduced to rituals, no more useful than worshipping a stone or making a pilgrimage. Faith is the glue that makes these useful for practising Sikhs. For those who have no faith in one or more of these aspects, they are rituals and/or superstition. This why many "sikhs" do not value 5 ks. They have no faith in them, and see them as oddities. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Gurfateh ji



			
				sunmukh said:
			
		

> I do contradict myself sometimes, and over time probably quite frequently. What I understood 2 years ago will not be the same as I what I understand today.
> 
> I don’t think I have contradicted myself here though. One refers to expression of opinion, ie a speculative theory, (opinions relating to a creator in this case) and the other relates to onward communication of statements (hearsay)


 


			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> I have said repeatedly that if the oral traditions and the oral history like Sakhis contradict Gurmat ideals of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji then they should be rejected vehemently and can not be made part of the Miri-Piri concept of Sikhi.


 
I replied further:



			
				 sunmukh said:
			
		

> I agree with you, but it is up to individuals to decide what to believe, and Sikhi is evolving however much people deny it and try to prevent such evolution.


 
I trust this clarifies this point sufficiently

Thank you and Kind Regards

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 17, 2010)

sunmukh said:


> Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
> 
> 
> 
> ...




sunmukh ji

The above paragraph is not more intelligible than various other comments you have proffered on the topic. It is full of concepts that go undefined, internal contradictions, and nonsequiturs. 

Here is the paragraph re-written as a series of claims. Now separated as individual sentences, they may look different to you. The sentences in a paragraph should progress logically to develop a main idea.Hope you can see how these sentences either contradict one another or are logically unrelated. Very frequently they are nothing more than your assertions without any apparent support other than your personal hunch.

 Many sentences in the above comment, moreover, contain two or more mutually contradictory notions. Sentences are intended to express one complete thought. They cannot do that if two ideas are not logically connected (e.g., "pragmatism is enhanced by faith"). It is up to you to connect ideas logically and not leave it to others to make these connections for you.

How are you connecting all of this?  welcomekaur 


You appear to be trying to protect Sikhi from any association with dogma. 

Faith is what Sikhi is about. 

Without faith in Ik Ong Kaar, there is only a set of practices, some of symbolise compassion, generosity, tolerance and equality, but others are ritualistic, and yet others are mind control techinques.  

All of these are available outside Sikhi.

The pragmatisim is enhanced by faith. 

Sikhs have faith in 5 ks, in Ik Ong Kaar, and in daily nitnem. 

Without blind faith in them they are reduced to rituals, no more useful than worshipping a stone or making a pilgrimage.

 Faith is the glue that makes these useful for practising Sikhs. 

For those who have no faith in one or more of these aspects, they are rituals and/or superstition. 

This why many "sikhs" do not value 5 ks. 

They have no faith in them, and see them as oddities.

I will limit my concerns for now with this particular comment of yours. However, there is something else I have been meaning to ask, Why do you, almost always and in various threads, speak of "Sikhs" in the 3rd person, speaking of Sikhs as "they," and as if you are somehow remote, unaffected or unattached to Sikhs and Sikhi as a Sikh. Do you write in terms of  "we" or "our." Are you a Sikh?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> I am not sure whether you are happy with continuing this dialogue, but am happy to do as long as you wish  to and I am able to. Whenever you get irked by me,perhaps by my touching on sensitive issues, please do openly let me know, and I will desist from discussing with you any or all of those sections that you do not wish to be discussed.


Pardon my ignorance, but I have no idea where you got the above from? How did you come to this prejudgmental stance of yours? Why would you  even fathom that I would get irked through interaction? 

Now, after your comments above,I have no idea what your true agenda is. I would like you to come clean in an honest manner. If your agenda here is to irk people then you have and will fail miserably as many have tried before and fallen flat on their faces including some who called themselves Sikhs. This is a frequent occurring in this forum since its inception in 2004. You should read those threads for your own knowledge. Interaction is a learning process  for me as I have mentioned before and learning, unlearning and relearning is what I do here daily.



> I sense we are not in the same camps with respect to our individual interest in Sikhi and this may be influencing the difference in our thoughts, or perceptions.


That is possible and as mentioned before that disagreements are part of the learning process as long as both of  us have Gurmat ideals in mind and are not here  to second guess our visionary Gurus and their writings. That is neither mine or yours nor anyone else's job. We are here to learn from Gurbani and put it into practice in our daily lives.



> I see Sikhi only as one of many methodologies with a set of  techniques to take one  through life;  I am not attached to it and am free to pick and choose the parts that I see will serve a purpose, and that is to produce a contented mind during my life, despite what goes on in the surrounding environment, and with faith in doing the right things as *God would wish me to.*


It is your life and your right to use it the way you want to the best of your abilities. It has nothing to do with me or with anyone else. The whole idea about Sikhi is to become better as beings and help others rather than being ritualistic parrots with one ugly plumage. I had no idea that the God you serve has wishes like mere mortals. Most of the dogmatic religions have that in their doctrines. Ik Ong Kaar has nothing of that sort.



> There is faith in God and learning from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji. If I perceive concepts in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that I do not understand, I will set them aside. Any parts of Sikhi (as opposed to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) that I view as not purposeful will be deliberately neglected. This is what is sometimes termed as manmat by some, but I am happy with that. It serves a  purpose, instead of following in vain hope, or struggling when there is no realistic hope of understanding.


Pragmatism does not need faith but practice after having attained awareness, realisation,understanding and acceptance of the concept. Truth does not need any faith either. It stands on its own. If you are a truth seeker, then you do not need any faith. Only make believe things need faith. This is what Sikhi is all about. As mentioned before and it is worth repeating that blind faiths make people blind from the truth. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is our only Guru. Any ideal that does not compliment it should be rejected and I have repeated that quite often in many of my posts and threads in this forum.



> I cannot know what you hope to gain from Sikhi. There could be so many reasons driving your interest so I would be unwise to guess.


I have repeatedly mentioned in many post whats  I am here for and I did say that above as well.



> Please forgive me if these words seem a little harsh. I only wish to be open and honest, and make you aware of my perspective, so you do not waste your energy if you feel it is not worthwhile.


No, I do not find your words harsh. It is your own perception about yourself and if you want to be honest then you should stop prejudging others and ask questions as a Sikh should.

 Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> Language is important. We can try to understand and should try to do so. However most people are not scholars and do not have time to analyse grammar or learn mutilple Indic languages.


I have no idea what you mean by lack of time. If one has  the quest then one would try to  understand things objectively and spend sometime doing that, otherwise all becomes personally subjective mumbo jumbo rather than the real message that is given.

I am sure you would not tell your children to ignore understanding the language they are learning or any other concept because it is time consuming. So your above  feeling holds no water in front of the reason.




> We must accept language is dynamic and constantly evolves. What is understood by a word today is not necessarily what was meant when even the same word was used 500 years ago.


I agree with you but here you are contradicting what you said above. In order to accept the dynamism and evolution of the language, we have to first understand what the words meant then and then only we can see how they have evolved with time. Sikhi is an evolving way of life unlike other dogmatic religions that stopped in time. Pragmatism helps us to be open minded and willing  to learn and change all the times. That is the reason we are called Sikhs, learners, seekers,



> It is for Sikhs to accept this as a fact instead of insisting Gurbani is unchangeable.


I have no idea where you got  that from in our interaction. Once again, it is your personal perception about me in a prejudgemental manner. It is not the point that Gurbani is unchangable or not. It is us who discover new things in the same.Gurbani is like a prism and with time and with persistence in studying Gurbani, we come to see the other angles of the same prism. Gurbani has to be re-written by someone to be changed and I hope you are not implying that.



> If there is no recognition of the changing nature of language, then it inevitable understanding will become incomplete and will be different to that of yesteryear. All that will happen is that one opinion will be challenged by another, with no idea which, if any, presents a true picture of the intent of the author.


Now, you are being repetitive, I am afraid. As mentioned above, one is only able to recognise the changes provided one knows what the words in the language mean in the first place. Otherwise it is mere a utopic self defeating prophetic idea rather  than a practical  one which makes us learn something from the evolution of the language.



> Perhaps Sikhs should try to read Egyptian hieroglyphics and then try to suggest exactly and very precisely what was on mind of the writers. It is impossible.


I do not know whether you are being sarcastic or serious. In any case it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Having said that, I would love to learn Egyptian hieroglyphics as a Sikh.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				SPNADMIN said:
			
		

> However, there is something else I have been meaning to ask, Why do you, almost always and in various threads, speak of "Sikhs" in the 3rd person, speaking of Sikhs as "they," and as if you are somehow remote, unaffected or unattached to Sikhs and Sikhi as a Sikh. Do you write in terms of "we" or "our." Are you a Sikh?


<!-- google_ad_section_end --> 

Gurfateh ji

SPNadmin ji, I have often turned to speaking of "Sikhs" in the third person because the people I write of in that manner have disenfranchised me and my family, and most of my immediate relatives through the Gurleen Kaur case decision. Until then there was some doubt as to whether we were sikhs and most accepted us as such. There were some  articles on  some panthic websites referring to those who did not keep 5ks in a derogotary way but they could be dismissed as the work of fanatics. Now it is clear that "they" wish to have a distinct identity which excludes "us". It is most regrettable, but if that is what "they" want then it works both ways. Until then I attended gurdwara regularly and had got to a point where 3 of my daughters were accompanying me on a daily basis. I have stopped attending gurdwaras since then, save for an event to which I am invited, and "they" can do as they please. I touched on this before on this thread but it is not really on topic. I have not created the "us" and  "them" situation, it is a product of SGPC's actions.

I will stay a "sikh" with a small s, in a generic sense, and I can still learn from SGGS, my only Guru, and maintain faith in one God.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Himaat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.



> Tejwant Singh Ji, I have read all the further points you have made about theology. I believe we are at cross-purposes. You appear to be interested in ensuring Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not represented as dogma, or represented as theological dogma. I do not have such an interest.


Now you are changing your tune. yes you do. You yourself mentioned in your posts that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not represent dogmas and now you are doing an about turn. One wonders why and which is the true Himmat Singh!



> I don't mind if it is dogma, or isn't dogma, as I see it only as valuable guidance irrespective of whether it is dogmatic or pragmatic. I do happen to see it as pragmatic, but other aspects of Sikhi as dogmatic.


You are changing your tune again, which is OK with me but this not what you have been saying all along. Rather to the contrary. If I were you I would check the posts that you wrote and give clarity to your mind.



> All I wished to note by suggesting there were theological reasons behind Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, was that some form of studies had been made by the contributors, and these studies were associated with their interest in a creator (or God) hence "theology".


It is  hillarious to say the  least that in one of your earlier posts, you say :
*



			We must accept language is  dynamic and constantly evolves. What is understood by a word today is  not necessarily what was meant when even the same word was used 500  years ago. It is for Sikhs to accept this as a fact instead of insisting Gurbani is unchangeable.
		
Click to expand...

*
And under the same breath you want to use the word THEOLOGY which is more  than 3000 years old. Can you see your flip flopping, which has become a constant in your posts?

I beg to differ with you about theology for the reasons mentioned in my earlier posts.



> You have also linked in this use of a personal deity, to represent Ik Ong Kaar. Again, I do not mind viewing Ik Ong Kaar as personal.


Now, you are distorting what I said to say the least. No where in my posts did I mention *personal deity* as you claim. I always talked about the *personified deity*. Please check the  meaning of both for your own benefit and clarification. You seem confused at times for the reasons only known to you. And Ik Ong Kaar has nothing to do with *a personified deity* as repeatedly mentioned by me.



> My viewing Ik Ong Kaar  as personal  makes it easy to associate with Ik Ong Kaar, despite the unfathomable nature of Ik Ong Kaar. I would find it very difficult to undertand how to try to please a non-personal concept of Ik Ong Kaar, and trying to please Ik Ong Kaar is one of my main aims.  I could not, for example try to please a brick wall.


Once again, there is a big difference between *a personified deity* which Ik Ong Kaar is not  and  personal Ik Ong Kaar which Ik Ong Kaar is. Please check the meanings so you can clarify your stance on this.

The question arises,why would Ik Ong Kaar which is all there is liked to be pleased? I fail to understand that. Wanting to be pleased is a human trait. It has nothing to do with Ik Ong Kaar. Who needs to be pleased is the Abrahamic God who has all the human traits like vengeance, jealousy,evil etc etc. Ik Ong Kaar has nothing to do with that.

On the other hand, you can please a brick wall if you are an idol worshiper and that wall is your God or you are at the Jewish wailing wall praying there and putting your personal written prayers in its crevices.



> The terms ajuni and saibhang, seen in the Mool Mantar, I believe are characteristics of the human soul, common with that of Ik Ong Kaar. Guru Nanak Dev ji is not specifically speaking only of Ik Ong Kaar when these words are used in the Mool Mantar, but is making a comparison to help in the self-realisation process. I have briefly mentioned this in the Blueprint -Sikhi Marg thread you initiated some time ago, and if you see fit we can discuss further thereon.


I beg to differ with you. If you take the whole Mool Mantar ( btw, I have no idea who gave the name) and check line by line and expand it what Guru Nanak is talking about, you will find that Ajuni Sahibung is the Creative Energy that Guru Nanak describes Ik Ong Kaar is about, hence it has nothing to do with any deity,god, dogma and theology.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> I disagree with you. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji acknowledges one cannot understand the Creator, Ik Ong Kaar.


As mentioned before, it is ok to disagree but it is  not OK to distort the meanings of the words in trying to prove one's point. The acknowledgment of not understanding Ik Ong Kaar is akin to something that is unknowable as far as its traits and vastness are concerned. One can not understand something that is not known to us yet. Once we know it, then we understand it and accept it.



> Ik Ong Kaar is the bedrock of Sikhi. Without a concept of Ik Ong Kaar, Sikhi is not anywhere near as useful as it is with a concept of Ik Ong Kaar.
> Therefore one has to accept in blind faith, and in blind faith alone. This implies one accepts in ignorance.



You are once again contradicting from your first statement to the second one. Yes, Ik Ong Kaar is the bedrock of Sikhi but it has all to do with pragmatism, understanding and using Gurbani as a tool box in real life to make a difference. 

This has nothing to do with the blind faith. To the contrary.



> Surrender:
> Use of surrender here is to imply surrender of one's mind to the innate Guru within, who provides intuitive guidance. It is not surrender to Ik Ong Kaar, who has no need to make one surrender.


I understand what you are trying to say but again as you are into modernising the language, then you should modernise this archaic ill used word too. Surrender means something imposed, done by force unlike Sikhi which is an internal manifestation not an external imposition the way the word surrender implies. Sikhi instills in us to be good so we can do good. Hence, the word surrender should be taken out when we are talking about Gurbani.



> However one can accept and abide by His Hukam instead of being egotistical or pining for what one does not have. One can acknowledge the diversity of Hukam and accept the diversity as all rooted in the same origins as one's own origins.


One has no choice but to abide by the Hukam. Sooner or later one does come to that realisation.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 17, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.



> You appear to be trying to protect Sikhi from any association with dogma. Faith is what Sikhi is about. Without faith in Ik Ong Kaar, there is only a set of practices, some of symbolise compassion, generosity, tolerance and equality, but others are ritualistic, and yet others are mind control techinques.  All of these are available outside Sikhi.
> The pragmatisim is enhanced by faith. Sikhs have faith in 5 ks, in Ik Ong Kaar, and in daily nitnem. Without blind faith in them they are reduced to rituals, no more useful than worshipping a stone or making a pilgrimage. Faith is the glue that makes these useful for practising Sikhs. For those who have no faith in one or more of these aspects, they are rituals and/or superstition. This why many "sikhs" do not value 5 ks. They have no faith in them, and see them as oddities.



I am sorry to say that your above post is nothing but repetitive as you have often done. All what you have said above, I have responded to. So take your time.

More hearing from you.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				SPNADMIN said:
			
		

> How are you connecting all of this?
> 
> 
> You appear to be trying to protect Sikhi from any association with dogma.
> ...



Gurfateh 

SPNadmin ji

I apologise for my inability to present coherent arguments, with an ultimate conclusion. I do go off on a tangent very often, and this does affect the readability when I reflect upon the same post at a later date.

As for this particular paragraph:



You appear to be trying to protect Sikhi from any association with dogma. 
This was written following one of Tejwant Singh ji's (TS) which suggested "faith is dogmatic, it is nothing to do with the pragmatism of Sikhi". As TS had suggested a number of times now on this thread that Sikhi had no dogma attached to it, and I believe there is some dogma attached to the practices if not the bani, I chose in my limited wisdom, to question this statement.

Faith is what Sikhi is about.   This followed on to reject the sentence of TS's disassociating dogma from faith. I started by tackling the notion that blind faith has no place in Sikhi. I believe it does, and I believe this can be supported by bani in SGGS. IMHO words like "mannai" refer to one who accepts or obeys,  or the ones who accept or obey. This is an act of fath and not one in knowledge. This appears in Japji Sahib and also elsewhere eg .


> naanak ih achraj daykhhu mayray har sachay saah kaa je satguroo no
> mannai so sabhnaaN bhaavai. ||13||1|| suDh.
> O Nanak, behold this wonder of the Lord, my True King! Everyone is
> pleased with one who obeys and believes in the True Guru. ||13||1||
> Sudh||


(Page: 855, Line: 4, Raag: Bilaaval, Author: Guru Amar Das)​ 

or



> janam kaal kar jorh hukam jo ho-ay so mannai.
> Life and death, with palms pressed together, respect and obey the Hukam
> of His Command.


(Page: 1406, Line: 12, Raag: Sava-yay (praise) of Guru Ram Das, Author: Sal)​


Without faith in Ik Ong Kaar, there is only a set of practices, some of symbolise compassion, generosity, tolerance and equality, but others are ritualistic, and yet others are mind control techinques. 
This then followed on to develop the idea running in my mind that faith is what makes some practices meaningful and worthwhile to those who engage in them.Ik Ong Kaar is the biggest unknown that one requires faith in. One cannot know Ik Ong Kaar, yet one requires faith in Ik Ong Kaar. If one does not have that faith then one is not engaged in Sikhi, but is only going through a series of motions (IMHO).
All of these are available outside Sikhi.
This runs on from the prior sentence. All the aspects of Sikhi other than an unfathomable, unknowable inscrutable, omniescent, all knowing, all pervading Ik Ong Kaar can be found in guides on yoga, vedic texts, or as a consequence of principled virtuous upbringing.
The pragmatisim is enhanced by faith. 
This does not follow immedaitely from the prior sentence, but follows from the ending sentence TS which sought to disassociate faith from pragmatism. Faith is not directly linked to practical or prgamatic approaches and I agree with TS on that. However if there is faith in pleasing a Creator and karma,  then one will see  fit to engage in virtuous behaviour and good deeds to please the Creator and improve karma. The deeds may not be good if there is no faith in the Creator and karma. By having such faith, virtues like compassion, tolerance, charity, mercy, forgiveness, equality of all,  are given far more value then they otherwise would. To bring about these virtues we can engage in actions such as seva, langar, sanghat which are the pragmatic approaches of sikhi to bring about change in behaviour.
Sikhs have faith in 5 ks, in Ik Ong Kaar, and in daily nitnem. 
This followed on from the previous sentence , to state the basics that have no more substance to support them, than any practices of other religions,  and require faith to maintain them
Without blind faith in them they are reduced to rituals, no more useful than worshipping a stone or making a pilgrimage.
This follows on to briefly explain that these are tenets which do not hold water and no logic.
Faith is the glue that makes these useful for practising Sikhs. 
This then backtracks to offer support to those same aforementioned aspects in Sikhi that depend on faith; with faith they are accepted and the mind stops doubting their usefulness, whether they are useful or not. The mind simply accepts.
For those who have no faith in one or more of these aspects, they are rituals and/or superstition. 
This follows on to state the obverse effect if they are not accepted in faith
This why many "sikhs" do not value 5 ks. 
An example is given, to try to support the previous sentence
They have no faith in them, and see them as oddities. The effect is stated of lack of faith.
I hope I have been able to clarify the flow of thought in this case, to try to put a cas for faith which supports the dogmatic and pragmatic aspects found in Sikhi , and that without faith there is still dogma but the effect of the pragmatic approaches are reduced and are found elsewhere anyway.

 I do accept I muddle up matters, usually by going astray and then adding in way too much in one post.



Sat Sri Akal


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 17, 2010)

sunmukh said:


> Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
> 
> Faith can lead one both ways. The direction (ie the degree of superstition and ritual) depends on what one puts faith in. One can put faith into rational perceptions or into irrational perceptions. Whatever one chooses, can content the mind and lead to virtuous behaviour, if there is full faith and truthful adherence.



Full faith and observance of jihad to achieve many virgins in heaven is an irrational blind faith. Sikhi encourages the use of bibek buddhi-discerning intellect to understand before following. There are many shabads about gyann (knowledge) and bibek buddhi.



sunmukh said:


> I see Sikhi only as one of many methodologies with a set of  techniques  to take one  through life;  I am not attached to it and am free to pick  and choose the parts that I see will serve a purpose, and that is to  produce a contented mind during my life, despite what goes on in the  surrounding environment,



If you are picking and choosing what suits you, then you do not really have faith in the teachings. You say you are not influenced by the surrounding environment but this post clearly shows the opposite and is what is stopping you from understanding the full beauty of gurbani:



sunmukh said:


> Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
> Gurfateh ji
> SPNadmin ji, I have often turned to speaking of "Sikhs" in the third  person because the people I write of in that manner have disenfranchised  me and my family, and most of my immediate relatives through the  Gurleen Kaur case decision. Until then there was some doubt as to  whether we were sikhs and most accepted us as such. There were some   articles on  some panthic websites referring to those who did not keep  5ks in a derogotary way but they could be dismissed as the work of  fanatics. Now it is clear that "they" wish to have a distinct identity  which excludes "us". It is most regrettable, but if that is what "they"  want then it works both ways. Until then I attended gurdwara regularly  and had got to a point where 3 of my daughters were accompanying me on a  daily basis. I have stopped attending gurdwaras since then, save for an  event to which I am invited, and "they" can do as they please. I  touched on this before on this thread but it is not really on topic. I  have not created the "us" and  "them" situation, it is a product of  SGPC's actions.
> 
> ...



This is a political situation completely unrelated to Gurbani. When you display so much emotion yet claim distance, it is hard to understand your clouded assertions. 



sunmukh said:


> Language is important. We can try to understand and should try to do so.  However most people are not scholars and do not have time to analyse  grammar or learn mutilple Indic languages. We must accept language is  dynamic and constantly evolves. What is understood by a word today is  not necessarily what was meant when even the same word was used 500  years ago.



If I use modern English to try and understand Shakespeare I will be completely lost!! The words meaning is determined by determining what the writer wrote. If you apply your own understanding only you lose what the writer said and instead they become your words. Meanings do change and that is why it is important to study grammar so elicit what was meant when they were spoken. Your lack of understanding of language and your unwillingness to learn shows your own weaknesses only. If something is important to you, time is made.



> You appear to be trying to protect Sikhi from any association with dogma. Faith is what Sikhi is about.


There is no dogma in the Guru Granth Sahib itself. Find me one verse that encourages dogma......It talks against dogma. Sikhi is about understandign and applying.



> The pragmatisim is enhanced by faith. Sikhs have faith in 5 ks, in Ik  Ong Kaar, and in daily nitnem. Without blind faith in them they are  reduced to rituals, no more useful than worshipping a stone or making a  pilgrimage. Faith is the glue that makes these useful for practising  Sikhs. For those who have no faith in one or more of these aspects, they  are rituals and/or superstition.



WRONG!!!!! WITH blind faith, they are rituals. With understanding and applying to your life these things are no longer rituals but instructions/guidance. Just like you would not dress your grandfather in nice clothes and say you respect but refuse to listen to a word he says, the biggest insult to the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is mere parroting of the words without an attempt at understanding.



> This why many "sikhs" do not value 5 ks. They have no faith in them, and see them as oddities.


That is because they do not understand them. However, the 5K's have nothing to do with the authenticity of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Once again you are confusing issues.



> I don't mind if it is dogma, or isn't dogma, as I see it only as  valuable guidance irrespective of whether it is dogmatic or pragmatic.



But YOU Do mind as shown by your constant lamentations about those things seen as dogmatic such as the hair issue.



> I do happen to see it as pragmatic, but other aspects of Sikhi as dogmatic.


The dogmatic issues you raise are always political issues rather than in Bani



> Which is why one should recognise what is opinion and what is not, otherwise ego increases


Ego increases with pushing your own opinion as fact. Ego increases with the unwillingness to accept the wisdom of your Guru when you say you want to follow that path.



> Egotistical people hang on to all the beliefs they are predisposed to, in their complete stubbornness even if all the evidence points to them being wrong to do so.


WRONG! Egotistical people create beliefs to suit them. Creating the sensation that truth is actually opinion to make yourself feel better for example.



> We will have to continue to differ slightly as for me blind faith in the nirankaar akaal purakh (formless timeless supreme spirit)is more than good enough, and with the rationality of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji there is nothing to beat the combination.


Blind faith and rationality do not belong together! There are opposites.



> and can always only express part of the Truth.



Ahhhhhh, so you accept it is truth!

P.s. Faith and blind faith are not the same thing. Your above quotes support the former not the later. That is faith that arises from understanding


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 17, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				 Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> I have no idea what your true agenda is. I would like you to come clean in an honest manner. If your agenda here is to irk people then you have and will fail miserably as many have tried before and fallen flat on their faces including some who called themselves Sikhs.


 
Gurfateh 

Tejwant Singh ji, I thank you for this continued opportunity to disuss these several dimensions that have flowed from the intial post. 

My prime agenda is to learn more about the aspect of Sikhi that interests me, which is the meaning of all shabds in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and also to assist others to a more pragmatic approach to Sikhi, with less intra-sikh tensions (ie including sikhs who are now in limbo), and less intra-faith tensions. 

If as a result of my posts, there is one more person who can see it is not good to inflame others or to treat others differently over appearance, even if it is 5ks (usually only kesh) then I will have achieved something positive in my life. All Sikhs who keep rehat will by support 5ks as they must, but the majority of sikhs are not such Sikhs, and do not deserve to be treated as second rate citizens. 

I am not averse to those who keep 5ks but am averse to those who keep 5ks and treat others almost with contempt, and rank their opinions as worthless. This is a form of categorisation which does not equate with holding all as equals. 

Secondary aspect of my "agenda":
There is also some degree of anger and hatred built up in some Sikhs towards those who committed heinous crimes in late 1970s and early 80s. I can and do accept these are tragic and unjustified events, but of the opinion that history cannot be changed and it is not wise to hold up people who were also politically motivated as sants. If it is not good to put pictures/paintings of sikh gurus in homes/gurdwaras, then the same holds true of those engaged in actions in 70s and 80s.

One way to reduce anger, is by dwelling on the shabd and accepting the Lords' Hukam. If I can go over this again and again in interaction with Sikhs, maybe, just maybe, anger may subside in just one person. That is good enough for me. 

With these two aspects in mind, and making posts, I may used Gurbani to make a change in someone's life, and whilst doing so will also have contempated the shabd, and with satguru's grace will have progressed spiritually as well. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 17, 2010)

Dear all

This has been a fascinating read

My knowledge of the Scriptures is very limited but I can't help thinking there has been a lot of "over-analysis" of SGGS, even down to evolution of language and individual words

I am not advocating blind faith and clearly the application of intellect is necessary to understand the profound wisdom the Scriptures contain......but having reached that level of understanding, there then comes a point, in my humble opinion, that one has to let go of ego and intellect and choose to accept, trust and benefit from the advice the Scriptures contain

I would suggest that when  one makes that choice, then the title question of this thread, whilst thought-provoking, is not really that important......

Not sure if this analogy makes sense but one can gaze in awe at the beauty and flawless precision of a fine mechanical timepiece movement.....however, take it apart and all you will see is just wheels and cogs and levers...i.e the real awe inspiring achievement is in the Whole and not the smallest parts
:blueturban:


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 17, 2010)

Himmat ji,

Himmat:
Ji, one of the objectives of following Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji is to stop being judgemental. If I keep maintaining a hard distinction between those who are right and those who are wrong, or those who understand and those who misunderstand, then this is a form of duality, which I would like to remove. By having different levels of understanding, and passing the buck as it were, to the Creator and His Hukam, as per Pauri 2 of Japji Sahib, then there is less likelihood of such duality, and less ego. 

Confused: Being judgemental could be a case of ignorance, attachment, conceit, and aversion arising and falling away in close proximity. Understanding or misunderstanding any of this is as real as these objects themselves. This is different from being caught up in the idea of “this person is right and that person is wrong” or “I am right and you are wrong”. Kindness and hate, attachment and detachment, right understanding and wrong understanding, generosity and miserliness, all these are not dualities created by thought, but very real mental factors arising with consciousness, and as real as the ‘thinking’ which accepts or denies all this. And like it or not, even while speaking about the creation of duality, you are making distinctions and placing value on things, all reflecting the difference in characteristic, function and proximate cause of these diverse realities.

Besides, with the understanding that all these arise at different times by conditions beyond anyone’s control, there is even more reason not to be judgemental. 

============
Quote:hukmee utam neech hukam likh dukh sukh paa-ee-ah.
By His Command, some are high and some are low; by His Written
Command, pain and pleasure are obtained.
iknaa hukmee bakhsees ik hukmee sadaa bhavaa-ee-ah.
Some, by His Command, are blessed and forgiven; others, by His
Command, wander aimlessly forever.
hukmai andar sabh ko baahar hukam na ko-ay.
Everyone is subject to His Command; no one is beyond His Command.
naanak hukmai jay bujhai ta ha-umai kahai na ko-ay. ||2||
O Nanak, one who understands His Command, does not speak in ego. ||2||
(Page: 1, Lines : 8-10, Jap, Author: Guru Nanak Dev)

Confused: The above does make the distinction between high and low, pain and pleasure, those who walk the path and those who wander aimlessly, so apparently these differences do exist. It is pointing out the harm of passing judgements based on ego, and it looks like that it is also saying that none of what happens is within anyone’s power to control, which is similar to my own conclusion. 
So I don’t see the problem…..

==========
C: So are you differentiating between universal truth and absolute truth? Please explain.

Himmat:
1) Universal truth is what is commonly perceived as "truth", ie generally recognised as "truth" or "facts" in the general realm/sphere of human knowledge and
2) Absolute truth is actual intrinsic unchangeable eternal reality, that may or may not be the same as universal truth. 

Confused:
I’ll suggest the following:
Universal truths are those which apply to all beings no matter what, where and when. These would also be Ultimate truths / realities, although here one distinguishes between on one hand, “conditioned realities” and on the other, the “unconditioned reality”. The existence of the unconditioned reality does not make any less real the conditioned ones, only these two are very different in nature. 

Within the realm of the conditioned, there is what is called ‘conventional truth’. It is these that are the product of thought, some reflecting and are in accord with the workings of the underlying ultimate realities, while others are pure imagination rooted in ignorance and craving. 

For example, the law which dictates punishment for theft and murder reflects the reality of the particular unwholesome intentions as expressed in bodily actions. But of course, although these perpetrators will face bad results in accordance to the law of karma, the law of the land must exist and function within its own sphere. And this is what is man-made.

So there are the conditioned realities, which are the experiences through the five senses and the mind, and these are ultimate and universal. And there are the conventional realities which are the product of thought; although some of these are in accord with the nature of the ultimate realities, others however are not. And then there is the unconditioned reality, which stands apart from all this.

=============
Himmat:
eg There have been times when people believed the sun circled the earth, or the earth was the centre of the universe. This for such believers was truth, and remained truth until they accepted a revised theory. Such theories that we "know" now, may still be modified in the future, and hence they fall in realm of universal truth. Absolute truth is what the reality actually is, encompassing all laws and principles of the universe, and any unknown dimensions. 

Confused:
The above example is within the realm of ‘conventional’ truth. And yes, these can change.

===========
Himmat:
I am not trying to imply there is no value in recognising and accepting the current "truth". I just like to bear in mind that there may well be far more to the current story 

Confused:
With respect to the development of understanding / wisdom which sees into the nature of ultimate realities, I consider the study of conventional reality quite worthless, unless of course they reflect the former and remind me of the need to study these.

===========
Himmat:
There are always going to be differences in how people percieve even matters such as taste smell, anger etc. The fact that there is a differnce and only the perceiver actually knows how they feel, makes the perception an opinion. When we rank them all as different opinions on a scale that has no limits at either end, then it is all just opinion. 

Confused:
Had I been referring to such things as mango is more delicious than oranges, or this smell is bad, or feel justified in having anger towards some particular person, or in eating the same chocolate, that you and I must both experience the same taste, or insist that if I enjoy ice cream so should a panda, your objections would probably then hold. But this is not what I’ve been talking about. 

When I refer to taste, I am talking about a particular kind of element, one which can only be experienced by ‘tasting consciousness’ and not by say, ‘hearing consciousness’. This in no way is denying the existence of a variety of different tastes, nor is it saying that two bites of the same fruit will have exactly the same taste. It is however pointing to the one element with a common characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. It is therefore irrelevant what the particular taste is, for example whether it is salty, sour or sweet. Likewise to the extent that feeling is feeling this is to be known for what it is, without a need to consider whether this is very pleasant, less pleasant, neutral or painful. In the same way, the ‘seeing’ of a fish is no different in this regard, to that of a human being, since it refers to that one reality which ever experiences visible object / color.

These are the kind of truths agreed upon by all those who have had insight into the nature of conditioned realities. The concern about differences is amongst those who have not developed the kind of understanding.

=========
Himmat:
Gurbani urges one to see friends and enemies as one and the same, or see praise and slander and one and the same. 

Confused:
A mind with universal love will see everyone as same having seen the harm of attachment which is its near enemy, and aversion which is its far enemy. But better still is when one has developed penetrative understanding into the nature of all conditioned realities, being that it provides the very base for not thinking in terms of friends vs. enemies.

Praise and slander are facts of life, but their nature being fleeting and insubstantial, is good reason for not being drawn in by them.

===========
Himmat:
To do this one has to accept that even things like taste, or smell are all part of something that is part of the infinite variation found in the Creator's creation. By doing so, one may possibly merge into the creation, and the creation merges into a single unity with infinite variety with no ending and no beginning. By trying to form a difference between "truth" and "non-truth" is a way to maintain distinction. 

Confused: 
There is no need to try and control one’s thoughts; the only thing needed is to understand the element of ‘thinking’, in other words, to know the “truth”. Is this creating an unnecessary distinction?

===========
Himmat:
However all opinion, whether false or true, is part and parcel of Creation, and has value. Keeping Gurbani aloof as "truth" and oneself as incapable of knowing "truth" is a way to maintain duality, which is opposite to what Gurbani is actually teaching one to do. By recognising it as a level of opinion, and one's opinion on the same scale, then there is greater chance of less duality and less egoism ( Again Pauri 2 of Japji Sahib)

Confused:
Every reference to oneself involving some kind of comparison, whether as lower, higher or equal to, is the expression of conceit. 

So you think that if I at one time, believed that God is the Ultimate Reality, and later on that the concept of a creator God is the biggest lie ever perpetuated, that these two are of equal value?  Would you judge the fact of recognizing my views as opinion vs. not recognizing it as such, as both being valuable?

=========
C: You are referring to ignorance not of what is ‘now’ which will include the ignorance itself, but something outside of this, namely the creator. This is why you go on to saying that it is alright to speculate as long as one knows that this is what one is doing. From my side, if speculating / thinking is the reality of the present moment, understanding its nature is the be all and end all. So apparently we are not talking about the same kind of ‘knowing’.

Himmat:
We will have to differ on this point. There are somethings that are beyond comprehension, and I do not like to waste time trying to comprehend them. You have probably come across Marx's idea that religion is the opium of the masses. I like such opium as it contents me without causing any harm to me. 

Confused: 
Marx was worldly to the max, ;-) I wouldn’t pay any attention to what he said. But I think you need to take a deeper look at attachment and the harm that this causes, and this may arouse some sense of urgency in you. But I agree with the particular attitude of not wasting time trying to comprehend things out of reach.

The idea that you realize that your interest in Sikh teachings is only to soothe your mind and yet you swear by it, sounds very odd to me.

==========
Himmat:
By sticking to what is realistically possible, whilst maintaining faith in unknowns, belief in which satisfy the mind, I believe Guru Nanak Dev Ji is pointing to the same, throughout Japji Sahib. 

Confused: 
In sticking to what is realistically possible, why does there seem to be a lack of interest in studying what actually takes place from moment to moment through the five senses and the mind? Is it because you judge this as impossible? Could you give a few examples of your “sticking to what is realistically possible”?

=============
Himmat:
Ego and dogmatic persistence on truthfulness of one's perceptions and trying to impose them on others can cause problems between people, rather than ignorance. Whole societies and species have been wiped out as people imposed their will and version of truth upon others.

Confused:
Isn’t ignorance always at the root? 
I think it is very important to acknowledge this. And as you know, in many cases, ignorance is what drives people to seek such things as justice. Indeed the mind that seeks justice in the world is different from the one which sees the drawback of the world, and seeks therefore to rise above it. Besides it is common amongst those who seek justice, that these same people end up performing evil actions no less bad than those they seek to punish, but going on to mistakenly seeing their own actions to be good. And so while pointing a finger at the other person; we don’t see the three that are pointing towards ourselves.

On the other hand, for someone who has some level of understanding about the truth, although it may require an attitude of kindness and consideration in terms of usefulness and right time to express, this however will never be a case of forcing, but simply of pointing out. How could someone who understands the nature of and need for continuing with the study of one’s own moment to moment experiences, force another person to do the same? When I see so much ignorance and attachments within my own stream of consciousness, how could I expect others to be without them? But this of course, does not mean that I agree with any wrong understandings being expressed….
========
Himmat:
We don't "have" to know what we are ignorant of. We can just choose to "live" in peace and harmony with neighbours, and share. 

Confused: What if someone pointed out to you that your idea of peace is motivated by attachment? What if you were told that true peace comes from understanding? What if it was explained to you that the very reason there is conflict is because everyone is busy trying to change the outside world instead of knowing that it is one’s own mind which is the problem?

If at any time the goal is to simply “live in peace and harmony etc…”, know that you are not aiming at understanding the truth and are missing the point of it all!

==========
Himmat:
People have been around for more than a million years without huge amounts of "knowledge" to hand. They lived and survived, although higher proportions may have suffered from famines, droughts, diseases as now do. If they had not done so we would not be here now. 

Confused:
This is what gets me and is one of the reasons why I began to write here and the other Sikh forum. 
This tendency to see that we are a product of history and / or evolution is one thing that goes against the understanding of karma. The reason I keep trying to highlight the latter is to counteract such kind of thinking, one which I believe, has very negative consequences.  

=========
Himmat:
Now, we have exponential growth in "knowledge", but it is also accompanied with exponential growth in use of limited resources, which may be unsustainable and lead to complete destruction of climate and the environment; introduction of GM foods,and synthetic biotechnology are all unknowns, and this "knowledge" or increased "understanding" may not be wise at all. It may lead to self-destruction in a very short timescale, whilst people live for the moment. So I agree with you about the effects of quick remedies, but I do feel it is related to an increase in unwise use of knowledge as well.

Confused:
Well, I wasn’t talking about just any knowledge, but the particular kind based on understanding ‘ultimate truths’. Also all the other kinds of knowledge ever gained come under ‘conventional truths’ which I consider to be completely irrelevant to the development of wisdom. The problem however, is not in having more or less any such knowledge, but now or five thousand years ago, here or on some other planet, is ignorance and lack of understanding the truth.   

In this regard, an Einstein who is involved in studying the conventional world could well be in a bad position as compared to some dullard who actually knows where he is at as a result of having been aware on occasion, his moment to moment experiences. 

It appears that you are involved in discussions with quite a few people and so your hands may be full. You can choose therefore to stop this one with me, or put it on hold for later...?


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 18, 2010)

Himmat Ji,
You need to go back over all the posts and read them to get your answers. Only Guru Granth Sahib Ji is truth as it was written by the enlightened Guru's not by their second-guessing followers. Also by discouraging blind faith, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji establishes it is truth as the Guru's know they can stand up to any form of scrutiny, which they have done by several scholarly and atheist groups that have had the aim of discrediting the writings but they couldn't. If everyone can twist the writings according to their own agenda, the words become mere tools rather than wisdom and the chaos that will unfold will be devastating. When you accept that the Guru's had higher knowledge or wisdom than you, it is very egotistical to say your views will be equally valid to their knowledge. That is like saying my views about colour vision are equal to my professor's knowledge on the subject when he has been studying it for 40 years to my 10! Knowledge and views are different yet you seem to use the words interchangeably.


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 18, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				Confused said:
			
		

> It appears that you are involved in discussions with quite a few people and so your hands may be full. You can choose therefore to stop this one with me, or put it on hold for later...?


 
Gurfateh

Confused ji

I think I have learned a lot from the interchange with all the members who have kindly expressed their thoughts here.  
I am definitely struggling to keep up with posts, and this is made worse as I find it difficult to deal with formatting of copied gurbani quotes to support, and highlighting quotes etc. Then I also get timed out. 

I would be interested in members open statements, one way or another, as to whether they feel scriptures are mere opinions or not, even if the authors had higher levels of knowledge or wisdom than our own. I can and admit I believe in blind faith, but am not getting such an open response from others, and instead the original topic has digressed into other areas (mainly through my own comments). 

If it is felt by members that scriptures are opinions of authors, ie are not based on ultimate reality, then my, yours or others opinions are potentially as valuable as the next, and impacts upon the concept of gurmat vs manmat.

If it is felt by members that they are not just personal opinions of authors/subsequent scribes, but are instead based on ultimate reality, then I would like to know if members also distinguish between scriptures  - ie do they see SGGS as based on ultimate truth, whilst others are not?  
If so, then just why do they perceive such a difference when they themselves do not behold such ultimate truth? 
Either way, if members feel Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is an expression of ultimate truth, then I am left wondering why members are also claiming that Sikhi does not rely on blind faith, unless they feel they know the ultimate truth as well, so are able to make a true comparison. 

Thank you for you interesting replies anyway, and I will continue, if you are also able to, but please give me a few days. 

Thanks and Kind Regards

Sat Sri Akal

PS  I made a similar reply this morning but it seems to have been lost somewhere  on the internet .  I apologise if it reappears and this post is duplicated, in effect (the words may be slightly different)


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 18, 2010)

sunmukh ji

Your earlier comment had been placed under moderation, waiting for approval by a forum administrator. Now that you have reposted, the choice is either to moderate or not. I am going to let it stand. And I am asking you to wait for a response to your questions, in stead of repeating yourself in reply to Jasleen Kaur ji.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 18, 2010)

Himmat Singh ji,

Guru fateh.

Let me ask you a question and I hope to get an honest reply about it before I respond to your post below.

Do you belong to some Sikh Group/sect/ dera that thinks and propagate the same what  you do and have been doing here with your posts?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh




> Tejwant Singh ji, I thank you for this continued opportunity to disuss these several dimensions that have flowed from the intial post.
> 
> My prime agenda is to learn more about the aspect of Sikhi that interests me, which is the meaning of all shabds in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and also to assist others to a more pragmatic approach to Sikhi, with less intra-sikh tensions (ie including sikhs who are now in limbo), and less intra-faith tensions.
> 
> ...


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 18, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam



			
				Tejwant Singh said:
			
		

> Himmat Singh ji,
> 
> Guru fateh.
> 
> ...


 

Gurfateh ji

I am surprised I have been asked a question along this line a  number of times now, in a short time on this forum.

There seems to be an inherent lack of trust and/or a degree of paranoia.

Please may I sincerely state, hopefully for the last time:

a) I believe in One God - Ek On Kaar
b) I turn  to one Guru alone, when in need of spiritual guidance. That Guru ji is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji
c) I do not keep 4 of 5ks. I wear only a kara, (of 5 ks). At the moment I keep kesh, but I do not know what I will do next month with the kesh, or the month after. At present I am okay with it.
d) I don't have any association with any sect or dera whatsover, and never have. On one single morning occasion earlier last year I attended a RSSB (Radha Swami)session with some family members who shifted  to it about 15 years ago. I wasn't interested in it any further. I am still a member  a Sikh gurdwara in Leicester UK but rarely attend now. In the past, when at school I went into churches, but that was part of school functions. I am happy to take part in Christmas events. I go on Nagar Kirtans. I haven't any more to declare, or any skeletons in the cupboard. 
e) I do not feel there is any tolerant basis of "gurmat", a formula engineered by modern day Sikhs, which simply divides an otherwise united sikh community. It is being used to spilt sikhs from Sikhs. It is backed as if a sikh is not for rehat or hukamnamas issued by managers, then the sikh is not Sikh, and is against Sikhs. That is simply not the case. The formula is opinion. I cannot for one moment think any single Sikh Guru would warrant disengagement of any sikhs (which I am) seeking their wisdom and shelter from Sikhs (which I am not) on the basis of a rehat. The whole point of seeing all as part of One is to remove duality and to remove judgemental attitudes. 

I am interested in the basis of some not so pragmatic aspects of Sikhi, along with the main two points mentioned to you in the "agenda" and maybe my delving into what im my opinion are more impractical aspects of Sikhi is troubling you.

I didn't think there was anything to comment upon in the post you referred to. You asked me to give you an honest statement of my "agenda" and I gave you that. 
However I am now interested to read what may be raising your concern. 

Even if I was a complete non-sikh I see no harm in communicating openly with you or anybody else.

Kind Regards 


Himmat

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Archived_member14 (Nov 19, 2010)

Himmat ji,

I’ve written the below mostly muddle headedly and not certain whether it will end up being posted. So please excuse any incoherence of thought. 

You wrote:
I would be interested in members open statements, one way or another, as to whether they feel scriptures are mere opinions or not, even if the authors had higher levels of knowledge or wisdom than our own. I can and admit I believe in blind faith, but am not getting such an open response from others, and instead the original topic has digressed into other areas (mainly through my own comments). 

C: I haven’t read all the responses and I must admit that I can’t really make out who said what. However the general impression is that people have responded to your enquiry in their own way and I don’t think that you should insist on open statements. None of us are ever clear as to what we believe in and even on issues long time pondered upon, we are continually revising our positions. I’m quite sure that this applies to you with regard to your position about ‘religious scriptures being opinion’ as well. 
Besides, it may be that your particular idea is not something people have had the opportunity to think about before, although I must say that a similar line of thought crossed my own mind many years ago.

Faith and blind faith has been brought up quite a bit and so I’d like to make a point based on this concept.
In the tradition where I come from, faith or confidence is a mental factor which arises only with good states of mind. Blind faith in my opinion, is thinking a particular way about some concept conditioned by ignorance and attachment if not also wrong understanding. The following has been said about Faith:

Quote:
“... It has purifying or aspiring as its characteristic. As the water-purifying gem of the universal monarch thrown into water causes solids, alluvia, waterweeds and mud to subside and makes the water clear, transparent and undisturbed, so faith arising discards the hindrances, causes the corruptions to subside, purifies the mind and makes it undisturbed: the mind being purified, the aspirant gives gifts, observes the precepts, and engages in mental development. Thus faith should be known to hove purifying as its characteristic...”

So faith is faith in the good, and it is not like we just talk about it. As I said, it arises with good states and this would be, moments of giving, morality, kindness, compassion, truthfulness, respect, renunciation, wisdom etc. So when we say that we have faith in some concept, we need to determine at that very moment what the state of mind is. Wisdom is the cause for all the other good states being developed and as this happens, faith increases. This is why faith is also identified as ‘confidence’. The more the understanding, the more is there confidence in the power of goodness, more so in wisdom itself. Although there can be a strong inclination to good deeds without the support of wisdom, in this case the accompanying faith would still perform its function of purifying the mind. However there is no place for blind faith around here. 

Now the following is speculation on my part, but I’d just like to make a point:

I believe that most people who are inclined to religion, what mainly attracts them are those parts which talk about the value of goodness and the harm of evil. This imo reflects a degree of faith on their part; since it is something they can relate to and observe to some extent. What happens subsequently is that things get muddled up when it comes to those parts in the particular teachings, which begin to talk about things unrelated to their lives, and they are faced with the question whether or not to believe in those things. I sometimes try to draw people’s attention to the one and discourage them from thinking too much about the other.

I come from an understanding where the concept of a creator God has absolutely no place, nor do such ideas as the ‘oneness with all that is’. But I do not want to argue about this with anyone, but instead like to encourage everyone to develop the good and understand the harm of the evil. Of course it may be that people can’t avoid making the particular association, especially when discussing and talking with others about such things. In a day when interacting with people around us however, such association is seldom made. At those times, being reminded about the value of good and kind acts, and the harm of evil, can on its own condition good deeds.

The point I’m trying to get across to you is that, instead of talking about things which apparently has no practical value, why not talk about those things which will arouse “faith” in the good? Unlike me, you know the Sikh scriptures quite well, so why don’t draw their attention to those parts which are helpful to this end? 

I realize that you mean well and I’m sure you have no intention to disturb the waters. But no one is going to be convinced by philosophical arguments, given especially the perception of having gained so much from their own experience with regard the teachings to date.

=============
Himmat:
If it is felt by members that scriptures are opinions of authors, ie are not based on ultimate reality, then my, yours or others opinions are potentially as valuable as the next, and impacts upon the concept of gurmat vs manmat.

C: If I’m not wrong, your basic premise is that knowledge about God is impossible since each individual can only speak from his limited perceptions. Yet, being part of this whole, each is playing its part and therefore whatever the perceptions are, these contribute to the whole and are in this regard valuable. 
The above idea is something I would not wish to entertain and I hope that I’m wrong in thinking that you think this way. But I’d guess that a possible argument by someone who agrees with the particular concept of God and believes in the enlightenment of say, Guru Nanak, is that this is a matter of penetrating the nature of one representative part, which means that one needn’t have had a knowledge about all the different parts. 
But what kind of knowledge is each part supposed to give anyway? What is it that you could say to someone else about your own experience which would result in his further knowledge about God? Or would you say that such a thing couldn’t happen since each is limited by that much ability to comprehend God?
I’ll just leave this here and won’t discuss any further. Since I think I’ve gone way out of bounds into a territory where I don’t have even a basic knowledge of.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 19, 2010)

confused ji

I do not see your remarks as out of bounds or off topic. And comments are not as a rule moderated before they are posted at SPN. Have no concerns about continuing your interactions on this thread.

spnadmin


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 19, 2010)

Confused ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well said and thanks for your deep thoughtfulness.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 19, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Confused ji, I am very impressed by your very objective statements and advice. It would be a shame if you were unable to continue to contribute on this forum ( not necessarily on this thread).  

Objectively examining matters that one is not attached to,  is the only way available to most humans to learn more about physical, mental or emotional  matters.  Faith alone will  not yield much at all, and thought, analysis and use of intellect is required.  However when it comes to spiritual matters, a creator, or God, then there is no choice. There can only be faith, or complete  trust,  in either one's own wisdom or in somebody else's.  In this case I do rely upon SGGS ji, and in trust alone.



> Himmat:
> If it is felt by members that scriptures are opinions of authors, ie are not based on ultimate reality, then my, yours or others opinions are potentially as valuable as the next, and impacts upon the concept of gurmat vs manmat.
> 
> C: If I’m not wrong, your basic premise is that knowledge about God is impossible since each individual can only speak from his limited perceptions. Yet, being part of this whole, each is playing its part and therefore whatever the perceptions are, these contribute to the whole and are in this regard valuable.
> ...


 
I do not imagine I can shed any new knowledge on God, or a Creator. I would not wish to try. I believe in what SGGS is stating, that such knowledge is not there and is speculation, on the part of those who profess such knowledge, with each who does so believing themselves to be wiser than the last person who tried. 

As to whether I should  lay off now, and not continue to push the matter, I will follow your suggestion, and this will be my last post on this thread.

I do however believe it is not out of order to try to understand SGGS more than I do so. If I then post on a forum, after reading for myself and then having formed some perception, I may make some posts that run against commonly held perceptions. This is likely to happen when many get involved in discussion. As I read others' posts, I learn, and I hope others will also read with a view to improving understanding, and so will not mind any radical views, even if they do not share them. If they feel they can objectively explain why I may be incorrect then I would be obliged to them, as I am to you. 

Thanks for your time

Kind Regards

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## findingmyway (Jun 26, 2016)

ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥

Ik Oankar was true from the beginning, will be true in the future, is true now. Nanak says, Ik Oankar will always be true (whether anyone believes or not is irrelevant as the truth does not change).

I do not see gravity or electricity but see the effects of them constantly. Likewise I can see the results of Ik Oankar constantly around me


----------

