# Ashamed To Be Sikh



## wftw (Nov 1, 2010)

Dear Friends,

Just like many of you, I was born and raised a  Sikh. I have gone to Sikh Gurdwaras since an early age and sat in the  sangat and absorbed the teachings of the "gurus." At an early age, I  attended a large Gurdwaras  California, however my family located when I  was 16 to a different sate with a much smaller Gurdwara. However we  still continue to attend on a regular basis, my admittance up until this  day is consistence. I go every Sunday with my parents and on special  occasions when there is a special Sikh holiday. 

I am 23 now, and  graduated last year from a very reputed university, where I Majored in  Political Science and History, I also minored in Religious Studies.  Currently I am in first year Law School, and these inquiried keep  popping in to my head as I study Religion and Law. 

I have had a  profound interest in world religions nice an early age, perhaps the age  of 14-15 when I started to discovered that Sikhism is not the only  region. I even attend Church with a couple of my friends on several  acassion and say without a doubt that the Christines were very welcoming  people. I also got the opportunity of sit in several Singaguous and  observer their letures. Upon entering college, I was also fortunate  enough to meet several Muslim who invited me to "open mosque" days where  non Muslims were welcomed and given lectured on Islamic history. 

Regardless,  my point for pointing out my well versed religious knowledge is to  point out that, I as a Sikh, consider my self to be well versed in  History and Religion. I do not want to sound condescending or an  elitist, but I would consider my self more versed than 90% of the public  when it comes to matters of region and history. 

Now to my point.

I have a profound shame to Sikhs for the following reasons. 

I wanted to type these points in greater detail, but time is limited and wanted to get something out here so dialog can begin. 

*1. Historical Inconsistency and Unverifiable History*
From  a young age, I have inquired about the stories and the lectures given  in our Gurdwara. from the story of Nanak stopping a huge rock with his  bare hands, to the battles fought by Gobind Singh. My first point is  that despite these stories being told several hundred times, it does not  make them true. I have personally visited the sight of the supposed  hand print, and it does not appear to be a hand, it simply an outlined  that was placed much later. Scientific evidence has confirmed this fact  and there is not impact in that region of the rock. Other stories such  as epic battles of Gobind Singh seem to be exaggerated by the Sikh  religion, to say the least. I have researched history from this time  period, and can no find any significant 3rd party evidence to confirm  that such large battles did take pace. Do you not ever consider how one  man can fight 5,000? With an arrow in his chest? There are several other  inconsistency in stories that I hear every day in the Gurdawara,  however there are too many to point out. Regardless of the fact. I would  like to know, why are these stories not able to be confirmed by  scientific data or other 3rd party historical account? I think this is a  question that needs to be raised and discussed openly, I brought up  this question to my local granthi, and his simple response was that the  we know this to be true because the Gurus tell us this. 

As as  alluded before to my study of religion before, I know that other  religions also have unverifiable history. However, I find two main  difference between their region and the Sikh religion. 

a. Most  other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but  rather "this is what we believe." This is fundamental difference that  must be addressed. When ever I try to question a key fact in Sikhism, it  is as if i were questioning the word the god. In fact, all Gurdwara and  Sikh treat their religious stories as "fact" and do not even entertain  the notion that there can be misrepresentations or logical / historical  inconsistency. 

b. In all other major regions, there is stories  that do not match with with historical account. However, to a large  degree, these religions have a vast literature and intellectual  inquiries in their houses or worships about these abnormality. I was  takn a back the first time I went to the mosque and there were 4 Muslims  discussing the supposed site of Muhammad's first house. I have also  gone to Churches where there is open dialogue between the congregation  where they openly question their religion and the inconsistency.  However, I do not find this in the Sikh temples. Regardless of this, how  is it possible that these religions still have documented evidence and  open dialog about the lack of about such things from Noha's Arch, shroud  of turin, to what is in the kabah. 

*2. Lack of Knowledge and Desired Knowledge / Religious Text *

I  am sure many of you are or know someone who is baptized. Many of the  things that baptized individuals part take in is to pray, in the morning  and evening. Both of my grandmothers and a couple of other individuals  in my family are baptized. At a young age, I would question them about  what they are regurgitating as they rocked back and forth reading out of  their little book. However, I never got an clear cut answer. As I got  older, I would question more people about what they are reading, and  why? However, till this day, I have not met a single person, including a  dozen granthis, who do not have any idea about what they are  regurgitating every morning and night. I will admit that majority of  them know have little about about several individual lines, however, I  am condifent to say that none of them have even 50% knowlege about what  they are reguraduating every morinig and night. 

My surprise does  not come from the fact that they do not know. It comes from rather the  lack of desire to know. they are perfectly content that they are doing  enough to fulfill their duties as a bapsitised individual that they do  not even sedire to find out. I have received such ambiguous answers as 

"No one knows what it says."

"We are not meant to understand."

"We can not even grasp how sweet the words are." 

Again, my problem is not with the fact that they do not know but rather:

a.  A Sikh is someone who is always learning, someone who is on earth for  the mere reason to learn and understand. Yet these individuals have not  desire to understand what is written in the spiritual text. 

b.  Why is it that other religion's scared text are actually readable by  anyone who picks them up? I have read a significant portion of the  Bible, and majority of the Koran, and actually understand what it says  in there. 

c. I am not saying that all Sikhs do not know what it  says in this religious text. I am sure a lot of you will attempt to  point out your superior knowledge on the matter, however I would like to  point out that you are in the minority and a breed of your own.  Otherwise you would not be on this forum. 


_I Have not completed all of my objections to Sikhism, I will add and edit the about information and arguments as I have time. 

Please  excuse my grammatical errors and spelling. I just wanted to get this up  here so a dialog can ensue and maybe I can learn something. _

*3. Hypocrisy in Sikhism 

4. Attacks on Islam / Lack of Understanding / Denial of Similarity 

5. Sikh Theory vs. Reality  

*


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 1, 2010)

Dear w.ftw Ji,

I understand your frustrations.

All I would like to say is don't judge Sikhi on those who claim to follow it, but instead read up for yourself what is written then decide how you feel. The Guru Granth Sahib is there to be read, understood and practiced and this forum is one of the places that will encourage you to do just that.

I do not judge Christianity based on the misguided people who ran the crusades or were the cause of Australia's stolen generation.
I do not judge Islam by the actions of suicide bombers.
I do not judge Judaism by the caricature of money lenders.
I do not judge Hinduism on those who follow by blind faith.

Sikhi rather than Sikhism deserves your attention. Only by knowing the philosophy yourself can you positively influence those around you. Your interest and your ability to see inconsistencies in behaviour around you will take you a long way. Always judge a philosophy by its teachings not the followers as followers are human and will always trip up!

Best wishes,
Jasleen Kaur.


----------



## Chaan Pardesi (Nov 1, 2010)

"W,tfw.says <FTWWHY a text p there. in says it what understand actually and Koran, the of majority Bible, portion significant read have up? them picks who anyone by readable are scared religion?s other that is < I>Why is it that other religion's scared text are actually readable by anyone who picks them up? I have read a significant portion of the Bible, and majority of the Koran, and actually understand what it says in there". 



Your problem, W.FTW is very much like... you just do not understand religion or perhaps like it very much to become gullible with what lies on the other side.The saying the pasture is not always green on the other side is very much your state of mind, from what I have understood.The exception being YOU do believe it is green just by seeing!!

As a student of religion that you say you are, it looks more like you are a man scrabbling to put a frock on, when you should be putting the pants on!

In the name of science and religion you appear to have learnt a lot by stage manning visits to mosques and churches, while being oblivionly ignorant about your own.But you have with no less preposteriousity , then suggested as you are now an authority on other religions, that you beliitle Sikhism.You then tried to make your misbeliefs near reverential, so as to make some people take the unfounded seriously.As we live in an age, inclined to believe everything science says even when it flies in the face of common sense and the practical Guru Granth sahib, you have used science to demote the values of Sikhism.But science is also not complete, as with the bumble bee concept!But Gurbani is.

However, I am NOT convinced of you, and your motives neither, I believe, you have the acceptable real knowledge and understanding of Sikhism as you have attempted to portay and lead us to believe.Therefore, I make no apologies, that some the terms I have used are deliberately hard , and hit hard, as I think, you deserve that.

I will simply ask you one question based upon your acclaimed knowldge of the Koran etc, which you have understood largely or in the majority.

I will point out that as a student of religion, you have either deliberately or with a certain pre-reasonning omitted to say,[ based on the scientific evidence] ...that the koran was written 80 years AFTER Mohamad's death.While the bible even based on the old testament was written more than 90 years after Christ's. 

I see no scientific evidence presented by you to suggest that the writers of the koran and bible indeed wrote exactly what was said by Christ or Mohamad either.How did you accept that so wilfully?For logic's sake, your argument is faulty to begin with, as you use two different standards.


Issues are forgotten and twisted within a year,and by the time it reaches the 5th person, but how after at last 80 years the words in the Koran and Bible can remain the same?There is no record that anything was written down during the lives of Mohamad and Christ, apart from the ten commandments.There is no record of such documents existing.

By making significant such omissions I smell clearly an intent and purpose to show "Sikhism to be ashamed of" deliberately by you.

Now, my one question to you...How did you read the Koran and in what language?Arabic?You must have read the Bible in English, what stops you reading and understanding the Gurbani in English?

By your own admission , it appears you have NOT read the Guru Granth sahib, then how did you manage to compare the Guru Granth sahib then to the koran and bible or the tohra?As I see, there is a motive for your own embarrasment.Perhaps lack of self confidence and esteem?It certainly appears your intent was create a controversy,harmful to Sikhism,but nothing more.I question your claim to be a student of religion; and say you are a very poor student indeed; and not one in a position to write skillfully upon religion in a truly comparative manner.


At this point, may, I point out that the Guru Granth sahib was dictated and written by followers and scribes of the Gurus as the Gurus spoke the messages of God.NOT after and NOT before.Neither ANY of the shabads can be changed for as long long as the world lives on.

If you are seeking scientific evidence, I dont think the battle of Karbala or the crusades provided that either.If they do then it is the same plaque placed years later.The plaques that you appear to condemn as regards to Sikhism.


I think you have misconeceptions about the claim of 5000 fighting a single person.Nowhere it states that.What it says is that the Guru created a magnificience of a persona who was able to face 125,000 mentally, spiritually and challenge that. That also does not say it was a certain victory, but certain death more like.

THe SIKH history, is for real, much of it written by its advesaries like Moghuls and THEIR writers, who were Mohamadans and much more by the hindu writers, who many a time reluctantly had to acknowledge trhe bravery and greatness and steadfast spirituality of the Sikhs and their religion.That speaks for itself.Even Nadir Shah after being harrased by the minority Sikh bands admitted that the day is not far off when they will rule supreme both spiritually and the land in the face of hardship and tyranny.That is itself is the icing in the cake.It does NOT need scientific rationale as it is a written record.

To claim that much of the Sikh teachings are related to history in itself is mirroring the lack of insight and understanding about the Sikh religion.To totally pull blinders over eyes regards its spiritual aspects and family life is clear evidence of a biased mind and thinking.But unlike others, Sikhs have cherished and preserved in oral tradition much of their history.That is not wrong , but very much like fertiliser to the younger generations, although sometimes can be slightly distorted by individuals, just as yiou have attempted.

Of course there are questions asked and challenges offered just like any other religion.Sikhs have the capacity to respond and answer and change within the confines of the Gurbani and set precedents, unlike Christianity that has no boundaries or islam that breaks every decent boundary in its quest to bring allah out of Mecca!Sikhism is not curtailed by such boundaries nor fuelled with venom of hatred.The concept of it's langger institution is evident enough  of that value.


As a student of religion, and with an intent, I see clearly you have not subjected your views entirely to study of comparative religions, but also mixed and have confused yourself with behaviourial sciences, cultural traits and mentallity related to lack of education and understanding that is prevalent among Sikhs with regard to their own and have tried to present that has the 'faults' of the Sikh religion.


How very far from honesty and home truth, have you ventured exposes the real understanding of a supposedly student of religion!


The mish mesh of negative points that have been aired by you have absolutely NOTHING to do with Sikhism.They are traits of behaviours prevalent among people of any society and religion.

Such exist in among other religions perhaps to a greater degree,for example the abuses of women and children within Christianity, the blind bombings and beheadings among the muslims and against the so called kaffirs......Sikhism for its share has some of those who make and break and misrepresent their own rules as they go along, but that has nothing absolutely to do with the proper teachings and Gurbani; as you seem to have presented coyly.neither Sikhism can be counted as an extremist faith.

Finally, let me share about myself.I was born and bred in a muslim country and a state where muslims were predominant.I have been to Mosques many times,and shared often in their celebrations, when they were not so extremely brainwashed.

I went all my life to a Christian Missionary school , where I not only attended the church regularly, but also twice completed an Emmaus Bible Course with 100%.Many of my friends were Buddhist and Hindus,Taoists, and Bahais and perhaps animist as well, among Muslims and Christians.

I was the only Sikh in my last two years of school.I fluently speak more than 10 languages including Tamil,Thai and Chinese.I read and write about five including Punjabi.I Must say, no other religion impressed me more than Sikhism.I could have been any other by choice, I choose to be a Sikh. 

I did not learn about Islam hinduism or christianity or the other religions by stage manning and visiting mosques or churches , Pagodas,but by growing up among them, while understanding them, I also had the good fortunate to learn about my own.

I have travelled to Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and many other countries and I believe I am quite an authority on these religions as much I know my own,and greatfully I am PROUD and glad to be a Sikh.

The fact that you have disappeared, explains it all.It also reminds me about the Nutty Professor!But I believe it is too facile a tag.I would say students such as you are dangerous-dangerous in hiding the true agenda and dangerous because the thinking that you are advancing would be a disaster for not only Sikhism, but any decent level headed Muslim, Christian and Hindu and their religions.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 1, 2010)

Dear WFTW

It's a good thought provoking post and I would like to offer a few observations

I appreciate what you are trying to say here. I think you will find, as I have done, that there are many learned people on this forum.




> Regardless of the fact. I would  like to know, why are these stories not able to be confirmed by  scientific data or other 3rd party historical account? I think this is a  question that needs to be raised and discussed openly, I brought up  this question to my local granthi, and his simple response was that the  we know this to be true because the Gurus tell us this.



What is your understanding of religion and spirituality and the purpose and value of following such paths? Are these aspects you have highlighted above of more value and greater importance than the sublime wisdom that Sri Guru Granth SahibJ contains




> a. Most  other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but  rather "this is what we believe." This is fundamental difference that  must be addressed. When ever I try to question a key fact in Sikhism, it  is as if i were questioning the word the god. In fact, all Gurdwara and  Sikh treat their religious stories as "fact" and do not even entertain  the notion that there can be misrepresentations or logical / historical  inconsistency.



I'm afraid I would have to disagree with this point having come across many "defenders of the faith" who do do proclaim the literal word to be true...just look at Creationists for example. One very big advantage that Sikhism does have however is that it is relatively young compared to older religions:


[/LIST
]the scriptures have not been subject to the same manipulation and endless retranslations
there is historical evidence to prove the existence of the Gurus and the key events in their lives
there is archeological evidence that can be directly attributed to the Gurus




> Regardless of this, how  is it possible that these religions still have documented evidence and  open dialog about the lack of about such things from Noha's Arch, shroud  of turin, to what is in the kabah.



I, for one, have no problem with the sort of open dialogue you suggest. The way I see it, providing the intent is genuine and there is a willingness to learn and be challenged, then no one would lose in such a debate.....everyone would gain



> *2. Lack of Knowledge and Desired Knowledge / Religious Text *
> 
> I  am condifent to say that none of them have even 50% knowlege about what  they are reguraduating every morinig and night.



I really don't think you are in a position to make such an assessment



> a.  A Sikh is someone who is always learning, someone who is on earth for  the mere reason to learn and understand. Yet these individuals have not  desire to understand what is written in the spiritual text.



Good point



> b.  Why is it that other religion's scared text are actually readable by  anyone who picks them up? I have read a significant portion of the  Bible, and majority of the Koran, and actually understand what it says  in there.



So have I and from what I have seen to date, I would regard Sri Guru Granth SahibJ as being eminently more readable and to the point 




> c. I am not saying that all Sikhs do not know what it  says in this religious text. I am sure a lot of you will attempt to  point out your superior knowledge on the matter, however I would like to  point out that you are in the minority and a breed of your own.  Otherwise you would not be on this forum.



It goes back to my earlier question about the purpose of following any path in the first place. I would suggest one reason would be to achieve a level of contentment. I admire those who do so and are content, irrespective of their level of spiritual knowledge or philosophical understanding

I also concur with everything Jasleen said in her post. This is for you only. Never mind anyone else.  Tell us more about what YOU think about the scriptures in terms of the impact they have on YOUR values and norms 



> I Have not completed all of my objections to Sikhism, I will add and edit the about information and arguments as I have time.



Good! I think this can develop into a great thread. Thanks for getting it started.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Nov 1, 2010)

First, please stop being ashamed of being Sikh.  Our SGGS, even in translation contains wisdom and direction beyond anything else I have read, and I'm an avid reader.  We have some problems and few of us are true Gursikhs.

There must be something here since so many have cxhosen death over conversion.

As to not believing our history, next you'll be trying to convince me that Baba Deep Singh didn't really carry his head in one hand and fight with his sword in the other.  Be careful.  Be very, very careful.

BTW, Christians are called upon to believe all sorts of historical oddities that must not be questioned, many but not all, about Jesus.


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

Here in lies the problem with this kind of post. 

wftw (as i have done before him) brought to attention a problem that effects the large majority of sikhs (although, not necessarily the minority of sikhs on this site). The problem of willful ignorance on the part of many sikhs for one. I feel like this site, however, takes an almost neutral position on these kinds of issues. As if the members of this site are saying "who care what they believe in, how they represent the religion, or what should be deemed as "fact"; instead, you should work on improving your own understanding of the guru granth, dont worry about those others who claim to be sikh."

There is something so very unsettling about that kind of an answer/response. (Seeker9 and findingmyway, im looking at you). 

Those kinds of answers do nothing to solve the problem. And it seems as if your condeming him for even raising the issue by suggesting that he should read the guru granth and find his own path (or w/e). It a very lazy response due to the fact he wasnt even questioning the guru granth but rather the unbelievable "stories" that are being forwarded as "fact" in countless gurdwara's and family's. I too was raised on these stories, and it was these unbelievable stories that partly provided me with the impetus to leave the religion and become an atheist. 

From a sikh perspective. If you dont address these silly stories and provide verifiable evidence, more and more young people will come to you with these tough questions. And if your response isnt satisfying (as it hasnt been so far) then sikhi is doomed to decline in numbers. It might be one of the youngest religions right now but i see no hope for it to become one of the oldest religions in the future. This is but one of the reasons why.

As a side note, can you (wsfw) provide a link for the scientific analysis of that handprint in the boulder thats attributed to Guru Nanak?  although, I dont think its the "real deal" either, I feel like your point would be more valid if you could actually link to a scientific source that supports your point of view. That and I would love to read it myself


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> As to not believing our history, next you'll be trying to convince me that Baba Deep Singh didn't really carry his head in one hand and fight with his sword in the other.  Be careful.  Be very, very careful.



I'm going to suggest that he didnt do what you think he did. Indeed, even the wikipedia page regarding Deep Singh lists two accounts of his martyrdom and one is vastly more believeable then the one you quoted. I find it ironic that you decide to use that example as a "matter of fact" to suggest that the author be careful in the criticism he lays on sikh stories WHEN IN FACT, that story is the perfect example of one needing more inquiry. You've only strengthened the authors position by bringing up this story. 

(eitherwhich way, I created a thread for the debate surrounding his death  )



Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> BTW, Christians are called upon to believe all sorts of historical oddities that must not be questioned, many but not all, about Jesus.



And they are no better for it either. I have to say, the only area in which i differ from the author of this thread is in the uneven distribution of criticism on sikhism alone. I think all religions are equally flawed when it comes to these sorts of matter. Christianity and Islam is no better then sikhism in this respect. All religions have major historical oddities.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> I'm going to suggest that he didnt do what you think he did. Indeed, even the wikipedia page regarding Deep Singh lists two accounts of his martyrdom and one is vastly more believeable then the one you quoted. I find it ironic that you decide to use that example as a "matter of fact" to suggest that the author be careful in the criticism he lays on sikh stories WHEN IN FACT, that story is the perfect example of one needing more inquiry. You've only strengthened the authors position by bringing up this story.
> 
> (eitherwhich way, I created a thread for the debate surrounding his death  )




Calm down, Caspian ji.  I was being sarcastic.  Sheesh!  

Although a friend in a steel mill said he had seen a guy's head get cut off by some machinery and the guy ran, headless, somewhere.  And then there was that headless chicken..

*Contact me for the url of the YouTube video - some people wrote they were extremely upset by it. spnadmin*
I guess I better stop before I get excommunicated or something.  icecreamkaur


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm aware of the chicken example but thas because a portion of the chickens brain (enough to sustain life) is located much lower, around the neck of the chicken. The same thing cannot be said for humans. A person might be able to run for a short while ( i wouldnt know, and i cant think of any biological reason for why that should hapen—other then maybe a form of muscle memory) but the anatomy of the chicken makes for it to be possible (that a chicken can live for months without its head). The anotomy of humans on the other hand—not so much; let alone fight an entire battle.


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 2, 2010)

I am just anxious to know why the poser asked just those questions ( which are actually very few ) which did not appeal to modern mind . Also the poser should pay attention to see if there is anything to which he does not agree in Sri Guru Granth Sahib , Vaars Bhai Gurdass Ji & not Janamsakhis which were written after the time of those particular Gurus & mostly post Guru period . What is so reliable about the story of Adam & Eve ? What is so reliable about the existence of Heaven & Hell , Day of Judgement , Virgin Mary , & thousands & thousands of fairy tales which have no head or tail of which Quran is full of , of which Old Testament is full of . What is rational about Hajj , Ramzaan Fasts etc etc . Infact to me as a layman Sikhism is perhaps the only LOGICAL & PRAGMATIC religion in the presesnt times followed of course by Buddhism & Jainism . Rest all are mere expansionist theories responsible for untold miseries to mankind & EVEN A DANGER TO ITS EXISTENCE .


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> What is so reliable about the story of Adam & Eve ? What is so reliable about the existence of Heaven & Hell , Day of Judgement , Virgin Mary , & thousands & thousands of fairy tales which have no head or tail of which Quran is full of , of which Old Testament is full of . What is rational about Hajj , Ramzaan Fasts etc etc



I hope the original poster changes his original opinion about the rational of other religious groups being "more sound" then that of sikhism. I'm curious to see that myself as you've brough about a good point. Their is no rational for any of the ideas you listed. However, i think the author meant to suggest that "atleast other religions have a form of discourse in which dissenting viewpoints are taken seriously; this form of discourse is curiously absent amonst many sikh communities—especially within gurdwara's." If thats the case, I can only agree with him, its true. As of right now i work as a wedding videographer, having gone to countless sikh weddings, i always cringe when the preists bring about any miraculous stories. One priests told the entire congregation that no matter what, science will never find the answers to everything—like how there came to be so much water on this planet (a fact that scientists have figured out for some time). Sikh priests and communities are largely ignorant; and its a willful ignorance which is the worst of all. Even if you try to tell them otherwise, theyll refuse to hear it. 



> Infact to me as a layman Sikhism is perhaps the only LOGICAL & PRAGMATIC religion in the presesnt times followed of course by Buddhism & Jainism . Rest all are mere expansionist theories responsible for untold miseries to mankind & EVEN A DANGER TO ITS EXISTENCE .



Well now heres the problem with your point of view. If you can see how a concept like "heaven and hell" is ridiculous; why isn't the concept of reincarnation (a viewpoint endorsed by sikhism) as ridiculous if not more? IMO, reincarnation makes less sense then heaven and hell—albeit, they both dont make sense. Atleast reincarnation you can refute mathamatically, its a much simpler proof then refuting heaven and hell. 

If you can see no point in Haaj and Ramzaan Fasts; of what rational do you support the amrit ceremony? Even guru nanak rejected the extremely similar "thread ceremony" of the hindu's; for the life of me, i can't differentiate that with sikhism's amrit ceremony. 

Sikhism is no more logical or pragmatic then any other religion. 

In my opinion, buddhism is more logical then sikhism, but i still get hung up over the whole reincarnation bit. The need for a "buddha" is weird too.  
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Here in lies the problem with this kind of post.
> 
> wftw (as i have done before him) brought to attention a problem that effects the large majority of sikhs (although, not necessarily the minority of sikhs on this site). The problem of willful ignorance on the part of many sikhs for one. I feel like this site, however, takes an almost neutral position on these kinds of issues. As if the members of this site are saying "who care what they believe in, how they represent the religion, or what should be deemed as "fact"; instead, you should work on improving your own understanding of the guru granth, dont worry about those others who claim to be sikh."
> 
> ...




Caspian ji,
You misunderstand me. All I am saying is that you should not condemn a philosophy just because it is misunderstood by the majority. I understand the frustrations raised as I once felt the same. I almost became agnostic as I couldn't believe the stuff that was going on around me and I was gobsmacked at the amount of pakhand around me (people preaching one thing and then behaving another way). I still am amazed and frustrated at so many things-the insistance to teach stories rather than the message of the Guru Granth Sahib at the classes in Gurdwara, teh insistance to do ishnaan in the sarovar at Amritsar, the reading of paath without any idea of what is being said etc etc etc.

Thankfully rather than defecting I decided to study more for myself and that's when I discovered what a gem Sikhi is, and I am very grateful for that. As Mai Ji said there must be something in it when so many people have put down their lives to defend Sikhi.

SPN and I do not take a neutral stance on the wrongs mentioned-there are hundreds of threads tackling all these issues. I myself am working hard in my local community to change people and get them connected with the Guru again. I have constant battles with management about what I can and cannot teach in classes at Gurdwara as I refuse to teach the sakhi's from the janamsakhis which are based on fantasy. Unless you know what is right, how can you change? If you don't change then you can't tell others they are going aganist the Guru's teachings.

Everytime my younger sister learns a shabad, we now make an effort to go through its meaning together so it is not an empty musical task for her. My family are now used to hearing me raving about how this is wrong and that is wrong!! My friends and I have discussions about what the Guru's are actually telling us. That is the way forward. Condeming the wirtings without understanding them is not productive and not doing anyone any favours. Definitely bring issues up as without realising them we cannot deal with them. Seeker9 said the same at the end of his post. However, the issues are with people's misunderstandings rather than with the original teachings and the original teachings are not at fault. Criticise the followers not the Guru as there are no faults in the Guru!!


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

> There is something so very unsettling about that kind of an answer/response. (Seeker9 and findingmyway, im looking at you).




What is unsettling? Why are the stories important? I stand by everything I have said. What is it you want from this or any other path? Why do you want to do it? Is it for relaxation? Is it for spiritual enlightenment? Is it for inner contentment and peace? Why? 

I would humbly suggest that your answers to these questions have no bearing whatsoever on what others think or do to the stories WFTW refers to. If you think what others think or do or these stories are important to answer these questions than please tell us why. 

You know, I can accept the wisdom contained in the Bible, (yes it does actually have lots of it but you have to look for it!) without believing the literal account of Genesis that the universe was created in 7 days. There are countless Christians, who are proud to call themselves that, yet don't accept the literal account in their Bible. There are all sorts of unsettling stories concerning the activities of Christian clergy, yet it still doesn't stop people being Christian. So, I am honestly struggling to see the significance of the connections you and WTWF are making here. 



> Those kinds of answers do nothing to solve the problem.


Well, as per above, I need to understand the problem better before I can offer any assistance



> And it seems as if your condemning him for even raising the issue by suggesting that he should read the guru granth and find his own path (or w/e).



Condemnation is certainly not the intent and having re-read my post, I don't think I am condemning anyone at all. In fact, I commended WTWF for opening this thread in the first place!!​


> It a very lazy response due to the fact he wasnt even questioning the guru granth but rather the unbelievable "stories" that are being forwarded as "fact" in countless gurdwara's and family's. I too was raised on these stories, and it was these unbelievable stories that partly provided me with the impetus to leave the religion and become an atheist.



Fine. Don't believe them then. I will continue to be lazy and condescending and ask you to focus on spiritual matters and as is becoming of a Sikh, seek the wisdom contained within Sri Guru Granth Sahib




> From a sikh perspective. If you don’t address these silly stories and provide verifiable evidence, more and more young people will come to you with these tough questions. And if your response isn’t satisfying (as it hasn’t been so far) then Sikhi is doomed to decline in numbers. It might be one of the youngest religions right now but i see no hope for it to become one of the oldest religions in the future. This is but one of the reasons why.




I can understand what you are saying but I would have to say I disagree.  I would suggest there is more to Sikhism than the need to establish irrefutable proof of the stories you refer to​


----------



## arshi (Nov 2, 2010)

*wftw ji *

*Gurfateh<?"urn:<img src=" />*

*I would endorse Mai Harinder Kaur ji’s ji’s suggestion i.e. “…. stop being ashamed of being Sikh” I, personally, feel I am blessed to have been born in a Sikh family but it saddens me to see those who drift away from it or fail to adopt Sikhi and its values and teachings. I seek the <I>charan dool</I> of those who despite being born as non-Sikhs have embraced Sikhi unreservedly. *

*The main problem I notice amongst Sikhs is that we (including myself) tend to look more outwards rather than inwards. The outside world and its activities distract us and unsettle the mind. Reading of Guru Granth Sahib and the adoption of its teachings will strengthen the mind and train us to withstand the onslaught of the outside world and remain focused on Gurbani. Once we begin to understand the main mission of this life span all else will fall in place.*

*In the limited time I had I could only briefly browse through some of the responses and appreciate the comments made by Jasleen Kaur ji, Curious 9 ji. Dalbir ji and Chaan Pardesi ji.*

*One thing which amuses me is that we doubt the prowess of the gallant Sikhs from our history and yet many of us our afraid to even disclose our full name, leave alone the location (although I do respect and understand the need of this in modern times).*

*Rajinder Singh ‘Arshi’*


----------



## jagmeet (Nov 2, 2010)

The originator of this thread seems to have vanished after posting his ill-titled, ill-thought, immature and disappointing post.

What is it in what you've written that makes you feel ashamed of being a Sikh--you can disagree with something, reject a particular religion(& adopt another or turn an agnostic if you please), but to say, in a public forum, that you are ashamed of being a Sikh is too much---you should rather be ashamed of yourself!

Your problem is--had you been brought up as a Muslim or a Christian, you would have been writing the same things about these in some other forum.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 2, 2010)

wftw ji,

Guru Fateh.

Before I give my 2 cent worth, I have a few questions for you.

1. How much Gurbani have you read and have used different references to understand it as a student of religions?

2. If you have and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, what contradictory things did you find in Gurbani that you have read? please share with us.

3. If you have not, then why not?  
If this is  the fact, then your post makes no sense, especially yourself  as a student of religions who has read other scriptures.

4. Are you aware that our Gurus did not write any history on purpose which they could have easily done or hired anyone to do it? Do you, as a student of religions find anything of significance in this deliberate omission?

I have no idea why you put  so much emphasis on history rather than Gurbani which was written by our Gurus and others, unlike the NT,the OT and the Koran. Can you please give your reasons as a student of history and religions?

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 2, 2010)

jagmeet said:


> Your problem is--had you been brought up as a Muslim or a Christian, you would have been writing the same things about these in some other forum.




This point cannot be stated enough. For some reason members of other faiths come to Sikh forums to put Sikhs on the defensive. Then there are Sikhs who come to Sikh forums to put their brothers and sister Sikhs on the defensive, using ill-conceived arguments.

Yet - If anyone of any other faith goes to other-faith forums with a similar agendas - how long is it tolerated? Sikhs are specifically directed to respect other faiths. How is this value played out by other religions? 

When Sikhs do not respect other faiths they are chastised by other Sikhs. This does not mean that Sikhs should not react in a negative way if our beliefs are being trashed. Everything should be open to discussion. Everything however is not open to be debased.


----------



## Randip Singh (Nov 2, 2010)

wftw said:


> Dear Friends,
> 
> Just like many of you, I was born and raised a  Sikh. I have gone to Sikh Gurdwaras since an early age and sat in the  sangat and absorbed the teachings of the "gurus." At an early age, I  attended a large Gurdwaras  California, however my family located when I  was 16 to a different sate with a much smaller Gurdwara. However we  still continue to attend on a regular basis, my admittance up until this  day is consistence. I go every Sunday with my parents and on special  occasions when there is a special Sikh holiday.
> 
> ...



Points 1 to 5 happen in all religions

eg

*1. Historical Inconsistency and Unverifiable History
*
Noah and the Ark
Moses and the Sea
Mohammed and Angels etc etc*
*
Sikhism actually condemns such miracle making.*

**2. Lack of Knowledge and Desired Knowledge / Religious Text 

*MUslims do this in Madrasas
Christians do this in Sunday school
Jews learn the Torah Parrot fashion*3. Hypocrisy in Sikhism 

4. Attacks on Islam / Lack of Understanding / Denial of Similarity 

5. Sikh Theory vs. Reality  

*4 to 5 all other religions do this.
*
Here are some issue for you to ponder:*

*1) The Guru Granth Sahib ji has been verified by Historians as written by the Guru's*
 -Was the Bible written by Jesus?
-The Torah by Moses?
-The Koran by Mohammed?


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Nov 2, 2010)

I hope no one gets too upset when I say the title of this thread really disturbs me.  Every time my born-again, spirit-filled, Bible-thumping evangelical caregiver walks by and sees it on my computer screen, she semi-surreptitiously scoffs.  And I bet there are others, too, like her, who are more than willing to see this on a Sikh site and find it as a way to get in a good interfaith dig at us. 

Just sharing an experience and a thought, trying to raise awareness just a bit.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

> I have no idea why you put  so much emphasis on history rather than Gurbani which was written by our Gurus and others unlike the NT, OT and the Koran. Can you please give your reasons as a student of history and religions?



Dear Tejwant Ji

Sums it up perfectly. And I forgot to mention the key fact of authorship earlier which does make Sikhism fairly unique compared to other paths


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

spnadmin said:


> This point cannot be stated enough. For some reason members of other faiths come to Sikh forums to put Sikhs on the defensive. Then there are Sikhs who come to Sikh forums to put their brothers and sister Sikhs on the defensive, using ill-conceived arguments.
> 
> Yet - If anyone of any other faith goes to other-faith forums with a similar agendas - how long is it tolerated? Sikhs are specifically directed to respect other faiths. How is this value played out by other religions?
> 
> When Sikhs do not respect other faiths they are chastised by other Sikhs. This does not mean that Sikhs should not react in a negative way if our beliefs are being trashed. Everything should be open to discussion. Everything however is not open to be debased.



Dear SPNAdmin Ji

Excellent points

I am looking at the poll at the start of this thread and see there is over 90% vote in favour of discussing the topic...to me that speaks volumes about this forum and the people who contribute here

I am actually quite proud of this result
rangesingh:


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> What is unsettling? Why are the stories important? I stand by everything I have said. What is it you want from this or any other path? Why do you want to do it? Is it for relaxation? Is it for spiritual enlightenment? Is it for inner contentment and peace? Why?



These stories aren't important in the sense that we can both agree—they're largely unverifiable, meaningless and ridiculous. However the implications of these stories on young minds is important. I, like many other sikh childern at one point, was told these stories were true, and indeed the majority of sikh elders believe these stories to be true. 

To put it in perspective, there is no immediate harm in believing in santa clause (even well through to adult hood); but is that belief any good either? 

The fact that these stories have been and are used to inspire awe in young minds about the power of sikhi (even though they are not true) lead to a generation of uneducated gullible sikh minds. That is honestly, something every educated sikh should be ashamed about. 

A hypothetical society that readily believes in santa claus well into their adulthood are seen as uneducated—stupid if you will. How is this any different from the majority of sikh elders who believe in these stories? 



> I need to understand the problem better before I can offer any assistance.


The problem, as stated above, is essentially the fact that these stories make the sikh community look stupid (and if the community looks stupid, then so does the religion. just like how the tea partiers seem racist, so their causes are tainted with the racist stigma). And it looks all the more stupid when there is no forum of discussion for these topics. A site like this helps in providing a forum, but the forum ought to be more public (as the original author mentioned, churches and mosques include these forums within the building itself). Sikhs need to be more mindful (instead of being closed-minded) of criticism as well. Actually address the criticism, its all to easy to reject something as "not important." 




> Fine. Don't believe them then. I will continue to be lazy and condescending and ask you to focus on spiritual matters and as is becoming of a Sikh, seek the wisdom contained within Sri Guru Granth Sahib


Heres another thing. I hear this often in these forums. "The wisdom of the guru granth." What wisdom are you referring to? I mean, yes, I agree, on many fronts the sikh religion was ahead of its time (equality between sexes, classes, races, religions, etc). But so what? These qualities are now common place, often times arising independantly from the guru granth sahib. Thats not to say that the guru granth sahib wasn't right in many regards—it certainly was. But it did not directly contribute to the equality many of us enjoy in the west—that arose independantly. SO what wisdom do you speak of? I find that much of the wisdom of the guru granth is just common sense today. Can you provide me some wisdom in the guru granth that is unheard of in our day to day lives? It may have been revolutionary for its time but thats really it. (And dont tell me to go read it, cuz i wont, i know enough about the guru granth sahib to know that i can read similar messages in any religious text or secular book on humanist causes). 



> I can understand what you are saying but I would have to say I disagree. I would suggest there is more to Sikhism than the need to establish irrefutable proof of the stories you refer to


Their certainly is more to sikhism then that. I'm jus lost for thoughts wen i try to think of whether or not their is more to sikhism then what hasnt already arose independantly from sikhism by now? Alot of people for example like to suggest that sikhism is a particulary scientific religion because it stated that their are countless stars, planets and even possibly life on those planets prior to the scientific consensus even reaching that point. However, thats still not science, you cant just make claims unverifiable, you have to verify them. Thats why even though the guru granth sahib may have been right—its "word" is not as good as the experiments done to provide evidence to the claim, that is far more powerful then any unsubstantiated claim. 

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to preach a message of peace, universal brother hood and community service. Many of these messages have been preached before and if not, the latter revolutions that began the onset of these ideas in the west are far more influential and stronger. What good is a word/paragraph or sentance alluding to civil rights when the actual civil rights movement was much more impactful.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

Ok here goes.....



> The fact that these stories have been and are used to inspire awe in young minds about the power of sikhi (even though they are not true) lead to a generation of uneducated gullible sikh minds. That is honestly, something every educated sikh should be ashamed about.



If the stories parents tell their children is the only source they ever provide for SIkhi, then yes, yo do have a point. If that is the case, it is a real pity as any Gurdwara I have ever been to in different cities and countries has an educational programme for young children. So really, there is no reason for this to be the case




> A hypothetical society that readily believes in santa claus well into their adulthood are seen as uneducated—stupid if you will. How is this any different from the majority of sikh elders who believe in these stories?



I would never call them stupid. They just have the utmost honour and respect for their religion. Again, as I have said twice already on this thread, I still don't see why this belief on their part should be a barrier to you



> The problem, as stated above, is essentially the fact that these stories make the sikh community look stupid (and if the community looks stupid, then so does the religion


. 

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there. Is the Christian community ridiculed for all the great stories in the Bible? The great plagues, the parting of the red sea, David & Goliath, the Tower of Babel etc etc? Answer - no they are not. So I will disagree with your point here




> Sikhs need to be more mindful (instead of being closed-minded) of criticism as well. Actually address the criticism, its all to easy to reject something as "not important."



Interesting comparison with the "tolerant" Muslims who declare fatwahs on a world reknowned author who wrote a work of fiction never mind actually passed critical comment on an aspect of the faith......

You have expressed a viewpoint and I have mine. I consider it not important so said so. This is what it means to have a debate and discuss differing viewpoints. I think I have already said why I think it is not important. Can you tell me why it is important to you personally?? Not in general terms about the wider community but you personally?



> Heres another thing. I hear this often in these forums. "The wisdom of the guru granth." What wisdom are you referring to?



Have you read it? Even in an english translation?



> SO what wisdom do you speak of? I find that much of the wisdom of the guru granth is just common sense today. Can you provide me some wisdom in the guru granth that is unheard of in our day to day lives? It may have been revolutionary for its time but thats really it. (And dont tell me to go read it, cuz i wont, i know enough about the guru granth sahib to know that i can read similar messages in any religious text or secular book on humanist causes).



Ah right...I see...you haven't really read it but are speaking with some authority about it nonetheless. I am no intellectual but I have read the NT twice and the OT once, I have read large quantities of the Quran, the Rig Veda, the Tanakh, the Dhammapada and a number of other texts including Chinese philosophies. To me the Granth is different in a number of ways. Here's one seeing you asked...the concept of God. The Sikh concept is different from that of most established religions. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that already..if not may I humbly suggest you make greater effort to actually study that which you have been commenting on most freely.... Jap Ji Sahib is a good place to start....




> Their certainly is more to sikhism then that. I'm jus lost for thoughts wen i try to think of whether or not their is more to sikhism then what hasnt already arose independantly from sikhism by now? Alot of people for example like to suggest that sikhism is a particulary scientific religion because it stated that their are countless stars, planets and even possibly life on those planets prior to the scientific consensus even reaching that point. However, thats still not science, you cant just make claims unverifiable, you have to verify them


. 

Again...what "people" say is what people say. I don't care for people.  The path of one's own spiritual enlightenment is not a shared experience. This is not something one does third hand through someone else. I still find it remarkable you get so hung up on "people". If Christians got hung up on "people" like the Catholic clergy for example, in the way you appear to be doing so with Sikhs, there would be mass desertions from the faith. You've just talked about stories and speculations...whereas the Priests I am referring to have caused great suffering



> Thats why even though the guru granth sahib may have been right—its "word" is not as good as the experiments done to provide evidence to the claim, that is far more powerful then any unsubstantiated claim.



Sorry either my brain has just switched off or this statement is complete rubbish. Are you suggesting the need for scientific evidence for the existence of God or a God like force? If so then you best stick to atheism! Although ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of God in a similar fashion and they will struggle......



> It doesnt take a rocket scientist to preach a message of peace, universal brother hood and community service. Many of these messages have been preached before and if not, the latter revolutions that began the onset of these ideas in the west are far more influential and stronger. What good is a word/paragraph or sentance alluding to civil rights when the actual civil rights movement was much more impactful


.[/QUOTE]

Yes actions speak louder than words. Incidentally, you're right... it doesn't take a rocket scientist...it does however require enlightened individuals...of which there have been many throughout time, including more recently...the Sikh Gurus


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> Is the Christian community ridiculed for all the great stories in the Bible? The great plagues, the parting of the red sea, David & Goliath, the Tower of Babel etc etc? Answer - no they are not.


Oh wow, if anything, the christian religion is the most ridiculed religion in the media. Alot of shows from south park to the simpsons ridicule aspects of christianity on the regular. 



> To me the Granth is different in a number of ways. Here's one seeing you asked...the concept of God.


I have problems with the fundamental idea of god. I agree that the concept of god in sikhism is different then other religions. But the concept of god in general is something i have issues with. So thats a point where were both going to have to agree to disagree. Aside from the concept of god, is there anything else in the guru granth that hasnt already arose? And i have read the english translations of the jap ji sahib and parts of the guru granth. Im pretty well versed when it comes to the abrahemic religions as well as other eastern philosophies. I still find nothing of "great value" that i cannot find elsewhere in secular texts. Although i will say this, just as the guru granth was a compilation of selected works from different authors of different religions so should ur selection of texts be. Do not look to the guru granth as the pinnacle source of wisdom, there are many other sourced just as good, if not better. 



> Again...what "people" say is what people say. I don't care for people. The path of one's own spiritual enlightenment is not a shared experience. This is not something one does third hand through someone else. I still find it remarkable you get so hung up on "people". If Christians got hung up on "people" like the Catholic clergy for example, in the way you appear to be doing so with Sikhs, there would be mass desertions from the faith. You've just talked about stories and speculations...whereas the Priests I am referring to have caused great suffering


I feel like the fact that guru nanak got "hung up" on the ridiculous nature of hindo peoples is one of the main reasons your a sikh right now. Im not saying im guru nanak. But the fact that I care for about what people think, and what they choose to be, seems to me to be more in line with guru nanak's philosophies. Your philosophy is rather self-centered, dont mind me saying. 



> Are you suggesting the need for scientific evidence for the existence of God or a God like force? If so then you best stick to atheism! Although ask an atheist to prove the non-existence of God in a similar fashion and they will struggle......


Its not just science im open to, but rather any form of logic. Having said that, i think people have disproved the existance of god through science. Or atleast rendered his existance pointless. 

Also, as we speak, the catholic clergy are worried about mass desertions from their religion. in quebec alone a sizeble portion of catholics recently converted to other forms of christianity due to the appalling acts of their preists. However, by and large, catholics dont really practice their faith to begin with . Thats why you can be an italian mafia don, latin drug king pin, spanish womaniser, or etc and still where a cross around ur neck  



> Yes actions speak louder than words. Incidentally, you're right... it doesn't take a rocket scientist...it does however require enlightened individuals...of which there have been many throughout time, including more recently...the Sikh Gurus


Even flawed individuals can come upon similar conclusions. Martin luther king, abraham lincoin, and mahatma ghandi to name a few. It doesnt take an enlightened individual to practice common sense either.


----------



## gurbarakal (Nov 2, 2010)

Sikhism has 10 GURUS including GURU GRANTH SAHIB manifested IK OANKAR SATGUR PRASAD

Islam has 1 Allah and 1 Muhammad

Christianity has 1 Jehovah and 1 Christ 

Judaism has 1 Yahwah and 1 Moses

because obviously Sikhism so large like the universe it will take time (yes macro-time) for the student to understand it whilst the others only serve 7 skies (in other words 1 solar system) - their ability to grasp the time-less one is limited to 1 heaven and 1 hell - which is only a single life period of a human.

Here's food for thought

The Yuga Cycles*
"Each yuga cycle is composed of 4 yugas.  The first, the Satya-yuga, lasts 4800 years of the demigods.  The second, the Treta-yuga, lasts 3600 years of the demigods.  The third, the Dvapara-yuga, lasts 2400 years of the demigods.  And the fourth, Kali-yuga, lasts 1200 years of the demigods .  Since the demigod year is equivalent to 360 earth years, the lengths of the yugas in earth years are, acording to standard Vaishnava commentaries, 432,000 years for the Kali-yuga, 864,000 years for the Dvapara-yuga, 1,296,000 years for the Treta-yuga, and 1,728,000 years for the Satya-yuga.
"This gives a total of 4,320,000 years for the entire yuga cycle.  One thousand of such cycles, lasting 4,320,000 years, comprises one day of Brahma, the demigod who governs this universe.  A day of Brahma is also called a kalpa.  Each of Brahma's nights lasts a similar period of time.   Life is only manifest on earth during the day of Brahma.  With the onset of Brahma's night, the entire universe is devastated and plunged into darkness.  When another day of Brahma begins, life again becomes manifest.
"Each day of Brahma is divided into 14 manvantara periods, each one lasting 71 yuga cycles.  Preceding the first and following each manvantara period is a juncture (sandhya) the length of a Satya-yuga (1,728,000 years).  Typically, each manvantara period ends with a partial devastation.   According to Puranic accounts, we are now in the twenty-eighth yuga cycle of the seventh manvantara period of the present day of Brahma."


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> > Oh wow, if anything, the christian religion is the most ridiculed religion in the media. Alot of shows from south park to the simpsons ridicule aspects of christianity on the regular.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This made me laugh as well! Hats off to you though for suggesting that any teaching that the purpose of life is to return to the Original Source is plain commonsense...

rangesingh:


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> This made me laugh as well! Hats off to you though for suggesting that any teaching that the purpose of life is to return to the Original Source is plain commonsense...



No, sry , let me rephrase, the practical aspects of sikhism are common sense—the rest (like what you just mentioned) is unverifiable scientifically or logically so its pointless. Eitherwhich way, u can replace "to the original source" with "heaven" or "reaching nirvana" its the same basic concept. Nothing unique about it.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 2, 2010)

Moderation question: Is there a concept of nirvana in Sikhism? The answer can make a difference insofar as understanding what is meant by liberation in Sikhism versus Buddhism. 

More than a matter of semantics, the answer may also shed light on what is meant by the "practical aspects of Sikhi."


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian Ji,
From your writing seems to me that you are too hung up on what people think. You are a follower rather than a thinker. Right now religion is not fashionable so you refuse to follow. If you were born in the Guru's time you probably would be a follower as that is what everyone around you would be doing. Sorry if I'm wrong, but that is my observation from reading your writings across the forum. By worrying too much about outsiders opinions you are hampering your own spiritual growth only, not affecting anyone else. By caring so much about what others will think if you become religious, you are closing your mind. That is fine if it works for you but it is not fine to impose that on others by looking for discrepancies. Bear with me as I get some more thoughts down based on your answers. You seem to love to try and find discrepancies! Shows your insecurity but thats ok as it gets me thinking so helps me learn too



Caspian said:


> I have problems with the fundamental idea of god. I agree that the concept of god in sikhism is different then other religions. But the concept of god in general is something i have issues with. So thats a point where were both going to have to agree to disagree. Aside from the concept of god, is there anything else in the guru granth that hasnt already arose? And i have read the english translations of the jap ji sahib and parts of the guru granth. Im pretty well versed when it comes to the abrahemic religions as well as other eastern philosophies. I still find nothing of "great value" that i cannot find elsewhere in secular texts. Although i will say this, just as the guru granth was a compilation of selected works from different authors of different religions so should ur selection of texts be.



you say you are an atheist yet you don't believe in god-surely that makes you agnostic? at the end you talk about returning to the source/nirvana whatever which means you must believe in god. please make up your mind!! you can't have it both ways at once.

As for the contents of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, yes it teaches you to be a good person, yes it teaches you to stand up for others, yes it teaches God loves you which other texts do too. However, the other texts don't give you the strength of character to follow these teachings through all your life. No other religion has had people die for others right for freedom. They all teach their way is the right way. The Guru Granth Sahib teaches that we can all coexist. Which other philosophy teaches you to stand up for others even if they are of a different faith? That is one of the biggest differences. There is absolutely no hate. Another big difference, is that Sikhi teaches constancy in emotion so you do not get swayed in your actions. We are taught to look at birth and death in a similar way and only by being connected with Ik Oankar will we remain constantly happy and constantly focussed no matter how bad things get around us. No other philosophy does this effectively (possibly Buddhism but they require you to hide away whereas in Sikhi you achieve this in the real world). Worldly pleasures are short lived and constantly changing. Therefore spiritual happinness is more fulfilling.



> Do not look to the guru granth as the pinnacle source of wisdom, there are many other sourced just as good, if not better.




Really? Please do share which sources are better? I would love to know. You must qualify such statements. I'm very intrigued!




> I feel like the fact that guru nanak got "hung up" on the ridiculous nature of hindo peoples is one of the main reasons your a sikh right now. Im not saying im guru nanak. But the fact that I care for about what people think, and what they choose to be, seems to me to be more in line with guru nanak's philosophies. Your philosophy is rather self-centered, dont mind me saying.




You twisted that nicely!! Guru Nanak Dev Ji told Hindu's to be good Hindu's and Muslim's to be good Muslim's. He was not hung up on their 'ridiculous nature' but on the way the common man was being manipulated by those at the top. He told people to think about their actions rather than have blind faith. However, he did not undermine the Hindu faith or tell people to stop following. Many Sikhs died for the sake of the Hindu faith. Guru Nanak encouraged introspection, not judging others.



> Its not just science im open to, but rather any form of logic. Having said that, i think people have disproved the existance of god through science. Or atleast rendered his existance pointless.




Incorrect or show me sources to back this up. Religion has been neither able to prove or disprove God. There are many scientists who are also religious (including myself) and others who are not. Stop mixing the 2 as they are not mutually exclusive.



> Even flawed individuals can come upon similar conclusions. Martin luther king, abraham lincoin, and mahatma ghandi to name a few. It doesnt take an enlightened individual to practice common sense either.




Their teachings were very different to Naankian philosophy so lets keep them separate and discuss their merits or otherwise elsewhere. They were not focussed on spirituality as well as humanity and that is what makes Sikhi unique-the 2 go hand in hand while living in the real world icecreamkaur


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> No, sry , let me rephrase, the practical aspects of sikhism are common sense—the rest (like what you just mentioned) is unverifiable scientifically or logically so its pointless. Eitherwhich way, u can replace "to the original source" with "heaven" or "reaching nirvana" its the same basic concept. Nothing unique about it.



I really wouldn't rely too much on just science if I were you....according to fundamental principles of aerodynamics a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly......yet it does

As for the standard atheist argument about no scientific proof for the existence of God or the need for a God, Atheists are also incapable of providing similar scientific proof that God does not exist...so I would suggest that view is logically pointless as well


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 2, 2010)

gurbarakal said:


> The Yuga Cycles*
> "Each yuga cycle is composed of 4 yugas.  The first, the Satya-yuga, lasts 4800 years of the demigods.  The second, the Treta-yuga, lasts 3600 years of the demigods.  The third, the Dvapara-yuga, lasts 2400 years of the demigods.  And the fourth, Kali-yuga, lasts 1200 years of the demigods .  Since the demigod year is equivalent to 360 earth years, the lengths of the yugas in earth years are, acording to standard Vaishnava commentaries, 432,000 years for the Kali-yuga, 864,000 years for the Dvapara-yuga, 1,296,000 years for the Treta-yuga, and 1,728,000 years for the Satya-yuga.
> "This gives a total of 4,320,000 years for the entire yuga cycle.  One thousand of such cycles, lasting 4,320,000 years, comprises one day of Brahma, the demigod who governs this universe.  A day of Brahma is also called a kalpa.  Each of Brahma's nights lasts a similar period of time.   Life is only manifest on earth during the day of Brahma.  With the onset of Brahma's night, the entire universe is devastated and plunged into darkness.  When another day of Brahma begins, life again becomes manifest.
> "Each day of Brahma is divided into 14 manvantara periods, each one lasting 71 yuga cycles.  Preceding the first and following each manvantara period is a juncture (sandhya) the length of a Satya-yuga (1,728,000 years).  Typically, each manvantara period ends with a partial devastation.   According to Puranic accounts, we are now in the twenty-eighth yuga cycle of the seventh manvantara period of the present day of Brahma."




This is not a Sikh concept. Please see 
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/new-to-sikhism/32958-kalyug.html

As for your question, spnadmin, my understanding of liberation is that it is unique in Sikhi as it refers to state of mind while alive whereas all other philosophies relate to after death. Therefore we get the fruits of our labour while living cheerleader


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

> As for your question, spnadmin, my understanding of liberation is that it is unique in Sikhi as it refers to state of mind while alive whereas all other philosophies relate to after death. Therefore we get the fruits of our labour while living cheerleader


[/QUOTE]

Hmmnn...Buddha achieved enlightenment under the banyan tree whilst alive didn't he??


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> From your writing seems to me that you are too hung up on what people think. You are a follower rather than a thinker. Right now religion is not fashionable so you refuse to follow. If you were born in the Guru's time you probably would be a follower as that is what everyone around you would be doing. Sorry if I'm wrong, but that is my observation from reading your writings across the forum.


 

on the contrary, ive been raising issues like these with my parents and community from the age of 6. It certainly wasn't fashionable for a 6 year old to be so questionative and if you were right i simply would have followed what my parents and community told me was true (even thought it didnt jive with my internal sense of truth and falsity). Having said that, if i was there at the guru's time i would defintly be more prone to believe in sikhism because it simple was the best available source of knowledge AT THE TIME. time change, science and logic have vastly improved and overtaken any religions positions as a "source of wisdom." So i'm not a follower as you have suggested, indeed the large majority of the world is religious so i tend to see religious people as being followers, not atheists. Most atheists come to this realisation on their own. 




> you say you are an atheist yet you don't believe in god-surely that makes you agnostic? at the end you talk about returning to the source/nirvana whatever which means you must believe in god. please make up your mind!! you can't have it both ways at once.




You've misunderstoof alot of what I've said. My disbelief in god makes me atheist—not agnostic. Agnostics simply dont care about the question of gods existence, or simply say "you cannot prove or disprove his existence"—simply put, agnostics dont know or care if god exists. I on the other hand strongly believe god doesnt exist, and if he does, he is largely pointless. Thats the difference between atheism and agnosticism in laymens terms. I talk about nirvana and heaven at the end because im equating those ideas to the sikh idea of "returning to the creator" or w/e it is he suggested. I dont actually believe in heaven or nirvana either. I do believe in spirituality but only in a psychological sense in that it is a state of mind. For example, epilectics (people who have a history of having seizures) routinely have spiritual experiences due to their epilepsy—is that the grace of god? You can have spiritual experiences by fasting (islam) through sweat lodges (native americans) or taking drugs (everyone else lol). 




> As for the contents of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, yes it teaches you to be a good person, yes it teaches you to stand up for others, yes it teaches God loves you which other texts do too. However, the other texts don't give you the strength of character to follow these teachings through all your life. No other religion has had people die for others right for freedom. They all teach their way is the right way. The Guru Granth Sahib teaches that we can all coexist. Which other philosophy teaches you to stand up for others even if they are of a different faith? That is one of the biggest differences.




Simple answer: Atheistic/humanistic philosophies advocate the same thing as the sikh philosophies you pointed out. You dont need to be a religious person to advocate those philosophies. Although i am an atheist I would die for your right to freedom of expression/religion/and what have you. And thats the truth—youll find that common among many atheists. Indeed, abraham lincoiln fought a war over the issue of slavery—that sounds so very familiar to the fights sikhs waged in defence of other minorities. Abraham lincoin was also an atheist. 




> There is absolutely no hate. Another big difference, is that Sikhi teaches constancy in emotion so you do not get swayed in your actions. We are taught to look at birth and death in a similar way and only by being connected with Ik Oankar will we remain constantly happy and constantly focussed no matter how bad things get around us. No other philosophy does this effectively (possibly Buddhism but they require you to hide away whereas in Sikhi you achieve this in the real world). Worldly pleasures are short lived and constantly changing. Therefore spiritual happinness is more fulfilling.




You should really look into some humanistic philosophies. You dont need a god to be as happy you think you are. 




> Really? Please do share which sources are better? I would love to know. You must qualify such statements. I'm very intrigued!




Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, George Carlin (my fav comedian), Christopher Hitchens, Noam Chomsky. But as i have mentioned before, even the reasonings of abraham lincoln or martin luther king or other men of faith (including the guru granth) make sense at certain points. Its jus as a sole source of "wisdom" or information, they are very poor. 




> You twisted that nicely!!




Thanks 




> Guru Nanak Dev Ji told Hindu's to be good Hindu's and Muslim's to be good Muslim's. He was not hung up on their 'ridiculous nature' but on the way the common man was being manipulated by those at the top. He told people to think about their actions rather than have blind faith. However, he did not undermine the Hindu faith or tell people to stop following. Many Sikhs died for the sake of the Hindu faith. Guru Nanak encouraged introspection, not judging others.




And there in lies a problem for sikhs. If Guru Nanak dev ji was right and all one has to do was essentially be a good human being. (a good hindu or a good muslim) of what use is it to be sikh? Let alone hindu or muslim or any other religion. He did undermine their traditions by the way, he rejected the thread ceremony and he pointed his feet towards mecca when we as sikhs cannot reject the amrit ceremony and do not point our feet towards the guru granth sahib. Vast inconsistancies 




> Incorrect or show me sources to back this up. Religion has been neither able to prove or disprove God. There are many scientists who are also religious (including myself) and others who are not. Stop mixing the 2 as they are not mutually exclusive.


I dealt with the proof in an earlier post somewhere in the hard talk section of this site 



> t





> heir teachings were very different to Naankian philosophy so lets keep them separate and discuss their merits or otherwise elsewhere. They were not focussed on spirituality as well as humanity and that is what makes Sikhi unique-the 2 go hand in hand while living in the real world




Again I beg to differ. Parts of their philosophy were very similar to sikh philosophies. It seems so very obvious that martin luther kings message was one that pretained to all humanity. Spirituality on the other hand, as i said above, is just a state of mind that one can acheive without being religious.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

> You've misunderstoof alot of what I've said. My disbelief in god makes me atheist—not agnostic. Agnostics simply dont care about the question of gods existence, or simply say "you cannot prove or disprove his existence"—simply put, agnostics dont know or care if god exists.



You should update your SPN profile then which I have just visited and where you have labelled yourself as Agnostic....is this a recent revelation for you or were you just confused????
winkingmunda


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Interesting discussions going on here that is what Sikhi is all about.

I have a question for you so I can understand where you are coming from.

What is God for you and is the concept of God in other religions same as of Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi? If yes or no, can you please elaborate it from your view point?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> You should update your SPN profile then which I have just visited and where you have labelled yourself as Agnostic....is this a recent revelation for you or were you just confused????



Updated. I think it was carelesness on my part when i made this account. I didnt think anyone would ever look at my profile  thnx for the heads up. But rest assured, I am an atheist. 

Having said that, there are no quarrels with the rest of my post?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Updated. I think it was carelesness on my part when i made this account. I didnt think anyone would ever look at my profile  thnx for the heads up. But rest assured, I am an atheist.
> 
> Having said that, there are no quarrels with the rest of my post?



I will allow Findingmyway Ji the courtesy of responding to that one first

Good healthy discussion...enjoying the distraction...far more interesting than the Management theory I'm having to study for a forthcoming exam!


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 2, 2010)

Hmmnn...Buddha achieved enlightenment under the banyan tree whilst alive didn't he??
[/QUOTE]

thanks for the clarification. i'll leave this point for someone else in that case. caspian, what is your understanding of liberation? how does this fit in with your views?


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> Good healthy discussion...enjoying the distraction...far more interesting than the Management theory I'm having to study for a forthcoming exam!



Studying for cognitive psychology right now. Ugh, im going to fail the quiz because of this lol—oh well, good conversation is worth it.


----------



## Caspian (Nov 2, 2010)

> <!-- google_ad_section_start -->Hmmnn...Buddha achieved enlightenment under the banyan tree whilst alive didn't he??



Yes, he did. I dont exactly know what qualifies as enlightenment. Scientifically speaking, buddhist monks are significantly happier on average then the rest of the population around the world. They are also a godless religion, (as is jainism i think as some one else mentioned). Its interesting to me that members of sikhism would like to more closely associate with godless religions like buddhism and jainism as opposed to religions like christianity, hinduism and islam. It seems to me that this suggests that even sikhs hold the practical applications of their religion in higher regard then the actual concept of god. Otherwise surely, a religion like buddhism or jainism would seem unappealing. Hmmm i would like to talk about this more if anyone wants to pick it up with me? 



> thanks for the clarification. i'll leave this point for someone else in that case. caspian, what is your understanding of liberation? how does this fit in with your views?


Liberation in what sense? Liberation in the sense of how the birth control pill is considered to have liberated the modern women. Or how a form of "self-mental-slavery" keep african-americans from truly liberating. Explain further


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Liberation in what sense? Liberation in the sense of how the birth control pill is considered to have liberated the modern women. Or how a form of "self-mental-slavery" keep african-americans from truly liberating. Explain further



Oh I think you know exactly what she meant!
But to help you along......do Atheists believe in a Soul that seeks to be freed of physical bondage? If not, what is the purpose of life for an atheist? Is there one other than to reject theistic beliefs? What are the Atheist (not humanist) principles for day-to-day life and interaction with others? Is there a moral code? Keep one's nose clean and do unto others as you would have done unto yourself?


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 2, 2010)

> Its interesting to me that members of sikhism would like to more closely associate with godless religions like buddhism and jainism as opposed to religions like christianity, hinduism and islam.



I don't think that should come as any surprise if you understand how the concept of God in Sikhism differs from those religions

I believe Tejwant Singh Ji has touched on this area already and so is a discussion you could develop further


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 2, 2010)

No quarrels just discussion but can't stay long this evening as have a very early start and still got work to do. Quarrel is such a negative word. I don't believe you're not enjoying this exchange too!!



Caspian said:


> on the contrary, ive been raising issues like these with my parents and community from the age of 6. It certainly wasn't fashionable for a 6 year old to be so questionative and if you were right i simply would have followed what my parents and community told me was true (even thought it didnt jive with my internal sense of truth and falsity). Having said that, if i was there at the guru's time i would defintly be more prone to believe in sikhism because it simple was the best available source of knowledge AT THE TIME. time change, science and logic have vastly improved and overtaken any religions positions as a "source of wisdom." So i'm not a follower as you have suggested, indeed the large majority of the world is religious so i tend to see religious people as being followers, not atheists. Most atheists come to this realisation on their own.



Actually in the UK and Australia it is not good to be religious-you are seriously looked down upon. In the environments I've lived in atheism/agnosticism are definitely the primary belief systems. I don't believe internal logic or morals have changed that much over the past 500 years. As I keep saying Sikhi is spiritual as well as practical. Spiritituality is not achievable without faith. For many faith=strength. And please don't bring in the examples of people doing things wrong in the name of faith as they are not really following the philosophy-they are twisting it. Is it wrong YES Should they be challenged YES Because of them should we say the philosophy is wrong NO. Thats like saying half they people in school misunderstand Shakespeare's comedy so he has no humour.

I am also a questioner. I questioned everything-blind faith is a ridiculous notion for me. Yet I haven't followed what my parents and community told me and am still Sikh. I went back to basics and studied for myself rather than listening to common oral traditions which as you rightly point out are not always inline with gurmat teachings. I delved into the Guru Granth Sahib and try to understand as I don't see the point of doing my nitnem each day without understanding it and following it.



> You've misunderstoof alot of what I've said. My disbelief in god makes me atheist—not agnostic. Agnostics simply dont care about the question of gods existence, or simply say "you cannot prove or disprove his existence"—simply put, agnostics dont know or care if god exists. I on the other hand strongly believe god doesnt exist, and if he does, he is largely pointless. Thats the difference between atheism and agnosticism in laymens terms. I talk about nirvana and heaven at the end because im equating those ideas to the sikh idea of "returning to the creator" or w/e it is he suggested. I dont actually believe in heaven or nirvana either. I do believe in spirituality but only in a psychological sense in that it is a state of mind. For example, epilectics (people who have a history of having seizures) routinely have spiritual experiences due to their epilepsy—is that the grace of god? You can have spiritual experiences by fasting (islam) through sweat lodges (native americans) or taking drugs (everyone else lol).


Your definition of spirituality and mine are very different!!



> Simple answer: Atheistic/humanistic philosophies advocate the same thing as the sikh philosophies you pointed out. You dont need to be a religious person to advocate those philosophies. Although i am an atheist I would die for your right to freedom of expression/religion/and what have you. And thats the truth—youll find that common among many atheists. Indeed, abraham lincoiln fought a war over the issue of slavery—that sounds so very familiar to the fights sikhs waged in defence of other minorities. Abraham lincoin was also an atheist.


Humanistic philosophies are not spiritual. They are only half the equation. They also do not give the same level of internal peace (I have not reached that yet btw).
 


> You should really look into some humanistic philosophies. You dont need a god to be as happy you think you are.


Depends on your definition of happy and at peace.
 



> And there in lies a problem for sikhs. If Guru Nanak dev ji was right and all one has to do was essentially be a good human being. (a good hindu or a good muslim) of what use is it to be sikh? Let alone hindu or muslim or any other religion. He did undermine their traditions by the way, he rejected the thread ceremony and he pointed his feet towards mecca when we as sikhs cannot reject the amrit ceremony and do not point our feet towards the guru granth sahib. Vast inconsistancies


You see inconsistencies as you have misunderstood the messages. Feet toward mecca was forbidden as the belief was that was where God resided. Guru Nanak Dev Ji proved God was everywhere. Feet not pointed towards Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a mark of respect. Thread ceremony was rejected as the thread was considered to be protection which is not physically possible. Khanda di pahaul ceremony is for those who want to make a commitment to the Sikhi way of life. It is not 100% compulsory and does not give you any extra protection/powers but is a pledge like the one you take when becoming a citizen of a country. 2 completely different theories-how can you compare!!



> I dealt with the proof in an earlier post somewhere in the hard talk section of this site



That was not proof but opinion as there were good arguments the other way too from what i remember.

You also forgot in your reply to say which other sources are better....


p.s. Tejwant Ji also asked you some questions


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 2, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Yes, he did. I dont exactly know what qualifies as enlightenment. Scientifically speaking, buddhist monks are significantly happier on average then the rest of the population around the world. They are also a godless religion, (as is jainism i think as some one else mentioned). Its interesting to me that members of sikhism would like to more closely associate with godless religions like buddhism and jainism as opposed to religions like christianity, hinduism and islam. It seems to me that this suggests that even sikhs hold the practical applications of their religion in higher regard then the actual concept of god. Otherwise surely, a religion like buddhism or jainism would seem unappealing. Hmmm i would like to talk about this more if anyone wants to pick it up with me?



Sure but not in this thread as it goes off topic!!


----------



## choprakj (Nov 2, 2010)

wftw said:


> Dear Friends,
> 
> Just like many of you, I was born and raised a Sikh. I have gone to Sikh Gurdwaras since an early age and sat in the sangat and absorbed the teachings of the "gurus." At an early age, I attended a large Gurdwaras California, however my family located when I was 16 to a different sate with a much smaller Gurdwara. However we still continue to attend on a regular basis, my admittance up until this day is consistence. I go every Sunday with my parents and on special occasions when there is a special Sikh holiday.
> 
> ...


 
Dear(sic) Singh Sahib,

You should rather be ashamed on your birth,because you seem to be fascinated by religeons other than sikhism,nothing wrong about it.
Because people like you will even forget their parents & question their mother on theie birth their fathers on theis birth ,afterall the belief system is as much come into play on the matter of parenthood as much it does when somebody questions his Lord.
You are fortunate that you are a sikh & have used this forum to vomit whatever you thought was an invention.

for your information

1. The very basis of Christianity,Judaism,Islam is that 'Arc Of Noah" & every person persuing these religions believes it.
2.In islam small wars were fought like 'Kabala" in fact they were tribal battles fought on a much smaller scale than the wars our gurus fought against huge rulers of the time.

3.Reading & understanding of bani is far more simple to understand that those verses of Bible & Kuran I hold both the holy books in high esteem .

having started this tag,please never question again with stupid & chidish logic,I have known people like you who at your age do not understand any thing in life yet sometime become judgemental on issues beyond their comprehension.

Warm Regards
kjs


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

Okay, now that im done my quiz. I'm going to start addressing the issues brought up in my absences 

1) 





> I really wouldn't rely too much on just science if I were you....according to fundamental principles of aerodynamics a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly......yet it does


 - Seeker9

Long story short: the bumblebee does not violate any laws of aerodynamics. A simple google search would reveal the fact that the concept you quoted is simply a myth. I'm going to start quoting another site that dealt with this issue:

"bumblebees cannot fly according to the laws of aerodynamics, or so goes the myth. This story, often invoked by people wanting to dismiss results of scientific reasoning, seems to go back to the 1930s, to students of Ludwig Prandtl, a pioneer of aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen in Germany"

If you want to know more about the origin of said myth and the explanation for why bumblebees dont violate any laws of aerodynamics, i suggest you click on the following link: http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~ben/zetie1.htm



> As for the standard atheist argument about no scientific proof for the existence of God or the need for a God, Atheists are also incapable of providing similar scientific proof that God does not exist...so I would suggest that view is logically pointless as well


First n foremost, the onus is not on the scientific community to provide evidence against the concept of god. Simply put, if there is no evidence "for" the concept of god, then science can safely disregard it. If the onus was always on science, imagine how convuluted the process would be. Imagine if einstein came on the scene, simply said "e=mc^2, now prove me wrong yellingsardarni" lol, it would take a much longer time to prove anything then, progress would not be made. The onus is on the person making the claim, in this case you guys. Otherwise i can similarily state "there is a teapot in interstellar space, somwhere between the earth and the moon, but it is too small to be seen by a telescope—now prove me wrong ". Do you really want to use an argument that can simultaneously justify the existance of sasquatch, the tooth fairy and santa claus? If so, by all means, i agree—god is exactly like those three. 

Having said that, without using science but instead using logic (logic is a formal language, not unlike math, that can be used to verify the validity of an argument... for example, the statement "the car is either blue or not blue" is always true as there is no possibility beyond what is covered by the scope of the sentance; where as the sentance "the car is red and not red" is always false because no such possibility can exist—u can use similar laws of logic (mainly, proof by contradiction) to determine that god either doesnt exist or exists but serves no purpose). I really dont want to get into this debate though on this thread, as this has little to do with the topic lol. Perhaps another thread if anyone is game? 



> What is God for you and is the concept of God in other religions same as of Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi? If yes or no, can you please elaborate it from your view point?


God is a great many things for me . But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that knows, sees, feels, creates or etc. I much rather challenge your conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept of god is not one with which any of you will agree  because all of you believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity 

From a biological point of view: i believe the concept of god is a evolutionary by-product that served a useful evolutionary purpose but just like the appendix, it has lost its use over time (and sometimes, just liek the appendix, it can do harm to us ). 

From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent  lol. 

From a common-sense point of view: the concept of god and religion in general (along with cults and conspiracy theorists) are ways in which people try to substitute actual knowledge with nonsense to make themselves feel smart... lol i could go on, onto the next topic. 



> Oh I think you know exactly what she meant!
> But to help you along......do Atheists believe in a Soul that seeks to be freed of physical bondage? If not, what is the purpose of life for an atheist? Is there one other than to reject theistic beliefs?


I actually didnt know what she meant by liberation but thanks for the clarification. And no, atheists do not believe in souls, ghosts or other supernatural phenomena. THe purpose of life for an atheist is w/e they make it out to be. There is no wrong answer to that question as far as im concerned. Your purpose in life could range from promoting equal rights to getting drunk 24/7. Human life is objectively, from the point of view of a hypothetical god, meaningless; but from a subjective perspective, the meaning of human life is w/e you make it to be. 

As a side note, they say that biological immortality is only 30-50 years away. This poses a problem to many religions. What point does a heaven and hell serve, or reincarnation for that matter, if one can live forever if one wants to? Keep in mind, there are two naturally occuring examples of biological immortality (a certain type of jelly fish and an animal known as the hydra) both of those animals pose a fundamental problem to the idea of liberation and reincarnation. I'll be willing to go more indepth into biological immortality if one wants to bring up the topic with me. But as it stand right now, we've succeeded at increasing the lifespan of certain worms by 1000 percent  its only 30-50 years away folks . I look forward to seeing how sikhs will deal with biological immortality, is ur conviction in ur religion strong enough for you to reject the possibility of living forever? 



> What are the Atheist (not humanist) principles for day-to-day life and interaction with others? Is there a moral code? Keep one's nose clean and do unto others as you would have done unto yourself?


Are there morals? Yes there are
Is there a moral code? No there is not
Morals are relative and change depending on context, culture, etc. 
Atheists dont believe in absolute moral codes (or moral laws if u will). The only laws we believe in are the laws of logic, math and science. That is not to say that atheists have no morals. We do. 
However, we believe one can have morals without a god-like figure to attribute the morals to. Im reminded of euthephro's dillemma

" are morals good by the grace of god? Or are morals good because they are intrinsically good?"

If you suggest that morals are good only because god says this moral is good. Then the morals are largely arbritary. Meaning, if god willed it: he could have made murder a good moral value. It all goes according to his will, and his will is rather arbritary.

If morals are good because there is something intrinsically good about them—And thats why god chose them. Then there exists something (in this case the intrinsically good nature of morals) that is above the will of god. God cannot make an intrinsically good moral a bad one by simply willing it then.

Either which way, its a problem for the concept of god. Thats one of the reasons that we, as atheists, dont believe in god and why we believe morals are relative. Not to mention the fact that murder (the greatest sin, imo) can become totally justifiable depending on the context of the situation. 

Interestingly enough, their is branch of science that occasionally deals with morals (game theory ). According to game theory the best rule is not "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but rather

"Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do untoyou."

I would suggest reading "The rules of the game" by Carl Sagan. Its an interesting essay from an atheist regarding morals/gametheory and famous religious morals from christ to ghandi 



> Actually in the UK and Australia it is not good to be religious-you are seriously looked down upon.




Yeah, in america it is quite the opposite, your looked down upon for being an atheist. I live in canada tho where no one really looks down upon anyone  




> Your definition of spirituality and mine are very different!!




Yes, most likely. But i dont view spirtuality as related to anything supernatural or religious. I believe an atheist can be spiritual and spiritualty in general is seperate from religiousness. Some of einsteins quotes (einsteins was an atheist himself) show a deep spiritual understanding/awe of nature and the universe




> Humanistic philosophies are not spiritual. They are only half the equation. They also do not give the same level of internal peace (I have not reached that yet btw).




Most buddhist philosophies can be considered atheisitic imo. Seeing as buddhists dont believe in god right, yet they are vastly more spiritual on average then most every religious group (including sikhs). And they dont need a god to do it. So if they can do it, any atheist can—anybody, for that matter, can lol. I'm going to say buddhists are more similar to atheists/humanists in the general sense of the word then to sikhs  prove me wrong 




> Feet toward mecca was forbidden as the belief was that was where God resided. Guru Nanak Dev Ji proved God was everywhere. Feet not pointed towards Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a mark of respect.


Yet sikhs consider the guru granth sahib to be the living embodiment of a guru right? I'm not wrong in saying that. In my opinion their is no difference between believing that a book is a guru, or a cracker is the body of christ, or that a rock is the residence of allah. I'm going to suggest that guru nanak dev ji disrespected their beliefs to illustrate a point. 



> Thread ceremony was rejected as the thread was considered to be protection which is not physically possible. Khanda di pahaul ceremony is for those who want to make a commitment to the Sikhi way of life.




Thats all fine and dandy as long as you acknowledge that just like the thread, there is nothing intrinsically good or pure about the 5 k's. Can we agree on that? Because keeping the hair, metal bracelet and khanda does not physically make you a better person let alone a better sikh. It is essentially just as pointless as the piece of thread (and alot harder to maintain ). 




> That was not proof but opinion as there were good arguments the other way too from what i remember.
> 
> You also forgot in your reply to say which other sources are better....




That thread was full of stupid arguments. One member tried to prove me wrong by suggesting the joke that 1+1=window is a valid logical argument. That thread made me very frustrated, it was like i was talking to a bunch of kids. No offence. But i fail to see ANY good counter points to my argument in that thread. By all means, look it over, and copy paste any arguments you feel were valid and I will address them. But as far as I know, every argument was a joke or a farce. 

BTW i did provide you with some sources, i said bertrand russel, george carlin, etc. Its up their, just read it again.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

chprakj ji

A million thanks for reminding us what the thread is about and how it started. 

I had been planing to remind everyone to try to focus on the starter article a little more as the individual who posted it did present his views in a very personal way and probably was hoping for some replies that were personally connected to him.


Some fascinating concepts are being debated here. And they are related to the thread topic. But they are becoming more and more off to the edge of the thread topic.

Some parts of this discussion could even qualify as independent threads


----------



## sikhway (Nov 3, 2010)

YOU were never a SIKH. You are either a Muslim or a christian.
Now that that is done let's move forward. HERE is your mastery of religions.

""Most other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but rather "this is what we believe"
Judaism, CHristianity and Islam are 100% HISTORY religions.
You seem to like 'scientific' facts as  virgin birth, parting of the sea, production of bread form a sack, walking on water, horses flying to the sky, super baots 10000 years ago to load all of humanity and animals.

YOU know what? I am sorry that we are no match to you.
TO THE EDITORS:
*** are idiots like this doing on SPN.
ERASE his post or I am outta here for good.
Oh I am a SIKH.
An administrator in Canada.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Nov 3, 2010)

sikhway said:


> YOU were never a SIKH. You are either a Muslim or a christian.
> Now that that is done let's move forward. HERE is your mastery of religions.
> 
> ""Most other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but rather "this is what we believe"
> ...



I am not a moderator or administrator, but I would like to point out that this article has gotten people thinking and talking and writing about Sikhi and what it means to them.  That is one advantage of free expression.  There are several Sikh forums that allow only those who agree with their administrators to post freely.  SPN is different.  If you want to leave and not come back that is your choice.  I think it would be more valuable to both us and you, if you stayed around and expressed the views of a proper Sikh.

It's up to you though.


Think about it, dear sikhway ji.


----------



## Prem (Nov 3, 2010)

I don't mind that people have doubts about Sikhi. It is good to discuss and think about these things.

My issue is when people discuss in bad faith, and I believe that the original poster is not a Sikh, and is either a Muslim pretending to be a Sikh, or a Sikh who has converted to Islam.

First of all, to suggest that from a sceptical, critical, rational perspective that Islam is more coherent and less fantastical than Sikhi is risible. Those Islamic history lectures you attended that so impressed you are like most 'dawah' (Islamic evangelism) - lies that white wash thr truth about Islamic imperialism, violence and hegemonic aspirations. Most Muslims don't even understand Arabic, and the Arabic is so arcane and riddled with nonsense that it is contradictory and to use a phrase coined by Christopher Hitchens, like a 'stone age penal manual'. Please google Ibn Warraq for more about this.

This is to say nothing about the white wash and sophistry used when Muslims evangelise on the subject of the prophet Mohammad.

Is you are a true sceptic, be sceptical about all religions. There is no lack of rational sceptical and atheist deconstructions of Christianity. It would be good to have more of these about Sikhi so that Sikhs can keep on their toes and inject vigour into Sikh belief in the 21st century.

But please don't come here as an apologist for Islam, its truly pathetic.


----------



## Prem (Nov 3, 2010)

To the original poster, you forgot to include in your poll the option:

*I am a Muslim pretending to be Sikh to carry out dawah (evangelism) for Islam*


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

Prem said:


> I don't mind that people have doubts about Sikhi. It is good to discuss and think about these things.
> 
> My issue is when people discuss in bad faith, and I believe that the original poster is not a Sikh, and is either a Muslim pretending to be a Sikh, or a Sikh who has converted to Islam.
> 
> ...




It has all the classic features of a daw'ah, no more and no less, doesn't it Prem?


----------



## Chaan Pardesi (Nov 3, 2010)

Dear Prem Ji, you hit the nail directly on the head.I totally agree with your conclusion and felt the same but held back, to see what this persona had to say about responses.I smelt the dawah RAT at once, but thought that some Sikhs would feel I am being over sensitive, if I brought that out there and then.

I hope the Administrators would not allow any further post from this person until he has clarified what has been asked of him, or he may choose to stay in his jahanaam, watching with envy the Sikh janaat, until his day of keyamat.

We should welcome people who question genuinely , but not those with nefarious agenda to undermine Sikh Principles.

To the original poster, I would say the following and welcome you to challenge that ...that Islam is all about absolute materialism,it has an intolerant doctrine; it is totalitarian and murderously militant; it demands total surrender of mind and body to an outdated rigid set of rules;no reformer of islam is tolerated by islamists ...scientifically in history it has been proven time and again repeatedly...that it's terror tactics and cruelty of utmost degree towards fellow humans are the HALLMARKS of Islam.

W.tfw,as a student of law and religion, you will have much to share on these issues and defend the islam you so deliquently studied,if I hear no response from you, I say you are nothing short of a FRAUD.


----------



## ssahluwalia (Nov 3, 2010)

My Reply to thread “ashamed to be Sikh”
Dear Sir, your mother must be feeling very sorry for having given birth to you. You used very hurting heading for your message. Better you feel ashamed of writing this garbage. You were born and you believe that your father did father you. Why do you believe this? What is the proof? Did you try to find out scientifically? Did you test your DNA and did you match it with your father’s DNA to establish that your father is indeed your father. You must have felt very bad after reading all this. I am sure you are hurt.
Dear Sir there are thousands of things which could not be proved. Hindus believe that the Ram is a God. Muslims believe that their holly book came straight from the heaven. Just utter a word against them and they will teach you. It is only the great Sikhism which teaches us tolerance.  We can tolerate the filthy dirt like you. Don’t you feel surprised that after all this stinking language you have used you are still alive? This is because Sikhs can tolerate people like you. Better you do not test again. 
Mister, you cannot comment on our Gurus like this. You are lucky that you did not comment this in a public place. Dare you do this people will eat you up. We know many things are exaggerated. But it is with every religion. 
I love Sikhism because: - 
1.	Hindus are Hindus today not because the God Ram saved them; it was the great sacrifices done by the great Sikhs and because of the great path sown by Shree GURU Gobind Jee that they were saved from conversions.    
2.	I have seen whenever there is celebration like Krishan Janamashtami in the Mandirs, boys tease girls. Many people go to the celebration sites only to enjoy. There are thefts every other day in the Mandirs. The poojaris give parshad after seeing the person and the donation.  There is lot of chhoot (un-touch ability) over there. I am thankful to our great Gurus that the Gurudwaras are very safe for the Women. I along with my family occasionally go to Powta Sahib Gurudwara and take lunger. You can see the poor people with torn cloths, Hindus and sometimes Muslims seating in the same row and taking lunger. There is no partiality. There is no un-touchability. You can see the true sewadars serving with great pleasure on their faces. We feel very pleased there. We come back home entirely satisfied. 
3.	Gurudwaras do render lot of helps to everyone. There, you can get beds and utensils if you have some function at your place. 
4.	There are countless things people are benefited with. You cannot see all that?
5.	The most important of all is that this religion does not teach hate for other communities. We believe in humanity. 

There are countless things and no space is sufficient enough to mention all the goodness of the Sikhism. You are mentally blind if you are unable to see all these.  

Shame on you. May Shree guru Gobind Singh Jee pardon you for your sins. 

S.S.Ahluwalia   
Dehradun


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 3, 2010)

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

First of all my request to you and all other posters of the thread. Please address the person's name whom your post is directed to and who you are responding to about what. It will make things easier for other members who are participating in it by reading the posts. It becomes difficult for others because they have to go back and forth what was said by whom and when. Thanks.

Now coming back to your non response to my post:

  My Question to you:
 <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width=""> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;">                              What is God for you and is the concept of God in other religions  same as of Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi? If yes or no, can you please elaborate  it from your view point?                      </td> </tr> </tbody></table> 
Your response:


> God is a great many things for me  . But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that  knows, sees, feels, creates or etc.


Ik Ong Kaar is not an entity like he/she/it is in Abrahamical religions and others including Hinduism. I thought you knew that because you claimed the following in one of your posts:



> I have problems with the fundamental idea of god. I agree that the  concept of god in sikhism is different then other religions. But the  concept of god in general is something i have issues with. So thats a  point where were both going to have to agree to disagree. Aside from the  concept of god, is there anything else in the guru granth that hasnt  already arose? And i have read the english translations of the jap ji  sahib and parts of the guru granth. Im pretty well versed when it comes
> to the abrahemic religions as well as other eastern philosophies


You continue:



> I much rather challenge your  conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept  of god is not one with which any of you will agree  because all of you  believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity


First and foremost you can not challenge my conceptions of Ik Ong Kaar without sharing yours first because that is my original question to you as mentioned above. It does not work like that. it seems more a cop out when questioned rather than giving an honest answer. Once again you seem confused between different concepts of God in different religions and bundling them all together. I expected much more from you as you claim to have read many religions like the original poster with whom you identify with. I am still waiting for the response from him.



> From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and  therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of  physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of  god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly  omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent  lol.


Once again, the onus lies on you. If you claim Ik Ong Kaar to be the above, then it is your duty to share the concept that you have in your mind through your studies of Sikhi and other religions to further the discussion.

Let's go slowly. We all, no matter what hue,creed or faith (including AtheISM) we belong to, have all our lives to delve into learning. That is the true meaning of a Sikh, a student, a seeker, a learner. It bothers me not if you deny the fact that you are not a Sikh but yet you are and so is everybody else because learning is innate in all human beings.

After you have shared your concept then you can challenge mine when I share that Ik Ong Kaar *IS*.

After this we will go on your preconceived notion about reincarnation in Sikhi.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## ssahluwalia (Nov 3, 2010)

Who you are. What is your name ? What is your aim? you are hiding your real name? 
Why you write this anti Sikh propaganda?

*

ssahluwalia ji
Please name the person you are talking too, as Tejwant Singh suggested. The thread is now so long it is impossible to know who is supposed to answer any one question. *


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 3, 2010)

> Long story short: the bumblebee does not violate any laws of aerodynamics. A simple google search would reveal the fact that the concept you quoted is simply a myth. I'm going to start quoting another site that dealt with this issue:



Yes OK!




> First n foremost, the onus is not on the scientific community to provide evidence against the concept of god.


Fine. And if the Scientific community chooses to doubt the existence of God, there is no onus on the believers to do that either



> Simply put, if there is no evidence "for" the concept of god, then science can safely disregard it.



Sorry that's rubbish...that is far from Scientific method and empirical study. If you want to believe that go ahead but it is not a real scientific approach




> If the onus was always on science, imagine how convuluted the process would be. Imagine if einstein came on the scene, simply said "e=mc^2, now prove me wrong yellingsardarni" lol, it would take a much longer time to prove anything then, progress would not be made


. 

I was not talking about Scientists...I was talking about Atheists, a lot of whom don't understand Science but get on a bandwagon and quote it anyway or spend 30 seconds googling without any real research or learning



> The onus is on the person making the claim, in this case you guys.



Well no, I turned it around remember. Atheists say God does not exist so by your own argument, the onus is on you to prove this! Just as Science can't prove God's existence, it cannot disprove God's existence either. If you want to add your own spin on things and make assumptions that's your choice....but other's don't have to accept that position




> Otherwise i can similarily state "there is a teapot in interstellar space, somwhere between the earth and the moon, but it is too small to be seen by a telescope—now prove me wrong "



Yes you can. The point is facetious but it is nonetheless correct. Let me indulge you here and I will develop this further later. Teapots exist. Space exists. To prove with absolute certainty it is not there as I type this would require observation. All you can say for certain is that the probability is very high that the teapot does not exist. But like I said it's a silly example considering we are having a philosophical discussion about God.



> . Do you really want to use an argument that can simultaneously justify the existance of sasquatch, the tooth fairy and santa claus? If so, by all means, i agree—god is exactly like those three.



Aside from the fact that there is some evidence that appears to support the existence of the Sasquatch, your point is completely meaningless. Think about what you are saying...you are equating ancient beliefs crossing time and geography with something you pluck straight out of your head! Oh look...I thought of a Flying Sphagetti Monster...either he exists or God doesn't exist. Oh look, ...I thought of an elephant with a giraffe's head and a donkey's feet...either it exists or God doesn't exist. 

Very poor argument my friend...very poor indeed for someone as well read as yourself who likes to think things through logically



> Having said that, without using science but instead using logic (logic is a formal language, not unlike math, that can be used to verify the validity of an argument... for example, the statement "the car is either blue or not blue" is always true as there is no possibility beyond what is covered by the scope of the sentance; where as the sentance "the car is red and not red" is always false because no such possibility can exist—u can use similar laws of logic (mainly, proof by contradiction) to determine that god either doesnt exist or exists but serves no purpose). I really dont want to get into this debate though on this thread, as this has little to do with the topic lol. Perhaps another thread if anyone is game?



Go for it!



> God is a great many things for me . But one thing he is not is an actual entity (w/e it may be) that knows, sees, feels, creates or etc. I much rather challenge your conceptions of god then explain my concept of god as I know my concept of god is not one with which any of you will agree  because all of you believe in a god-like-entity ... key-word: entity



No please do elaborate so we know you have some sort of understanding that you are comfortable with even if it goes against what we think



> From a biological point of view: i believe the concept of god is a evolutionary by-product that served a useful evolutionary purpose but just like the appendix, it has lost its use over time (and sometimes, just liek the appendix, it can do harm to us ).



It's an interesting concept. Not when I subscribe to



> From a logical point of view: god is seemingly self contradictory and therefore unable to exist without totally disrupting the laws of physics/math and logic. I would much rather substitute the concept of god with this laws of logic, math and science because they are truly omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent  lol.



No they are not. Anyone who says that has failed to understand Quantum Physics



> From a common-sense point of view: the concept of god and religion in general (along with cults and conspiracy theorists) are ways in which people try to substitute actual knowledge with nonsense to make themselves feel smart... lol i could go on, onto the next topic.



Gibberish my friend. 



> I actually didnt know what she meant by liberation but thanks for the clarification. And no, atheists do not believe in souls, ghosts or other supernatural phenomena. THe purpose of life for an atheist is w/e they make it out to be. There is no wrong answer to that question as far as im concerned. Your purpose in life could range from promoting equal rights to getting drunk 24/7. Human life is objectively, from the point of view of a hypothetical god, meaningless; but from a subjective perspective, the meaning of human life is w/e you make it to be.



OK



> As a side note, they say that biological immortality is only 30-50 years away.



Oh dear..that one made me laugh out loud. Let me see...need I give you examples of Scientific forecasts from the '50's, '60's, '70s etc that were patently absurd. You accuse us of blind faith but I would say you have blind faith in your religion of Science. And as Findingmyway Ji noted in a previous post, having herself studied scientifc subjects for her profession, there is no need to have one or the other...it's only Atheists that have that agenda



> This poses a problem to many religions. What point does a heaven and hell serve, or reincarnation for that matter, if one can live forever if one wants to?



Pointless on this thread but a good debating point on another thread if you want to



> Keep in mind, there are two naturally occuring examples of biological immortality (a certain type of jelly fish and an animal known as the hydra) both of those animals pose a fundamental problem to the idea of liberation and reincarnation. I'll be willing to go more indepth into biological immortality if one wants to bring up the topic with me. But as it stand right now, we've succeeded at increasing the lifespan of certain worms by 1000 percent  its only 30-50 years away folks ].[/QUOTE
> 
> Rubbish!  Until it happens it's rubbish. I could say we are only 100 years from human flight with genetically modified and grown wings....we'll all be like big flapping birds in the sky..whoopee!!
> 
> ...


----------



## karam (Nov 3, 2010)

Lol people have doubts about sikhi but they are okay with sunnat, fasts, huras in heaven, makks and rituals of hajj


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 3, 2010)

Dear Caspian Ji

Another quick thought just flew by...

You said: the car is red and not red is not possible if invoking logic

Well, under Quantum Physics, in so far as the car exists the car is both red and not red 

But someone as well read in Science as you would appreciate that anyway????


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

Tejwant singh, my concept of god has been thoroughly explained in the thread 2+2=5 (or something like that). I'm pretty sure you were around in that conversation back when I initiated it. And it took me pages on end to explain my concept of god. I'm not re-explaining everything. The thread is their, take a look. If you want i can hunt down the thread and post the link. Having said that, i stand by my definition of your god. He is indeed an entity. Any god one "prays" too is a god of personal form. Which falls under the same categories as most other gods from other religions. 

Incidently, (and one can knock on my interpretation if they want) but the whole "ik ong kar" thing in my opinion has less to do with the idea of monotheism and more to do with the universality of god. I think what guru nanak was trying to get at, is not the fact that there is only 1 god (otherwise he would have been more closely aligning himself with islamic scripture and thus alienating a large hindu population). But instead, he was suggesting, no matter who you pray to—bet it allah, ram, ganesh or flying spaghetti monster—its the same god. In this way, the many gods of hinduism and the world for that matter are unified (rather symbolically) to further push the idea of brotherhood amongst men. Thats just my 2 cents. 

So its not "Ik ong kar" as in "monotheism is right and polytheism is rong"
Its "Ik ong kar" as in "no matter what you believe, monotheists or polytheists, you all believe the same thing."

Seeker9

The recent messages that do nothing except condemn the original poster for having even posted his thoughts only prove my earlier point. The vast majority of sikhs are close-minded. You, yourself, have proven not to be. But most people on this site cant get past the insult of a dissenting view point. Even if he was a muslim, his point is largely sound in my opinion. There should be a forum for dissenting views in sikhism—instead we get such priceless quotes like:



> Dear Sir, your mother must be feeling very sorry for having given birth to you. You used very hurting heading for your message. Better you feel ashamed of writing this garbage.



A yo mama joke? Very classy imo



> Mister, you cannot comment on our Gurus like this. You are lucky that you did not comment this in a public place. Dare you do this people will eat you up.



Thats a nice veiled threat wahkaur. The original poster didnt even comment on the gurus or the guru granth but rather the ridiculous stories. I wonder why so many sikhs consider these stories to be on the same level as the guru granth sahib in terms of validity. That they are not to be questioned at all surprises me. 

Anyways, back to our discussion:



> I was not talking about Scientists...I was talking about Atheists, a lot of whom don't understand Science but get on a bandwagon and quote it anyway or spend 30 seconds googling without any real research or learning



Lol, im not sure if this was a vieled insult in my direction for the bumblebee thing. Having said that, i find that a 30 second google search is alot more comprehensive then what the average religious person does to fact check their sources . And I agree that alot of atheists only have a superficial understanding of science. But on average they have a better understanding of science then do religious people. Atheists tend to be smarter, they commit less crimes then religious people, they are all around more moral then religious people. Countries with large atheistic populations (like sweden) fair far better then countries with large religious populations. 



> Well no, I turned it around remember. Atheists say God does not exist so by your own argument, the onus is on you to prove this! Just as Science can't prove God's existence, it cannot disprove God's existence either. If you want to add your own spin on things and make assumptions that's your choice....but other's don't have to accept that position



The only way the onus goes on us to disprove god is not if you "turned it around" lol. After all, who are you? Your a nobody (no offence, im a nobody too). You cant jus say "well i turned it around so from now on, the onus is removed from us, and its on u guys—good luck with that ." Thats not how it works. The person making the claim has the onus. The only way we get the onus of disproving god is if you somehow prove he exists. Then we'd have to examine ur proof (its called peer review). That is the scientific method. 



> All you can say for certain is that the probability is very high that the teapot does not exist. But like I said it's a silly example considering we are having a philosophical discussion about God.



Its actually a valid philosophical point that was originally furthered by bertrand russel (google search: russels teapot). But right, i love talking in terms of probability, i just assumed we were always talking in terms of probability. Although I have said "god does not exist" in the past, i acknowledge that from my point of view, there is an infinitly small chance that god does exist. So I can say there is a very high probability that god does not exist . Just as u said about my poor teapot. 



> Rubbish! Until it happens it's rubbish. I could say we are only 100 years from human flight with genetically modified and grown wings....we'll all be like big flapping birds in the sky..whoopee!!



Yes you can say that. Although sumone would look at your claim and think your crazy because there has been no research or evidence into your claim. So its a baseless claim. And one can look at my claim, realize that biological immortality is a very real and naturally occuring phenomena and that we have already succesfully modified the lifespan of certain organisms by thousands of percent and they can see why my claim makes more sense. Im not pulling this out of thin air. Keep in mind, science and technollogy has been progressing exponentially, not linearly. It only took us what? 50-60 years to get from the first plane to the first space shuttle right? These last 100 years have seen more change then the preceeding 1900 years before it combined. Its not a stretch to assume the next 100 years will see even more change  





> No they are not. Anyone who says that has failed to understand Quantum Physics



"[FONT=Trebuchet MS, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" - Richard Fynmen (a wellrespected american physicist).

Religious and spiritual people have come clamoring to quantum mechanics inorder to justify their beliefs. I wish you could honestly do it but you cant. I feel like you dont really have all that well an understanding of science. Only a few hours ago you believed that the bee should not be able to fly according to the principles of aerodynamics. And now you believe that religion is in line with quantum mechanics? Please explain how or why? 

In any way. Quantum mechanics is not inherently "self contradictory." Instead, it contradicts the theory of relativity. Physicists are trying to work out how the two connect—if it all. They are also investigating other possibilities such as string theory  


[/FONT]


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

> Dear Caspian Ji
> 
> You said: the car is red and not red is not possible if invoking logic
> 
> ...


Yes i am familliar with that, i think your alluding to schrodingers cat (the thought experiment in which the cat is both dead and alive). Keep in mind that originally, that thought experiment was used to highlight the absurdity of quantum mechanics and not in any way to promote it. Schrodinger wanted to show why quantum mechanics cant exist—because it violated some natural laws of logic at the time.

Having said that, in the forthcoming time since then. Quantum mechanics has changed to better fit those laws of logic (and physics). Quantum mechanics is essentially meaninless on its own—you have to succumb to a "interpretation" of quantum mechanics and view it throught that interpretation. One of which is known as "many-worlds hypothesis" which posits thats at the moment of any 50/50 chance, the universe splits into two, one in which the cat is dead and the other in which the cat is alive. Therefore reconciling quantum mechanics with the laws of logic and physics. 

Indeed, these days, the schrodinger cat experiment is used to gauge the effects of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. The more popular ideas tend to deal with the cat experiment in neater ways without breaking the laws of logic. 

So in the case of the car, it still stands that the car cannot be red and be red at the same time within the same world.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Yes i am familliar with that, i think your alluding to schrodingers cat (the thought experiment in which the cat is both dead and alive). Keep in mind that originally, that thought experiment was used to highlight the absurdity of quantum mechanics and not in any way to promote it. Schrodinger wanted to show why quantum mechanics cant exist—because it violated some natural laws of logic at the time.
> 
> Having said that, in the forthcoming time since then. Quantum mechanics has changed to better fit those laws of logic (and physics). Quantum mechanics is essentially meaninless on its own—you have to succumb to a "interpretation" of quantum mechanics and view it throught that interpretation. One of which is known as "many-worlds hypothesis" which posits thats at the moment of any 50/50 chance, the universe splits into two, one in which the cat is dead and the other in which the cat is alive. Therefore reconciling quantum mechanics with the laws of logic and physics.
> 
> ...



Yes that is a more accurate statement. It is both until observed and then it becomes one or the other. You can dismiss QP if you like but it is at the cutting edge of current theoretical physics......you may not like it because it isn't as firm and resolute as your own preferred beliefs


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

> Yes that is a more accurate statement. It is both until observed and then it becomes one or the other. You can dismiss QP if you like but it is at the cutting edge of current theoretical physics......you may not like it because it isn't as firm and resolute as your own preferred beliefs



It is only "both" probabilistically. It is not actualllly both. From the point of view of the cat inside the box, it is not both dead and alive. It is either dead or alive. From outside the box, we cant say wether it is dead or alive so for us it is more accurate to say it is both dead and alive. I have to make that distinction lol because the cat is an observer in his own right. 

On the contrary, I do like quantum physics . But your going to have to explain how it adds support for a religious or spiritual point of view. Because it doesn't. I find that religious people tend to use qunatum mechanics to justify their beliefs because they feel as if quantum mechanics makes "anything" possible. Its not a magic elixir though, qunatum mechanics has to obey by the laws of physics/ logic and math as well. Although were only figuring it out now, in some time, QM will become a resolute theory. Even then, it does not provide evidence for a god. 

BTW i responded to alot of what u had to say in a prior post on the bottom of page 6 incase you missed it  good discussion so far tho


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Nov 3, 2010)

Seeker 9 ji is absolutely correct.  I think I can make it even easier to understand.

Some years ago, I read a very interesting book that challenged much of our Western (Aristotelian) logic system, especially the mutually exclusive part (A thing is either A or ~A  (A or not A).  Apologies to Ayn Rand, sometimes it applies and sometimes not. 

Take, for example a car that has purple doors and the rest of it is red (OK, it's ugly, but I'm making a point here, bear with me.)

Is the car red?  Well, yes and no.  Grey areas do exist in real life.  And it's not even necessary to invoke the rather difficult, esoteric field of quantum physics

BTW, the book is called _Fuzzy Math. _


----------



## wftw (Nov 3, 2010)

WoW! I did not expect this many posts regarding this topic. I am been rather busy with my school work, so had not had the chance to look at this.

I will read all the posts and respond to all the inquiries, just give me some time.


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

No, thats an example of "the car is red." Inorder to be "the car is not red" there must be no read what so ever on the car. Not even one speck of red. You can also say that car is pink and be right. You can say that car is pink and red. But you cannot say that car is red and not red.

You can come up with many examples of cars that are part red. But even then, the "part red" cars fail to satisfy the claim "the car is not red" while be able to satisfy the claim "the car is red" so if you were to say "the car is red and not read" it would still be false.


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

Lol, you can direct more of your questions to wftw now  i would suggest asking him if hes a secret muslim first. It seems like that idea has gained traction


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 3, 2010)

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the non-response response.

Let's try to decipher what you are trying to say with your study of the religions.



> Tejwant singh, my concept of god has been thoroughly explained in the  thread 2+2=5 (or something like that). I'm pretty sure you were around  in that conversation back when I initiated it. And it took me pages on  end to explain my concept of god. I'm not re-explaining everything. The  thread is their, take a look. If you want i can hunt down the thread and  post the link. Having said that, i stand by my definition of your god.  He is indeed an entity. Any god one "prays" too is a god of personal  form. Which falls under the same categories as most other gods from  other religions.



Give me one reason through your studies of  religions why you claim Ik Ong kaar to be an entity? As you are into logic, you must be able to do that. Praying in Sikhi is not to any entity or to any deity but it is more like thinking aloud, talking to oneself in the mirror, the way of introspection. Nothing more.



> Incidently, (and one can knock on my interpretation if they want) but  the whole "ik ong kar" thing in my opinion has less to do with the idea  of monotheism and more to do with the universality of god. I think what  guru nanak was trying to get at, is not the fact that there is only 1  god (otherwise he would have been more closely aligning himself with  islamic scripture and thus alienating a large hindu population). But  instead, he was suggesting, no matter who you pray to—bet it allah, ram,  ganesh or flying spaghetti monster—its the same god. In this way, the  many gods of hinduism and the world for that matter are unified (rather  symbolically) to further push the idea of brotherhood amongst men. Thats  just my 2 cents.
> 
> So its not "Ik ong kar" as in "monotheism is right and polytheism is rong"
> Its "Ik ong kar" as in "no matter what you believe, monotheists or polytheists, you all believe the same thing."



I have no idea where you got the above from in my post. I never mentioned anything like that.

Sikhi is not an ism. I thought you knew that. If Sikhi is an ism then so is Atheism.

Ik Ong Kaar is not a deity as other religions have the ones you are bundling Sikhi with for the reasons only known to you. 

And FYI, Ik Ong Kaar means ONE SOURCE OF ALL there is. So what do you understand by that? Please express yourself with your logic and reasoning that you are so proud of and try to distinguish between religions rather than bundling them together because you FEEL it is the right thing to do.

There is one more thread about Atheism (about 12 pages) in this forum that you should go through where I had the interaction with another atheist and explained him what Sikhi is all about. Unfortunately you have missed the point and fail to understand what Sikhi is all about. If I were you I would study a bit more about it and ask questions when in doubt rather than jumping to conclusions. That would be unreasonable according to any person who uses logic and reasoning.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Chaan Pardesi (Nov 3, 2010)

Dear Administrators..Gurfateh,

A simple request, I have no hope of hearing from the originator upon the subject .Even if he responds now, it is not at all possible to answer  my questions and challenges put to him , let alone others and those who have expressed emotionally as well.

I suggest the title "ashamed to be Sikh" portays negativity about Sikhism, therefore should be changed to "Proud to be Sikhs", and allow the thread to run its natural course.[or Ashamed to be NOT a Sikh]

I am not happy  with such heading [ashamed to be Sikh] as I believe it can still have some unwarranted effect upon people glancing through the net.

Allow us to turn this into the pillar and strength of the Sikh religion.This should be a lesson to others, that Sikhs will not   stay silent, when sad individuals with agenda try it on.

gurfateh


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

Tejwant, in the beginning I have said

"either there is no god, or if there is a god—then he is pointless"

It very well may be the case that the sikh god does exist. But he is essentially pointless then. Without being able to violate any rules of logic, math or physics—the sikh god just happens to be those laws of logic, math and physics. Hes just a middle man in that sense. 

But instead of saying my concept of god is wrong and not the sikh one. Explain to me what the sikh concept of god is and i'll explain to you how its no different. Because i still stand by my statement and you havent shown me to be rong, uve just maintained that i am rong. show me.

Basically put, from my point of view. If you god is capable of any quality like "creating" "knowing" etc. He is an entity.


----------



## wftw (Nov 3, 2010)

I just skimmed through the posts and noticed a couple of things.

1. Everyone thinks I am of some other faith? ***? To challenge ones faith makes you of another faith? 

I certainly did not come here with an agenda to convert anyone to another religion, you can see this by the examples that I give because they do not favor one religion over another. 

If this is how you really feel, then there is no hope in me even going on because what ever I say will be viewed with a closed minded. 

2. If you can not attack my arguments, you are attacking me. This is really closed minded. Something Sikhs are taught not to do. 

3. A lot of people have seemed to taken part every single sentence I have made. My intend was not to discuss this like some childish argument but rather the broader sense in a historical, factual, and proable sense. 

I will look at these posts but I can already tell that most people here have already made up their mind about the arguments I want to advance and the way I am doing it. If anyone would like, I am happy to meet them in person and discuss this in the Houston area and you can see for your self that I am not a Muslim, Jew, or whatever pretending to be a Sikh.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

*Folks we are way off topic at this point.  Digressions at one point were valuable to clarify points individuals needed to make. Now digressions are leagues away from the central theme. So you may be wondering what am I going to do about it? Probably split the thread. The original theme is about feeling shame about being a Sikh and the reasons, contradictions,  about that.


wftw, I will give you some more time to gather together your responses, and post them so we can return to the center. If not sooner, then later I will be splitting least one other conversation from this. 
*


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

> Dear Administrators..Gurfateh,
> 
> A simple request, I have no hope of hearing from the originator upon the subject .Even if he responds now, it is not at all possible to answer my questions and challenges put to him , let alone others and those who have expressed emotionally as well.
> 
> ...



Lol, is there no freedom of speech on this site? The title should remain. Atleast let the originator explain why he chose the title. And if your going to change the title, why change it to something as off-topic as "proud to be sikh." As for the "negative" effects. Are you promoting a facade on this site? Are sikhs only allowed to be proud? Is there no way a sikh can be ashamed? And if one was to come to u wanting your opinions your going to censor him and re-lable him as "proud"? 

Im hopinh some sikhs would atleast agree with me against the name change of the title. Or atleast, if your going to change the title, change it to something neutral instead of replacing what you deem as propaganda with your own blatanly propagandish title of "proud to be sikh"


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

wftw said:


> I just skimmed through the posts and noticed a couple of things.
> 
> 1. Everyone thinks I am of some other faith? ***? To challenge ones faith makes you of another faith?
> 
> ...



*
It seems that you posted as I was posting at the same time. 

Now I am giong to say that we need a better answer than this.

*


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

> It seems that you posted as I was posting at the same time.
> 
> Now I am giong to say that we need a better answer than this.



Ill agree to shut up for the time being if people want to quiet their critiques about my points of view as well for the time being.

 so that we can focus on wftw's subsequents posts? 

eitherwhich way, im shutting up for the time being to let him speak  I think that should suffice? 

*I have removed moderation fonts from the above statement to avoid confusion. spnadmin*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Tejwant, in the beginning I have said
> 
> "either there is no god, or if there is a god—then he is pointless"
> 
> ...



Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

It is sad to notice that you have  got it all wrong once again. If I am not mistaken, your emotions are playing part in this rather than your logic and reasoning. Once again, Sikhi has NO GOD. Hence Sikhi has no middle man as you falsely claim.

I think you failed to read my post. Ik Ong Kaar means  ONE SOURCE FOR ALL there is and I posed you a question what you understood by that which you failed to respond. 

You keep on repeating that you stand by what you said but you fail to give any reasons behind your claim which seems quite illogical. Please take sometime to read my posts and then do not be afraid to ask questions.

Thanks and regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> Lol, is there no freedom of speech on this site? The title should remain. Atleast let the originator explain why he chose the title. And if your going to change the title, why change it to something as off-topic as "proud to be sikh." As for the "negative" effects. Are you promoting a facade on this site? Are sikhs only allowed to be proud? Is there no way a sikh can be ashamed? And if one was to come to u wanting your opinions your going to censor him and re-lable him as "proud"?
> 
> Im hopinh some sikhs would atleast agree with me against the name change of the title. Or atleast, if your going to change the title, change it to something neutral instead of replacing what you deem as propaganda with your own blatanly propagandish title of "proud to be sikh"



*I have no intention of changing the title. So keep your powder dry veer ji.  Again, without knowing to whom you are addressing your comments, I am forced to re-read a lot of material. Please do not hold your breath. The next irrelevant comment that is made will be deleted without warning. *


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

*I will be re-opening this thread in a few minutes. This is truly, yes, Caspian ji and wftw jij, exactly what troubles so many these days. An unmistakable and clear demonstration of authority.

Now - I want to make something clear without any over-posting of my comments.

1. Caspianji - You are suffering from a syndrome called "ideas of reference" insofar as you could not figure out that my comments were not directed to you. They were as clearly indicated in the quoted section directed to wftw. 

2. Caspian ji - If you believe they were directed at you, then are you saying that you and wftw are the same person? I hope that is not the correct answer.

3. For this thread to make sense it would be a good idea for all members to refrain from trying shape or govern in any way the decisions of leaders or admin through the use of derisive comments.

4. That only compounds the irrelevance of some of the comments I have been reading. Also do not try to second guess me in particular. 

5. wftw  Please answer the questions that have been asked of you. Of course people have been taking your statements apart, analyzing and questioning each aspect. What did you expect?  The kid gloves treatment.? When you start a thread with such a title then to borrow from the English of East London, "people will give as good as they get."


That wraps it up. Next round will tell what the outcome is going to be. Some who are participating here for the love of Sikhi and the love of debate will be disappointed if the thread stays closed. But of course you can see my point of view. *


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

Thread re-opened.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> It is only "both" probabilistically. It is not actualllly both. From the point of view of the cat inside the box, it is not both dead and alive. It is either dead or alive. From outside the box, we cant say wether it is dead or alive so for us it is more accurate to say it is both dead and alive. I have to make that distinction lol because the cat is an observer in his own right.
> 
> On the contrary, I do like quantum physics . But your going to have to explain how it adds support for a religious or spiritual point of view. Because it doesn't. I find that religious people tend to use qunatum mechanics to justify their beliefs because they feel as if quantum mechanics makes "anything" possible. Its not a magic elixir though, qunatum mechanics has to obey by the laws of physics/ logic and math as well. Although were only figuring it out now, in some time, QM will become a resolute theory. Even then, it does not provide evidence for a god.
> 
> BTW i responded to alot of what u had to say in a prior post on the bottom of page 6 incase you missed it  good discussion so far tho




No it is both you still haven't quite grasped it. Suggest you read John Gribben who wrote a book called Schrodinger's Cat. The Quantum state is not the same as what you are describing. 

you can slso google the expt where physicists proved the simulateneous existence of a particle in 2 places at once

Hope this reads ok as it is from my phone


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

*What is the connection to the thread topic, Seeker9 ji? Please elaborate. spnadmin*


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 3, 2010)

Caspian said:


> No, thats an example of "the car is red." Inorder to be "the car is not red" there must be no read what so ever on the car. Not even one speck of red. You can also say that car is pink and be right. You can say that car is pink and red. But you cannot say that car is red and not red.
> 
> You can come up with many examples of cars that are part red. But even then, the "part red" cars fail to satisfy the claim "the car is not red" while be able to satisfy the claim "the car is red" so if you were to say "the car is red and not read" it would still be false.



this is well off topic and I am not going to post any further on the car is red angle! Dear Mai Jii thanks for bringing us back to the real world! winkingmunda


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 3, 2010)

Seeker9 said:


> this is well off topic and I am not going to post any further on the car is red angle! Dear Mai Jii thanks for bringing us back to the real world! winkingmunda


*
Thank you. *


----------



## Caspian (Nov 3, 2010)

> It is sad to notice that you have got it all wrong once again. If I am not mistaken, your emotions are playing part in this rather than your logic and reasoning. Once again, Sikhi has NO GOD. Hence Sikhi has no middle man as you falsely claim.



Then i have no quarrels with your point of view. Sikhi has no god. Sikhs are essentially atheists then. We're on the same page  thnx for enlightening me with that explanation of the sikh concept of god... 

I'll debate with those who believe sikhi has a god.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 3, 2010)

Dear Caspian Ji

I sense we are going round in circles so last post for me for a while as this very easy and highly enjoyable diversion is keeping me away from my studies and an exam that is only days away

We have each given our respective views a good airing and it has been fun

Re the Science thing, yes it's a broad area and aerodynamics is outwith my sphere of interest. But having commented so freely on my own lack of knowledge it seems there's an awful lot you're not particularly knowledgeable about either! So if nothing else, I hope I have rattled a few bars in your "logic cage"

As for atheists being more knowledgeable about Science than religious people....HAH HAH HAH HAH .......HAH HAH HAH......HAH HAH HAH........good one! 

And on that happy note, I wish you well and will return to this thread in a couple of weeks if it's still going....

All the best
R


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 3, 2010)

spnadmin said:


> *What is the connection to the thhe read topic, Seeker9 ji? Please elaborate. spnadmin*



Hah hah..sorry SPNAdmin Ji
Caspian and I got carried away in a separate debate where I was trying to show that there are aspects of reality that defy his/her logical view of the Universe

But no link whatsoever to the opening post....


----------



## usdhillon (Nov 3, 2010)

Thank you for thought provoking paper. We need such kind of discussion in order to understand and promote this religion. As we have right to disagree and the same way writer has the right to express himself as well.

I totally agree with this young and brave writer. I am sikh by birth but I truely believe that what most people practice today is not sikhism. It is more like a politcal statement. Sikhism and its so called learders have failed to attrect young generation. I have seen Amritdharis's doing their day to day business with low morals. I do sometime feel ashmed to relate myself to Sikhism.

Writer has valid points. Such discussions are needed in order to get things in check and send strong message to political and religious leaders. Those who do not want to listen otherside of the story are rigid minded and unreasonable people. Such thinking will only take young people away from religion as it is happening now. I would ask following questions to those who want to attack writer;

(i) Why there is power struggle in EVERY gurudwara?
(ii) All guruwardas are rich in cash and kind, why are they not giving back to community as other religions do, by helping poor, opening schools, making affordable housing etc. Is seva means, cleaning shoes, doing langers.. does seva also mean helping community hospitals.. if that is the case, have you seen anyone doing it? Just one?? 

(iii)Why in every gurudwara people bash other religions and do not accept others equal?(Well,I do not know about India, but this happens in USA/UK a lot.

(iv) Is it okay to eat meat? some say yes, some say no.. and no one challange each other and discuss it in a healthy way..


and list can go on and on...

I would thank writer for the post again.(there are 1000s grammatical and spelling mistakes in my post..please pardon me for that). I wish there was a book written by somebody who exposes hyprocate sikhs.. but NO... everybody is afraid, he will be kicked out of the religion.. But we have to question ourself.. "are we in it ?"


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 3, 2010)

Dear wftw ji,

Coming to a Sikh forum and denigrating Sikhi whilst supporting other belief systems (with some poor points in my opinion) was always going to get you negativity. However, you raise some pertinet points so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and provide you with some background reading. I've chosen forum posts rather than essays so you can see what other Sikhs say about these things (and also non-Sikhs too). Contemplate then return and comment as I'm sure all are keen for your response.

Also in view of the long thread (for which I am partly responsible!), I hope this post provides some focus back to the original issues.

1 Historical inconsistency and unverifiable history
this part of the forum contains a wealth of information:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/historical-events/

However in view of your criticism maybe you could also look here:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/617-janam-sakhi-are-true-events.html

2. Lack of knowledge of religious text

There are too many threads I could put here but I'll stick to just one. The entire forum is filled with instructions to learn and follow otherwise we are not respecting the Guru's.
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/15327-is-it-necessary-understand-entire-bani.html

ok, maybe 2!
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/new-to-sikhism/26016-paath-kirtan-and-katha-whats-difference.html

3. Hypocrisy in Sikhism

I agree but I would say this is not a problem just among Sikhs. Every group of people around the world will have the same issue. It should be tackled but defiling Sikhi for a humna trait that manifests itself in every walk of life is just plain insulting.

4. Attacks on Islam

Now this is a complicated topic. It's hard not to be hurt by issues like this:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/31927-pave-streets-gold-but-we-wont.html
However, we wont tolerate injustice and will stick up for others when needed incl muslims:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/united-states/32071-hate-crimes-against-muslims-rise-us.html
I did stick up for muslims in a recent thread as being subject to discrimination, i dont want to discriminate against others. The feeling has to be mutual though:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/united-states/32071-hate-crimes-against-muslims-rise-us.html
Here's some food for thought
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/28476-interview-makhdoom-syed-chan-pir-qadri.html

5. Sikh Theory vs reality.

Sikhi is a lifelong learning process so do not criticise unless you are following the path yourself. If you are and have knowledge then share that with those around you so the theory becomes reality. This forum is one way of enabling that. If you criticise others but do nothing constructive about the situation, that makes you a hypocrite. There are hundreds and thousands if threads dicussing these issues so do some homework!!

Hope you enjoy the reading and hope it's helpful icecreamkaur

USDhillon ji,
You also raise some pertinent points:
1) In the Guru's time religion ran politics. Now politics runs religion. When Sikhs do not become Gurmukhs, ego takes over and fights ensue. Here are some good thoughts
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/32174-wages-for-pathi-sri-akhand-path.html
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-toons/30078-gurdwara-fights.html

2) Lots of Gurdwaras have seva projects. Houslow Gurdwara in London run eye camps in Panjab for free and I think they also do educational stuff locally amongst other things. I can get you their details if you like. A Gurdwara I was previously attending used to use leftovers to feed the homeless but had to stop when UK brought in more stringent laws for food. Another Gurdwara I used to go to had a homeless guy come for langar each week. After the Melbourne forest fires the Gurdwara's were instrumental in helping people. Have you tried organising something like that at your local Gurdwara? Someone is always required to start these things. Many Gurdwara's dont do enough but that will only change if people take the initiative. Also many Gurdwara's are struggling for funds, my local one is a perfect example of this. The negative is always more discussed than the positive.

3) Please clarify this point. We've had Hindus come then demand we change our teaching as it is not inline with their beliefs!! How do you propose reacting to that? When I understand this point better, I will look for some threads for you.

4) http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html

Also I read somewhere that Gurdwara's are not welcoming? I beg to differ-we frequently host events for non-Sikhs and if you read through the new to Sikhism pages you'll find many posts saying the opposite.

Hope you enjoy the reading and it answers more questions than it raises (though questions are good)!
Jasleen.


----------



## closetonanak (Nov 4, 2010)

Sat Shri Akal to All,

Dear  you go by basics.

* It is not compulsory to you that u have to become Sikh. This is a PANTH. Where any body can join and follow it.

* My veera You know if anybody become nitmeni na automatically we can understand the meaning of bani.

*  we are not enemies of any religions/ or religious thots. but at that time what our guru sahab done coz of islamic policy. (at the end of war banda bahadur givs water to all soldiers who wer injured rather sikh or muslim.)

* lot of thing to say.. .. but i am adiving you to do what u want but dont hurt our feelng. ( humble request)


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 4, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam 

These sort of questions arise when people begin to debate over opinion. 
It is the same art of scholar pandits that debate over the vedas. There is nothing to be gained, but it is interesting to the ones taking part. 

All religions are about faith. The faith in a concept or concepts,whatever they are, binds one to a set of practices.
When one realises what faith is, then it become immaterial as to whether the practices one involves oneself in are true/historically correct/virtuous/out of accord with scriptures or fomer leaders statements/unrealistic. Religions are always based on someone or anothers manmat. Please read into and study Japji Sahib, such as pauri 3. Gurmat is a form of Manmat as it is derived from Manmat. Following  "pure" Gurmat" is only shifting back to someone else's manmat, and putting all faith in it. Then when questions like this arise, clear cut unquestionable answers cannot be found that will satisfy non-believers, as the root source of knowledge of all religions is opinion. Meanwhile those with faith will remain carefree and completely satisfied. 

People who want to accept, will accept without question; those who don't wish to are whistling in the wind and should get on with their own lives without trying to use logic/reason to condemn practices built on faith. This option is always open to them. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Nov 4, 2010)

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Part of my original post that you pasted for your response:



> It is sad to notice that you have got it all wrong once again. If I  am not mistaken, your emotions are playing part in this rather than your  logic and reasoning. Once again, Sikhi has NO GOD. Hence Sikhi has no  middle man as you falsely claim.


Your response:



Caspian said:


> Then i have no quarrels with your point of view. Sikhi has no god. Sikhs are essentially atheists then. We're on the same page  thnx for enlightening me with that explanation of the sikh concept of god...
> 
> I'll debate with those who believe sikhi has a god.



Pardon my bluntness but your above statement is false and a cop out. It is you who claimed that you have read Jap ji and other parts of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, our only Guru. Those are your conclusions after your studies. You kept on insisting through your own Sikh studies that Ik Ong Kaar is an entity which you were told that he/she /it is NOT.

So, as a good debater, please do not keep on insisting on repeating falsehoods that you gathered with your own studies while blaming other Sikhs for their beliefs.When you are caught in your own cobweb, then ask for help, ask questions so that you can shed off your self created truthiness. Make knowledge your best friend rather than your worst enemy You have repeatedly said that the Atheists look for reasons and logic and btw, so do the Sikhs. Sikhi demands that from us.

If you need any help to clarify your self conceived falsehoods about Sikhi through your own studies, we are here to give you a hand.

As poor Sharon Angle would say: Man up, Caspian!

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## tkaur (Nov 4, 2010)

It was interesting and upsetting at the same time to read your topic! I'm not denying what you have experienced...it is rather sad that you think this way. You are saying that feel like you have learned all that you needed to know about Sikhi but YOU DID NOT. 
Sikhi is the most modern, scientific based, open minded religion but sadly you've been around people who were unablet to convey this you by their actions, practices, and lack of understanding in the doctrine.
I also applaud you for bringing forth the negative path our so called "granthis" or "gyanis" have taken. I wonder if they even understand or know what it means to be one! Just because our leadership, religious representative are corrupt, doesn't mean we will get astray from our path. 
Our Sikh religion teaches us humility, humanity, brotherhood, and the right way to live our life. It is the responisbilty of each parent to learn and teach their children about Sikhi. 
Guru Nanak Sahib was the "light" that shone for all and people from all relgions considered him their guru or peer. Muslims in Sindh and Middle East also call him "Nanak Tapa or Peer." Guru Sahibs also fought for women rights, and education and equality for all. Guru Arjan Dev ji, Guru Teg Bahadur ji, Guru Gobind Singh ji, their families, and Khalsa all fought for fundamental rights of all, humanity, and against forced conversions by other religions. 
Our religion has never offended any ones and respected them all but when there is torture or fights on the name of religion, we have stood up to save and fight for everyone's rights.
I pray and hope you find peace and understanding! You are confused and for that somewhat our society is also to blame for that. But try to stand up, open your mind, and go to the right sources to get your information on Sikhi.


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 4, 2010)

tkaur said:


> .
> I also applaud you for bringing forth the negative path our so called "granthis" or "gyanis" have taken. I wonder if they even understand or know what it means to be one!


 
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

T Kaur Bhen ji, I agree with everything you wrote, save for above lines. I think you are being a bit hard on granthis generally. There may be some who are out of line, or who don't have a clue, but it is not right to stereotype all of them based on personal experiences. They are humans, with human failings and should not be expected to be ideal role models with an ability to intepret Gurbani exactly as Guru Sahiban intended. They will understand Gurbani as God sets the path out for them, same as any other individuals. 
Gurbani is there for each and every individual who gets the urge, to contemplate upon and gain an understanding, and non-gyanis should take this step of learning for themselves instead of blaming gyanis. 

The initiator of this thread does not seem to wish to take a constructive approach, and learn directly from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, wheras Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji will answer all his questions, from misleading people, to hypocrisy, to persecution, to pointless recitals. Such failings to learn from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji are individuals failings and cannot be offset onto the shoulders of organisations. First one has to have complete faith in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and in God, and all answers will come to mind and doubts will be dispelled.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## a.mother (Nov 4, 2010)

Sat sri akal, wftw ji 
*Well from my side of the coin I am proud to be born as Sikh and also proud to born from sikh parents.* 
        May be I am not educated like you, may be not a researcher like you ,but when I heard something like you mention I have to say somethings, schooling is that kind of "lou" (light) or ( fire) which you can use for cook the delicious food or you can burn the house or winter time for the warmeth, thats depend on how wise you are or how smart you are. I haven't read your all post yet,because I felt how you feel ,this is daily story in mostly sikh families.
      I  have a point that how we all know this is my mom or dad because our mom told us SORRY we did not witness it same with dad, mom an dad told us *WE DID NOT  HAVE ANY PROOF of it*.( sorry I don't want to hurt anyone) That is depend on our believe, same thing with religion. Guru sahib ji stop the rock or baba Deep Singh ji 's story. These are not only stories  all depend on your believe. Every thing is possible this is not math that you can get answer right way . My point is if you are science  student then you have no knowllege for politics but you can't say we don't have any govt.or president or prime minister. To achieve something we have to go for school for that subject. Sikhism is a very practical religion. Sikhism is that kind of butter who whip the milk can get it.To feel the practically you have to dip in it with pure heart . And science is not a big thing, where it stops Sikhism starts.


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Nov 4, 2010)

ikonkaar
Every religion has to create myths and attribute super-human powers to their prophets and heroes, becuse a follower has to believe that his Guru was differant  from ordinary people.
My belief is that Guru Nanak Dev JI, in his life-time, would have strongly opposed any such myths or powers being attributed to him.
wftw simply wantd to know why we are scared to discuss such issues, where as we find wast critical literature on for e.g. Shroud of Turin, Noah"s Arch,Birth of Christ etc.:seriousmunda:


----------



## Chaan Pardesi (Nov 5, 2010)

jasbirkaleka said:


> Every religion has to create myths and attribute super-human powers to their prophets and heroes, becuse a follower has to believe that his Guru was differant from ordinary people.
> My belief is that Guru Nanak Dev JI, in his life-time, would have strongly opposed any such myths or powers being attributed to him.
> wftw simply wantd to know why we are scared to discuss such issues, where as we find wast critical literature on for e.g. Shroud of Turin, Noah"s Arch,Birth of Christ etc.


 

I disagree, and say that Sikh religion did not create any myths.I will start with short references to our history and the teachings.

1]It is evident with Guru Nanak, when he challenges Babur and the mythological power of the Moghuls that had suppressed the indian mind ... ..says

..eti maat payee kurlane, tain ki dard na ya...

[So much carnage and death has been committed , have you no compassion] 

This was the first direct challenge to a ruler ever in India.

2]It is no myth when Guru Arjan Ji goes to martyrdom in the face of suppresion and freedom of religion.

Guru Arjan composed SUKHMANI and says on page 262..

_Meditate, meditate, meditate peace is obtained, Worry and anguish is expelled from the body_. 
<DD>_Remembering God, you’re not reborn. Remembering God, the fear of death is dispelled._ <DD>_Remembering God, death is eliminated. Remembering God, your enemies are repelled._ <DD>_Remembering God, no obstacles are met. Remembering God, night and day you’re fully awake._ <DD>_Remembering God, fear cannot touch you. Remembering God, you don’t suffer with sorrow._ <DD>_Remembrance of God, in the Company of Saints. All treasures, O Nanak, are by Lord’s Blessing._ ||2|<DD>

3]Guru Hargobind Sahib or Sacha Patshah took his father's excution at age 11 with sweetness, a feat that you and I will never be able to do.He put on two swords: one for spiritual authority and the other temporal authority.He built the Akal Takhat , the Throne of the Almighty.He created the Flag of the Khalsa and prepared the suppressed mind of the people to take to arms. The war-drum which was beaten twice a day


4]The Chader of Hind,the Protector of Hind - Guru Teg Bahadur clearly invited martydom for the freedom of ANOTHER faith by defyiing Aurangzeb who cherished the ambition of converting India into a land of Islam.

5]The Sahib A Kamaal,Shah of the Shahs The Magnificent in Blue, Guru Gobind Singh, the son of A martyr, and father to Four Martyrs, the pillar of defiance to tyranny and inhumane Acts,created from a Zero, FIVE , who rose to spiritually fight and temporally assert against all odds and thousands the simple Message of TRUTH and Bravery of Faith is not a myth either.In one of His poems and message it is clear and as stark as day light and night ...

All the battles I have won against tyranny
I have fought with the devoted backing of the people;
Through them only have I been able to bestow gifts,
Through their help I have escaped from harm;
The love and generosity of these Sikhs
Have enriched my heart and home.
Through their grace I have attained all learning;
Through their help in battle I have slain all my enemies.
I was born to serve them, through them I reached eminence.
What would I have been without their kind and ready help?
There are millions of insignificant people like me.
True service is the service of these people.
I am not inclined to serve others of higher caste:
Charity will bear fruit in this and the next world,
If given to such worthy people as these;
All other sacrifices are and charities are profitless.
From toe to toe, whatever I call my own,
All I possess and carry, I dedicate to these people.

In the prayer of Sri Rehraas, Guru Gobind Singh Ji,  says clearly ... 
<DD>"ਪਾਂਇ ਗਹੇ ਜਬ ਤੇ ਤੁਮਰੇ ਤਬ ਤੇ ਕੋਊ ਆਂਖ ਤਰੇ ਨਹੀ ਆਨਿਯੋ ॥ ਰਾਮ ਰਹੀਮ ਪੁਰਾਨ ਕੁਰਾਨ ਅਨੇਕ
<DD>ਕਹੈਂ ਮਤ ਏਕ ਨਾ ਮਾਨਿਯੋ ॥ ਸਿੰਮਿ੍ਤਿ ਸਾਸਤ੍ ਬੇਦ ਸਭੈ ਬਹੁ ਭੇਦ ਕਹੈਂ ਹਮ ਏਕ ਨ ਜਾਨਯੋ ॥ ਸੀ੍   ਅਸਿਪਾਨ ਕਿ੍ਪਾ ਤੁਮਰੀ ਕਰਿ ਮੈ ਨਾ ਕਹਿਯੋ ਸਭ ਤੋਹਿ ਬਖਾਨਿਯੋ ॥"
<DD> 
<DD>"Since I fell at the feet of God, no one has appeared great in my eyes. Ram and Raheem, the Puranas and Qu'ran, have many votaries, but neither do I regard. Smritis, Shashtras, and Vedas, differ in many things; not one do I heed. O Supreme God! under thy favour has all been done; nought is of myself."
<DD> 
<DD>In September , 1708, he gave an Order...
<DD> 
<DD>"Agya bhai Akal ki tabhi chalayo Panth Sabh Sikhan ko hukam hai,Guru maniyo Granth Guru Granth Ji manyo pargat Guran ki deh Jo Prabhu ko milbo chahe khoj shabad mein le Raj karega Khalsa aqi rahei na koe Khwar hoe sabh milange bache sharan jo hoe." 
<DD> 
<DD>"Under orders of the Immortal Being, the Panth was created. All the Sikhs are enjoined to accept the Granth as their Guru. Consider the Guru Granth as embodiment of the Gurus. Those who want to meet God, can find Him in its hymns. The pure shall rule, and impure will be no more, Those separated will unite and all the devotees shall be saved." 
<DD> 
<DD>These are not myths of Sikh religion, but facts.Sikh religion holds no water for miracle and myths as is clearly apparent in almost every other religion.That is not for me to discuss or condenm.
<DD> 
<DD>Finally,I disagree with your defence of WftW.He did not ask questions, he demeaned and made false allegations about Sikh religion.Not only that ,he does not understand the boundaries between behavioral,cultural and spiritual, lack of educational and ettiquette aspects of a soceity and mish meshed the whole-then made a very bold statement that Sikh religion is baseles, while making some sweeping statements about Christianity and Islam; which by his own admission was learnt by stage manning some visits to churches and Mosques.He then admitted that he has not learnt the Guru Granth Sahib.So how did he managed to compare the three religions against each other?
<DD> 
<DD> 
<DD>As that was not enough, he then staged a disappreance act, while readers offered their views, he did not respond to ??s upon his original post.
<DD> 
<DD>Days later, he emerges, what does he do?He laments about being unfairly treated and accused and personal attacks.
<DD>
[Considering, he made personal attack upon the very Gurus and Sikh principles held in reverence by millions of Sikhs]

He did not respond to any single response asked of in the many posts.I know for a fact,lawyers use that as one route to escape facing the music, that they stir; which is exactly what this budding "student of law" appears to have learnt to do.In simple words, a good way to escape the dock when cornered.

A myth, he then tried to spread was, that Sikhs are "scared" to discuss.Absolute rubbish.Only Sikhs scared to discuss are those who perhaps for one reason or another have not learnt their religion well enough, just like the millions more Christains and muslims who are equally scared to discuss anything about their religion.

One poorly painful cutural aspect that Sikhs have carried on as a baggage is the standrad of granthis.One will never find a granthi who has a degree in Forensics, or Science or Medicine or Chemistry, for a number of reasons. Only those who failed to accomplish any high standard of academia and failed standard Five or Four in the Punjab then go on to become granthis for other reasons as well.I say, such are not the people, who are well qualified to debate or discuss.In fact much of the poor state of the Sikh religion today is due to lower standard of skills learnt in education by these granthis.In the current world times Sikhsim cannot be propogated by an 18th century mindset, that many granthis seem to profess.

To conclude,instead of making such false and pervasive claims, and disappering, then lamenting pitifully after seeing the re-action, it would have been noble of W.FTW to have responded first to the key points raised.


​</DD>


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 5, 2010)

The religion is not what is written in the holly books. It is what the person lives by.
As we see there are many inconsistencies in every religion. 
We Sikhs always put other religion down so that we can look good. We feel proud when we listen the stories of magic performed by our Gurus.

I don’t think any scientist test the hand mark on the stone. As Dilbirk claim that Sikhism is the only logical religion in the world. He failed to explain where is the logic in these stories. As a Sikhs I can not question any thing in our religion. Every this is said no matter how ideological the story  it has to be  true. As Mai Ji pointed it out.

I have asked many questions like these but always I was put down by all. 
One was Nanak had great idea, what went wrong and what can be done about it.
Couple of the people reply only to say that Hindus are creaping into to Sikhism to corrupt it.
WE can not take the responsibility that we are the one who are corrupting our religion.

Nanak did not tell us in of his poetry to do any rituals. Yet we are doing more rituals then Hindus. Every day new ritual is creeping in to Sikhs thanks to the granthies and khatha watch. There is no will by SGPC. The publick are accepting what what the rigis are telling us. No one allowed to question the khatha watch to explain what he is saying.

No one here  is admitting that Sikhism is full of stupid retiuals but they are very quickie to rip apaer the person who ask question.
Please read the post again (seeker9,findingmyway dilbik) and kindly reply to the question. You are killing the messenger. 

MY warning to wftw is be-carefull many are sharpening their daggers.


----------



## a.mother (Nov 5, 2010)

ssahluwalia ji, 
        I did not copy your point for about mother and father. That I read only today as Nov. 5th. Because they are similier  only I want to clear that. (They come from heart which don't want to hear anything negetive for guru sahib ji)
        I am still not done with all posts,but I can say head line is very negetive and hurtful.It could be titled like " *Why we proud to be Sikh ?* "


----------



## jasbirkaleka (Nov 5, 2010)

Chaan Pardesi said:


> I disagree, and say that Sikh religion did not create any myths.I will start with short references to our history and the teachings.
> 
> 1]It is evident with Guru Nanak, when he challenges Babur and the mythological power of the Moghuls that had suppressed the indian mind ... ..says
> 
> ...


Chaan Pardesi ji.

<DD>Whatyou have written in your post are facts.What I was talking about was myths.

<DD>Do you claim that  no myths have creeped into  Sikh religion,which in its original form was very rational.<DD>Did any of our great Gurus ever claim that they possess the power to perform miracles?swordfight 

</DD>


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 5, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> The religion is not what is written in the holly books. It is what the person lives by.
> As we see there are many inconsistencies in every religion.
> We Sikhs always put other religion down so that we can look good. We feel proud when we listen the stories of magic performed by our Gurus.
> 
> ...


 
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

I don't think anyone on this site is sharpening daggers, but still there is some high degree of intolerance to different views.  This is a Sikh site and so most will write in interest of Sikhs. However when Sikhs claim to be almost the most tolerant of people on this planet, then they set themselve a very high standard to live of fall by.  When they fall, they have a long way to fall. 

Rituals are part and parcel of religion. That is what they are about, otherwise they would not be a religion. 
Guru Nanak tried very hard to break free from them all, and to shift to most simple worship of God alone. This is bhakti-yoga, or krishna consciousness. This does NOT imply it is Hinduism, but simply means it is GOD worship. However Sikhs have over time shifted the goal-posts to Guru worship, history worship, past hero worship gurdwara worship, their own identity worship, their own ritual worship. In each case they will deny it is not rituals, but it is to any outsider every bit ritualism, but with another name. When they shift go back to God worship, they will be following goals of enlightened founder.

I will take a daring step now, and maybe banned for saying it: Guru ji's from 4th Guru onwards engaged in nepotism. Guru Nanak ji ensured this did not happen, but unfortunately this did not persist through lineage of Guru Sahiban. Sikhs will deny any differences between Gurus as they have to beleive in one light through all  - if not the castle built on sand collapses. 
However when you have people with Hindu backgrounds becoming Sikh Gurus then all is open to change and introduction of ritual. Dasam Granth is evidence of deep roots embedded back into Sikhism. 

Very sad ending for very great efforts by  Gurus. I am personally convinced SGGS ji is only wisdom in Sikhi. The Gurus contibuting to it did not intoduce any ritual, but unfortunately Sikhs of today follow and idolise 10th master, instead of SGGS ji. With that comes all the rituals and guru worship and scripture worship, and recitals, and there is little God worship.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## Chaan Pardesi (Nov 5, 2010)

Chaan Pardesi Ji,
1]what have written in your post are facts.What I was talking about was myths.
2] Do you claim that no myths have creeped into Sikh religion,which in its original form was very rational.
3]Did any of our great Gurus ever claim that they possess the power to perform miracles.
**************************************************************************************************************************
Dear Jasbirkaleka Ji,Gurfateh, 

2]Nowhere I claimed anything apart from the facts of Sikhism ; and my personal view on how F.tfw responded, most inappropriately. 

Yes,I say and rightfully claim that NO myths are present in the teachings of the Sikh religion.It is as pure as it was 545 years ago.The principles of the religion are steadfast and strongly entrenched.They will not change.Guru Granth sahib cannot change a single of its word for as long as the world lives on.Jugo jug attal.....the Gurus did not promote any myths and also did not support any myths.So how have they crept into the religion?They have not crept into the religion, but into people who profess sikh faith and their practices of the religion, as they think ;not necesarily rightly.
What has happened is the standard of Sikhs has fallen.The level of understanding by Sikhs about the teachings of Guru Granth sahib has fallen.Sikhs have lost the plot.Sikhs have transgressed the path of Gurbani.They have become slaves of all sorts of human exploitation, as they lost their faith in the Granth sahib.Thay have taken to matt pooja, baba pooja, derawaad, barsis, this jatha and that jatha chelas.They have adopted man mat instead of Gurmat and taken to durmat.That is hardly any part of the Sikh religion.The religion is as pure as it founded and preached by the first Guru.But the people lost it, and have adopted various activities that are not part of the religion at all.That does not mean the religion condons it.

As they developed such wayward mentality it was natural they start believing all sorts of tales, black magic and myths, practices of lighting lights at statues,wearing dhage/thread around necks and wrists , shaving off their children's hair etc..that is hardly a practice condoned by the Sikh Gurus and or is found in the teachings of SIKH religion! 

3]Can you please provide the quote where I have alledgedly said "that our great Gurus ever claim that they possess the power to perform miracles"I dont think, I ever said that nor that was ever an issue in any of my write ups.


With Nimratta sahit...Gurfateh


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 5, 2010)

sunmukh said:


> Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
> 
> I don't think anyone on this site is sharpening daggers, but still there is some high degree of intolerance to different views.  This is a Sikh site and so most will write in interest of Sikhs. However when Sikhs claim to be almost the most tolerant of people on this planet, then they set themselve a very high standard to live of fall by.  When they fall, they have a long way to fall.
> 
> ...




sunmukh ji 

Here again is an example where you try to second-guess SPN policies and procedures.

Almost every single paragraph has been a topic of discussion more than once in more than one thread. No one was banned for it. But when you make statements as in bold, you have to expect that other members are going to be outraged and reserve for themselves the right to speak their minds. After that - if things get out of control in terms of bad karma - of course someone is going to receive an infraction, or be told to settle down, or be banned. 


Now what do you mean by nepotism? How did Guru Teg Bahadur receive the gurgaddi?  The story is a bit more complicated than nepotism. There were a lot of contenders. The outcome could have been worse. Or depending on how you look at it, the outcome could have been better for one branch of the family and worse for the other. It certainly worked out well for Kashmiri pandits. And is that not the test of nepotism? When people who are not related to you in any way shape or form benefit from your sacrifice, then you have shown honor and independence. 

 The test of nepotism is to see if the benefits from keeping power and influence are jealously kept inside the sacrosanct circle of family and friends. Who among the Gurus from Hargobind to Gobind behaved in such a nefarious manner?
*
I would add wtvt - here is something to be proud of. The founders of our religion taught us how to get over ourselves. *


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 5, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

SPNAdmin ji

Nepotism is being used as commonly defined in dictionaries.

This is one definition 

*



			The practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs
		
Click to expand...

 - oxforddictionairies.com
*
There is no implication that the nepotism is destined to result in either poorer or better decision making by the favoured person. 

So in a way, perhaps you are also jumping to second guessing, by asking whether any Sikh Gurus behaved in anything other than a most humble, virtuous, and self-sacrificial manner. None of this is in dispute and there is no implication that there were any "nefarious" acts of part of any Sikh Gurus. 

Nevertheless I personally think, in my own opinion, which is all it is, is that nepotism existed and resulted in the transfer of gurugaddi rather than transfer based solely on merit.

_*Admin Update: Related Thread http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/business-and-lifestyle/33128-lineage-of-the-sikh-gurus.html*_ 

In my own humble opinion this is most probably the reason that there are no shabds from 6th, 7th, 8th or 10th Guru Sahiban in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. It is possible that their jyot was in fact a little different from the other 6 Guru Sahiban, something recognised by Sri Guru Gobind Singh.  

Each one of these 4 Gurus had by now more than sufficient followers and extensive financial resources, so had means at their disposal to have shabds written, if not by themselves then at least by contracted poets/scribes/composers. Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji had over 50 poets in his court, and used them extensively, but still did not see fit to include compositions in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.

So now when I wonder why that is, I unfortuntely have to second guess, and assume in my manmat that what was being written by these 50 odd poets was not in accord with Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, and Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji  was also well aware of this fact. 

What was coming out was quite possibly not in line with the very pure non-ritualistic devotion to God that Sri Guru Granth Sahib inspires one to follow. The message of Sri Guru Granth Sahib is very simple albeit repetitive at times. There is devotion to God, remembrance of God, love of God, along with good or virtuous actions and charity when possible. There is no space or time in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji  for subscriptions to rigorous daily ritualistic recitals at rigorously prescribed times ( amritvela being a time to reflect deeply upon God, not necessarily to recite), to dress uniquely, to seek an identity separate from one's neighbour, to become proud of one's behaviour aboove the behaviour of others, to put down other religions, to create states, to worship Guru ji above God (Guru Nanak Dev ji bows to God)  Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji advocates devotion to God alone. He alone is the sole object of why humans are in this form, with no time for worship of Gurus or idolisation of one's religion and its practices. Removal of ego and duality can lead one to visualisation of this objective, and with God's grace one may realise it. 

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 5, 2010)

> *Originally Posted *by sunmukh ji
> 
> Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
> SPNAdmin ji
> ...



Interesting afternoon of speculation veer ji


----------



## jssands (Nov 5, 2010)

Waheguru ji ka KHALSA Waheguru ji ki Fateh. Well All well said we all have the right to express.......... In Punjabi we often say" Doosrey di Thali wich Ladoo wadda hi dikhaayi denda hai" May we all lead ourselves to inward journey of inner illumination....... Asin dilon te dimaagon SIKH haan thats why we are PROUD SiKHS. Know yourself and the world is yours........Need of the hour is not to grab the ocean.......but to know yourself........


----------



## dalbirk (Nov 6, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> The religion is not what is written in the holly books. It is what the person lives by.
> As we see there are many inconsistencies in every religion.
> We Sikhs always put other religion down so that we can look good. We feel proud when we listen the stories of magic performed by our Gurus.
> 
> ...



Seeker Ji ,
            What I specifically protested against was that wftw did not put a single instance from Bhai Gurdass Ji Vaars which also contain Guru history , a authentic source for getting to know Sikh history . I perhaps also did not find any quotations from Sri Guru Granth Sahib which are our guiding light hence the base of Sikh philosophy & beliefs . Instead the Janamsakhis which were written long after Gurus were gone in late 18th century were taken to point out some tales which are inconsistent with the basic philosophy & beliefs of Sikhism . Add to the woes are the illiterate Granthis which quote these Saakhis out of faith or love for Gurus little knowing they are belittling the achievement & lives 
of the Gurus by quoting such stories . As for SGPC the less said , the better it is . Yesterday a friend of mine who is close to Avtar Singh ( Makkar ) SGPC president told me that Makkar had made more than 50 crores ( USD 12 million ) in five years by selling his ( President's ) quota in SGPC managed collleges @ 5 seats per instituion only annually . The rest of SGPC annual budget of 550 crores ( 140 million USD ) is also having a cut @15% for office bearers of SGPC . How much goes to whose pocket is anybody's guess . In this state of loot who has time to think about the affairs of Sikh Panth , everybody is busy collecting his share , only he has to be the YESMAN in the eyes of Badal senior & junior who have anyhow no time for Panth busy collecting their own Moolah whether they have to pander to rabid RSS or Deras , Babas is not of any concern to them . Everybody is making the hay while the sun shines .


----------



## Guru di beti (Nov 6, 2010)

wftw said:


> Dear Friends,
> 
> Just like many of you, I was born and raised a  Sikh. I have gone to Sikh Gurdwaras since an early age and sat in the  sangat and absorbed the teachings of the "gurus." At an early age, I  attended a large Gurdwaras  California, however my family located when I  was 16 to a different sate with a much smaller Gurdwara. However we  still continue to attend on a regular basis, my admittance up until this  day is consistence. I go every Sunday with my parents and on special  occasions when there is a special Sikh holiday.
> 
> ...


Please read carefully: reason why we do Paath  WFTW hope God blesses you with peace of mind and strenght to have faith in Sikhism, spiritually. 


An old American Sikh lived on a farm in the mountains of Eastern Kentucky with his Young Grandson.fficeffice" />
Each morning Grandpa was up early, sitting at the kitchen table,reading his Guru Granth Sahib.
His grandson wanted to be Just like him and tried to imitate him in every way he could.

One day the grandson asked, "Grandpa! I try to read The Guru Granth Sahib just like you: but I don't understand it, and what I dounderstand, I forget as soon as I close The Granth Sahib.
What good does reading the Granth Sahib do?"
The grandfather quietly turned from putting coal in the stove and replied,

"Take this coal basket down to the river and bring me back a basket of water."

The boy did as he was told, but all the water leaked out before he got back to the house.

The grandfather laughed and said, "You'll have to move a little faster next time,"
And sent him back to the river with the basket to try again

This time the boy ran faster, but again the basket was empty before he returned home.

Out of breath, he told his grandfather that it was impossible to carry water in a basket, and he went to get
a bucket instead.

The old man said, "I don't want a bucket of water; I want a basket of water.

You're just not trying hard enough," and he went out the door to watch the boy try again.

At this point, the boy knew it was impossible, but he wanted to show his grandfather that even if he ran as fast as he could, the water would leak out before he got back to the house.

The boy again dipped the basket into river and ran hard, but when he reached his grandfather, the basket was again empty.

Out of breath, he said, " See Grandpa, it's Useless!"

"So you Think it is Useless?" The old man said, "Look at the Basket."

“The boy looked at the BASKET and for the first time realized that the BASKET was different.

It had been transformed from a Dirty Old Coal Basket and was now clean, inside and out.

"Son, that's what happens when you read Guru Granth Sahib.

You Might Not Understand or Remember Everything, But When You Read it, you Will Be Changed, inside and out.

“That is the work of Waheguru in our lives"


----------



## manas_ki_jaat (Nov 6, 2010)

I have read the whole thread and I am surprised to see the cat-fight over the issue raised by “wftw”. Even the most prominent members are included. Be calm. I have very little knowledge as compare to you people. But let me try to put some water on this hot topic.


1)	“wftw has given the name of this thread Ashamed to be sikh”. Let him/her be ashamed. I can bet that she/he have not read Sikhism completely. She/he has written that “_Just like many of you, I was born and raised a Sikh. I have gone to Sikh Gurdwaras since an early age and sat in the sangat and absorbed the teachings of the "gurus_." Now the point is if she/he would born in islam the title would have “Ashamed to be muslim” if she/he would born in Christian religion the title would have “Ashamed to be Christian”. So, according to me there should no fight on the title. Half knowledge of anything is dangerous.
2)	“wftw”, you raised questions on the historical events. So, let me tell you, almost every historical is having a controversy attached to it. You can pick any topic from history (Not necessarily related to any religion) and you’ll find controversies attached to it. You can never be certain about the past. Just for an example, pick up the topic of 9/11 you’ll find lots of controversies attached to it.
3)	Many of the members in this thread are suspicious about the old stories and some of you started giving evidence of those stories. What do you think a story is? Let me give the definition of a story. “A story may or may not be real, but story always point toward the truth. Story is just a signal toward the truth. Just like a sign board. Sign board shows you the way. But if you stand there and hold the sign board you can never reach to the destination. And sorry to say many of us are holding the sign and stood there instead of moving toward destination. In this context I am agree with “wftw” most of the people including granthi of gurudwaras are doing the same. But this is also truth that you can find these types of people in all the religions. Most of the followers are always wrong. So, don’t take decision which would based on the views of followers.
4)	If I say you that bring the evidence of hare and tortoise story you would certainly think me foolish. One can never bring the evidence of these stories. So, we must always be interested in morals. But some of the stories are recorded in history books with their dates of occurrence. So, you cannot deny from the fact that they really happened. You people are suspicious because these stories are told to us by lots of people over the years. Everybody told these stories according to their level of understanding. So, when one thing is told to us from lots of mouths there is always a strong chance of misinterpretation. That’s what happens to all the historical stories. So, before taking any decision in hurry its better to get the complete knowledge. And religion is such a vast subject and wftw you are just 23 and I advise you to spend some more time and don’t compare one religion with other because all are unique in their sense.


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 6, 2010)

spnadmin said:


> Interesting afternoon of speculation veer ji


 
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

I am pleased you found it interesting ji. It is indeed speculation. There is little that  isn't speculation when it comes to debates on religion? As Guru Nanak Dev ji most pointedly points out so many find time to opinionate (including myself ).



> ਕਥਨਾ ਕਥੀ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਤੋਿਟ ॥
> kathnaa kathee na aavai tot.





> There is no shortage of those who preach and teach.
> ਕਿਥ ਕਿਥ ਕਥੀ ਕੋਟੀ ਕੋਿਟ ਕੋਿਟ ॥
> kath kath kathee kotee kot kot.
> Millions upon millions offer millions of sermons and stories.​


​ 

Furthermore, all they do is think they know more than the next:



> ਨਾਨਕ ਆਖਿਣ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਆਖੈ ਇਕ ਦੂ ਇਕੁ ਿਸਆਣਾ ॥
> naanak aakhan sabh ko aakhai ik doo ik si-aanaa.





> O Nanak, everyone speaks of Him, each one wiser than the rest.
> ​


​ 
Speculation is the bedrock of all religions. They are all founded upon opinion. 

However once one is convinced of one's opinions then spiritual progress can be made on the spiritual ladder. One's mind state is completely changed when one firmly believes in a set of opinions:



> ਮੰਨੇ ਕੀ ਗਿਤ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥
> mannay kee gat kahee na jaa-ay.
> The state of the faithful cannot be described.
> ਜੇ ਕੋ ਕਹੈ ਿਪਛੈ ਪਛੁਤਾਇ ॥
> jay ko kahai pichhai pachhutaa-ay.





> One who tries to describe this shall regret the attempt.
> ​


​ 

When "wftw ji" wrote of regurgitating bani, and rocking back and forth, he/she did not understand the state of mind of the one's with faith in what they do. 
When he wrote of errors in  history, he/she did not understand the state of mind of the one's who believed in it, whatever was told to them. 

The same will apply to those who visit the Kaaba, or  worship a stone, or believe in God having a son. It does not matter. All practices, including Sikh practices, are based on opinions but they become extremely useful to the ones who hold faith in them AND PRACTISE TRUTHFULLY.  It is the practising that is often at fault. This  leads to people noticing evidence of hypocrisy. SGGS is full of references to hypocrisy.

However when wftw ji wrote of lack of knowledge on part of granthis he/she did not seem to note that even gyanis are human. They are not necessarily perfect. They will form opinions and they will re-express them. Yet their faith in their opinions or perceptions fulfills their own minds needs, and what they re-express satisfies the needs of much of the attending sangat. The sangat reattends the following week and this is evidence of its satisfaction. 

You have referred me to advice in Gurbani to seek the company of the sants.

The most holy is the Lord. There is no sant above or equal to the Lord. The place to find the Lord is within. His shrine is within, in the inner temple of the mind. In His Darbar, the sants, the siddhas, the demi-gods, the devtas, the angels all sing  kirtan  night and day. The naad resounds. 

One will not necessarily find the holy sants sitting on the floor in the diwan hall of a gurdwara, and the knowledge or wisdom we often seek of gyanis does not have to be sought solely of them - instead we can find the Lord within, with His grace. 

P130:



> ਸੰਤ ਿਪਆਰੇ ਸਚੈ ਧਾਰੇ ਵਡਭਾਗੀ ਦਰਸਨੁ ਪਾਵਿਣਆ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
> sant pi-aaray sachai Dhaaray vadbhaagee darsan paavni-aa. ||1|| rahaa-o.
> The Beloved Saints were established by the True Lord. By great good fortune, the
> Blessed Vision of their Darshan is obtained. ||1||Pause||
> ...





> Twenty-four hours a day, the wind breathes Your Name.
> ​


​When we rise above opinionating upon others opinions, then we move away from duality, and move towards single-minded focus on the Creator. We may then with His grace,  see His light in all opinions, whatever the opinons are.  He is the source of all paths, or opinions expressed abou Him, whether they are expressed by  Sikhs or by members of other faiths  or their multiple sects.

I wish you and wftw ji well on your paths, and trust he will note he/she does not need to query the paths of fellow co-disciples, which are rooted in faith of their perceptions.Instead I hope he takes time to read and also reflect very,  very deeply upon Gurus' wise words all found in SGGS ji. There is deep eternal truth found in SGGS ji, but when we look outwards our minds begins to wander. If we have faith in whatever we say we believe, then notions about others failures to be realistic about history and lack of religious knowledge of others, all falls by the wayside. 
The same reason is why I brought up the ideas of nepotism and rituals in Sikhi. If someone looks for defects in others they will find them. If someone simply practices truthfully in what one believes, then it becomes insignificant and immaterial what others are up to. They simply merge into the background of creation and are seen as other facets of the Lord's great creation. What will matter to the Lord, I believe, is what one does, not what others do. 



> ਗੁਰਾ ਇਕ ਦੇਿਹ ਬੁਝਾਈ ॥
> guraa ik dayhi bujhaa-ee.
> The Guru has given me this one understanding:
> ਸਭਨਾ ਜੀਆ ਕਾ ਇਕੁ ਦਾਤਾ ਸੋ ਮੈ ਿਵਸਿਰ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥੫॥
> *sabhnaa jee-aa* kaa ik daataa *so mai visar na jaa-ee*. ||5||





> there is only the One, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him! ||5||
> ​


​ 
Sat Sri Akal


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 6, 2010)

sunmukh ji

Here is a possible itinerary for the journey we may take, gur prasaad. In short, Guru Nanak is steering us away from earlier conceptions of how to find Naam. He steers us from the  mistaken path of an introverted and self absorbed sadhana and into the path where all the threads of bhagati are tied together and join as one idea. He does this so that we do not mistake the highway for the destination. 

ਆਸਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
aasaa mehalaa 1 ||
आसा महला १ ॥
Aasaa, First Mehl:

ਮੇਰਾ ਮਨੋ ਮੇਰਾ ਮਨੁ ਰਾਤਾ ਰਾਮ ਪਿਆਰੇ ਰਾਮ ॥
maeraa mano maeraa man raathaa raam piaarae raam ||
मेरा मनो मेरा मनु राता राम पिआरे राम ॥
My mind, my mind is attuned to the Love of my Beloved Lord.

ਸਚੁ ਸਾਹਿਬੋ ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਅਪਰੰਪਰੋ ਧਾਰੇ ਰਾਮ ॥
sach saahibo aadh purakh aparanparo dhhaarae raam ||
सचु साहिबो आदि पुरखु अपर्मपरो धारे राम ॥
The True Lord Master, the Primal Being, the Infinite One, is the Support of the earth.

ਅਗਮ ਅਗੋਚਰੁ ਅਪਰ ਅਪਾਰਾ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਪਰਧਾਨੋ ॥
agam agochar apar apaaraa paarabreham paradhhaano ||
अगम अगोचरु अपर अपारा पारब्रहमु परधानो ॥
He is unfathomable, unapproachable, infinite and incomparable. He is the Supreme Lord God, the Lord above all.


ਆਦਿ ਜੁਗਾਦੀ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਹੋਸੀ ਅਵਰੁ ਝੂਠਾ ਸਭੁ ਮਾਨੋ ॥
aadh jugaadhee hai bhee hosee avar jhoothaa sabh maano ||
आदि जुगादी है भी होसी अवरु झूठा सभु मानो ॥
He is the Lord, from the beginning, throughout the ages, now and forevermore; know that all else is false.

ਕਰਮ ਧਰਮ ਕੀ ਸਾਰ ਨ ਜਾਣੈ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਮੁਕਤਿ ਕਿਉ ਪਾਈਐ ॥
karam dhharam kee saar n jaanai surath mukath kio paaeeai ||
करम धरम की सार न जाणै सुरति मुकति किउ पाईऐ ॥
If one does not appreciate the value of good deeds and Dharmic faith, how can one obtain clarity of consciousness and liberation?


ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਸਬਦਿ ਪਛਾਣੈ ਅਹਿਨਿਸਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਈਐ ॥੧॥
naanak guramukh sabadh pashhaanai ahinis naam dhhiaaeeai ||1||
नानक गुरमुखि सबदि पछाणै अहिनिसि नामु धिआईऐ ॥१॥
O Nanak, the Gurmukh realizes the Word of the Shabad; night and day, he meditates on the Naam, the Name of the Lord. ||1||

ਮੇਰਾ ਮਨੋ ਮੇਰਾ ਮਨੁ ਮਾਨਿਆ ਨਾਮੁ ਸਖਾਈ ਰਾਮ ॥
maeraa mano maeraa man maaniaa naam sakhaaee raam ||
मेरा मनो मेरा मनु मानिआ नामु सखाई राम ॥
My mind, my mind has come to accept, that the Naam is our only Friend.

ਹਉਮੈ ਮਮਤਾ ਮਾਇਆ ਸੰਗਿ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਰਾਮ ॥
houmai mamathaa maaeiaa sang n jaaee raam ||
हउमै ममता माइआ संगि न जाई राम ॥
Egotism, worldly attachment, and the lures of Maya shall not go with you.

ਮਾਤਾ ਪਿਤ ਭਾਈ ਸੁਤ ਚਤੁਰਾਈ ਸੰਗਿ ਨ ਸੰਪੈ ਨਾਰੇ ॥
maathaa pith bhaaee suth chathuraaee sang n sanpai naarae ||
माता पित भाई सुत चतुराई संगि न स्मपै नारे ॥
Mother, father, famliy, children, cleverness, property and spouses - none of these shall go with you.


ਸਾਇਰ ਕੀ ਪੁਤ੍ਰੀ ਪਰਹਰਿ ਤਿਆਗੀ ਚਰਣ ਤਲੈ ਵੀਚਾਰੇ ॥
saaeir kee puthree parehar thiaagee charan thalai veechaarae ||
साइर की पुत्री परहरि तिआगी चरण तलै वीचारे ॥
I have renounced Maya, the daughter of the ocean; reflecting upon reality, I have trampled it under my feet.

ਆਦਿ ਪੁਰਖਿ ਇਕੁ ਚਲਤੁ ਦਿਖਾਇਆ ਜਹ ਦੇਖਾ ਤਹ ਸੋਈ ॥
aadh purakh eik chalath dhikhaaeiaa jeh dhaekhaa theh soee ||
आदि पुरखि इकु चलतु दिखाइआ जह देखा तह सोई ॥
The Primal Lord has revealed this wondrous show; wherever I look, there I see Him.

ਨਾਨਕ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਛੋਡਉ ਸਹਜੇ ਹੋਇ ਸੁ ਹੋਈ ॥੨॥
naanak har kee bhagath n shhoddo sehajae hoe s hoee ||2||
नानक हरि की भगति न छोडउ सहजे होइ सु होई ॥२॥
O Nanak, I shall not forsake the Lord's devotional worship; in the natural course, what shall be, shall be. ||2||

ਮੇਰਾ ਮਨੋ ਮੇਰਾ ਮਨੁ ਨਿਰਮਲੁ ਸਾਚੁ ਸਮਾਲੇ ਰਾਮ ॥
maeraa mano maeraa man niramal saach samaalae raam ||
मेरा मनो मेरा मनु निरमलु साचु समाले राम ॥
My mind, my mind has become immaculately pure, contemplating the True Lord.

ਅਵਗਣ ਮੇਟਿ ਚਲੇ ਗੁਣ ਸੰਗਮ ਨਾਲੇ ਰਾਮ ॥
avagan maett chalae gun sangam naalae raam ||
अवगण मेटि चले गुण संगम नाले राम ॥
I have dispelled my vices, and now I walk in the company of the virtuous. 

ਅਵਗਣ ਪਰਹਰਿ ਕਰਣੀ ਸਾਰੀ ਦਰਿ ਸਚੈ ਸਚਿਆਰੋ ॥
avagan parehar karanee saaree dhar sachai sachiaaro ||
अवगण परहरि करणी सारी दरि सचै सचिआरो ॥
Discarding my vices, I do good deeds, and in the True Court, I am judged as true.

ਆਵਣੁ ਜਾਵਣੁ ਠਾਕਿ ਰਹਾਏ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਤਤੁ ਵੀਚਾਰੋ ॥
aavan jaavan thaak rehaaeae guramukh thath veechaaro ||
आवणु जावणु ठाकि रहाए गुरमुखि ततु वीचारो ॥
My coming and going has come to an end; as Gurmukh, I reflect upon the nature of reality.


ਸਾਜਨੁ ਮੀਤੁ ਸੁਜਾਣੁ ਸਖਾ ਤੂੰ ਸਚਿ ਮਿਲੈ ਵਡਿਆਈ ॥
saajan meeth sujaan sakhaa thoon sach milai vaddiaaee ||
साजनु मीतु सुजाणु सखा तूं सचि मिलै वडिआई ॥
O my Dear Friend, You are my all-knowing companion; grant me the glory of Your True Name.

ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮੁ ਰਤਨੁ ਪਰਗਾਸਿਆ ਐਸੀ ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਪਾਈ ॥੩॥
naanak naam rathan paragaasiaa aisee guramath paaee ||3||
नानक नामु रतनु परगासिआ ऐसी गुरमति पाई ॥३॥
O Nanak, the jewel of the Naam has been revealed to me; such are the Teachings I have received from the Guru. ||3||


ਸਚੁ ਅੰਜਨੋ ਅੰਜਨੁ ਸਾਰਿ ਨਿਰੰਜਨਿ ਰਾਤਾ ਰਾਮ ॥
sach anjano anjan saar niranjan raathaa raam ||
सचु अंजनो अंजनु सारि निरंजनि राता राम ॥
I have carefully applied the healing ointment to my eyes, and I am attuned to the Immaculate Lord.


ਮਨਿ ਤਨਿ ਰਵਿ ਰਹਿਆ ਜਗਜੀਵਨੋ ਦਾਤਾ ਰਾਮ ॥
man than rav rehiaa jagajeevano dhaathaa raam ||
मनि तनि रवि रहिआ जगजीवनो दाता राम ॥
He is permeating my mind and body, the Life of the world, the Lord, the Great Giver.


ਜਗਜੀਵਨੁ ਦਾਤਾ ਹਰਿ ਮਨਿ ਰਾਤਾ ਸਹਜਿ ਮਿਲੈ ਮੇਲਾਇਆ ॥
jagajeevan dhaathaa har man raathaa sehaj milai maelaaeiaa ||
जगजीवनु दाता हरि मनि राता सहजि मिलै मेलाइआ ॥
My mind is imbued with the Lord, the Great Giver, the Life of the world; I have merged and blended with Him, with intuitive ease.


ਸਾਧ ਸਭਾ ਸੰਤਾ ਕੀ ਸੰਗਤਿ ਨਦਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਸੁਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ॥
saadhh sabhaa santhaa kee sangath nadhar prabhoo sukh paaeiaa ||
साध सभा संता की संगति नदरि प्रभू सुखु पाइआ ॥
In the Company of the Holy, and the Saints' Society, by God's Grace, peace is obtained.

ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਭਗਤਿ ਰਤੇ ਬੈਰਾਗੀ ਚੂਕੇ ਮੋਹ ਪਿਆਸਾ ॥
har kee bhagath rathae bairaagee chookae moh piaasaa ||
हरि की भगति रते बैरागी चूके मोह पिआसा ॥
The renunciates remain absorbed in devotional worship to the Lord; they are rid of emotional attachment and desire.


ਨਾਨਕ ਹਉਮੈ ਮਾਰਿ ਪਤੀਣੇ ਵਿਰਲੇ ਦਾਸ ਉਦਾਸਾ ॥੪॥੩॥
naanak houmai maar patheenae viralae dhaas oudhaasaa ||4||3||
नानक हउमै मारि पतीणे विरले दास उदासा ॥४॥३॥
O Nanak, how rare is that unattached servant, who conquers his ego, and remains pleased with the Lord. ||4||3||


I sometimes do find company of sadhsangat. If it can happen for me it can happen for almost anyone. *
Good luck on your journey also. *


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 6, 2010)

Guru di beti ji

How wonderful that story is. Yet it stirs debate. The meaning is transparent. I have read it many times before, and never tire of  Thanks for telling it.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 6, 2010)

Dear seeker3k ji,
I feel unfairly chastised and I will explain why.



seeker3k said:


> The religion is not what is written in the holly books. It is what the person lives by.



I disagree here. Do you judge a university by how they teach or by how many students actully bother to pay attention to the teachings? Students being seduced by partying rather than learning is not the fault of the university! The failure to follow the Guru's teachings is human failure, not a fault in the Guru.



> As we see there are many inconsistencies in every religion.
> We Sikhs always put other religion down so that we can look good.



I have friends of many faiths and never put them down. I have been disowned by a Christian friend as I could not be saved by Christ but I won't judge Christianity on that episode. In my 1st post I emphasised how I do not judge other faiths by the wrongs carried out in those faiths name by the minority of people. I have my beliefs and will present them when challenged or asked-not otherwise. I respect other religions as long as they do no harm on others.



> We feel proud when we listen the stories of magic performed by our Gurus.
> I don’t think any scientist test the hand mark on the stone. As Dilbirk claim that Sikhism is the only logical religion in the world. He failed to explain where is the logic in these stories. As a Sikhs I can not question any thing in our religion. Every this is said no matter how ideological the story  it has to be  true. As Mai Ji pointed it out.



I most definitely DO NOT feel proud to see stories of miracles as they are unbelievable and against gurmat teaching. If you look at my list of links on page 9, I included at least 1 where the popular janamsakhis are challenged. I have battled with the Gurdwara committe as I refuse to teach those stories to kids. I encourage the kids in the Gurdwara to question as otherwise they will not understand adn learn. I am a scientist so am forever questioning as you will see from many of my posts. I focus on the Guru Granth Sahib Ji's teachings which cannot be refuted or belittled as they are watertight rather than the history as history's authenticaation is not watertight. I think Mai Ji was being sarcastic in her post!



> I have asked many questions like these but always I was put down by all.
> One was Nanak had great idea, what went wrong and what can be done about it.



Not by me. I'm sorry if you have been out down. Guru Nanak Dev Ji's teachings are amazing. The problem lies in the fact that the majority of Sikhs aren't following them anymore. That is the panth's fault, not Guru Nanak Dev Ji's. Sikhi is a mess at the moment-I admit that but the teachings are so amazing that I am trying very hard to do my bit to raise awareness at Gurdwara and here so people take note and change. Please continue to question. The obejction to the original post was not the questions but the way they were phrased-with intent to insult rather than learn. Also using incorrect examples from other religions, eg saying other religions do no teach their history as fact is wrong. Some states in America have had legal cases about whether evolution should be taught in schools as it goes against the creation story in the Bible. I can give loads of other examples but if raising a point then it should at least be well thought out.



> Couple of the people reply only to say that Hindus are creaping into to Sikhism to corrupt it.
> WE can not take the responsibility that we are the one who are corrupting our religion.



Correct partly. Brahmanical influences have crept in over the past 100 years that go against the teachings in the SGGSJ. This is the fault of the infiltrators and of Sikhs who fail to understand and follow the teachings so have allowed adulteration of the teachings. We should also take responsibility to correct the damage. Just criticising achieves nothing. Be proactive and polite. Insults are not going to achieve anything except alienation. If criticising, you should also be teaching the correct interpretation otherwise again you achieve nothing exept ill feeling. If you look at my post on page 9, I spent hours collecting links to address the points raised as they are issues.



> Nanak did not tell us in of his poetry to do any rituals. Yet we are doing more rituals then Hindus. Every day new ritual is creeping in to Sikhs thanks to the granthies and khatha watch. There is no will by SGPC. The publick are accepting what what the rigis are telling us. No one allowed to question the khatha watch to explain what he is saying.



I question constantly! Questioning takes guts. Yes I sometimes get told i'm out of line but I also get people thinking. I refuse to do anything ritualistic and will happily explain why if someone asks me. The things I follow are the ones I understand. Rituals are against the Guru's teaching and it is upto those who have understood this to educate others around them. Again just criticising achieves nothing and is very negative way to behave. Change can occur in a positive way with a positive attitude depending on how things are approached. Th rituals have crept in over 100 years and may take 100 years to eradicate completely! In my post on page 9 I have included some links relating to issues raised and will happily provide more if required.



> No one here  is admitting that Sikhism is full of stupid retiuals but they are very quickie to rip apaer the person who ask question.
> Please read the post again (seeker9,findingmyway dilbik) and kindly reply to the question. You are killing the messenger.



Incorrect. I have always admitted there are issues in many of my posts across this site. Reread my posts, especially the 1st one on this thread as I sympathised with the writer. I have always been very civil and tried to be considerate. I even spent hours collecting a list of threads relelvant to all the issues raised by ***tw but he has never returned to comment! I said in my posts that these issues are important and I was not rude. However, his language could have been kinder initially but I am still keen to hear his views further. In absence of body language we have to make do with phrasing and choice of words to relay intent.



> MY warning to wftw is be-carefull many are sharpening their daggers.



Please read my posts again and let me know where it appears this is so, so that I can make sure I don't come across like that again. Guru Nanak Dev Ji taught me to respect all and I am trying very hard to do this but it should be mutual! If I have come across as rude or unwelcoming, or have declined to acknowledge his/her concerns I would be grateful if you could let me know as only then can I change myself for the better.

Jasleen.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 6, 2010)

sunmukh said:


> In my own humble opinion this is most probably the reason that there are no shabds from 6th,
> 7th, 8th or 10th Guru Sahiban in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.



The 6th and 7th Guru's did not write any bani as lots of fake bani was published under their name of mahalla 6 or mahalla 7 during their lifetime. By not writing any bani, Sikhs then did not have to fear reading the wrong thing and the Guru's were smart enough to foil the plans of these imposters. 

The 8th Guru was very young when he became Guru. He died after 3 years so did not have time to write any bani as he was so busy in caring for people affected by the smallpox epidemic.

As for Guru Gobind Singh Ji-who knows! Maybe he felt the Guru Granth Sahib was complete or maybe he was too busy with the war. My personal opinion is the former but only he knows!!


----------



## a.mother (Nov 6, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> The 6th and 7th Guru's did not write any bani as lots of fake bani was published under their name of mahalla 6 or mahalla 7 during their lifetime. By not writing any bani, Sikhs then did not have to fear reading the wrong thing and the Guru's were smart enough to foil the plans of these imposters.
> 
> The 8th Guru was very young when he became Guru. He died after 3 years so did not have time to write any bani as he was so busy in caring for people affected by the smallpox epidemic.
> 
> As for Guru Gobind Singh Ji-who knows! Maybe he felt the Guru Granth Sahib was complete or maybe he was too busy with the war. My personal opinion is the former but only he knows!!



*Dear findingmyway ji , 
           I admire your knowledge, and I just want to say thanks to you.*,


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 6, 2010)

> No one here  is admitting that Sikhism is full of stupid retiuals but  they are very quickie to rip apaer the person who ask question. Please read the post again (seeker9,findingmyway dilbik) and kindly reply to the question. You are killing the messenger.


Always nice to get a mention!

Dear Seeker3k Ji

I didn't think I shot the messenger and I thought I did reply to the questions but happy to discuss further if you want to copy to me what I have said



> The religion is not what is written in the holly books. It is what the person lives by.


I believe Findingmyway Ji has already commented on this...but I would say it is not unknown for a religion to be judged by the actions of some of its followers, like Islam for example....but I also think the religion needs to be discussed on its teachings and not how those teachings are interpreted, molded and frequently distorted by its "followers"



> MY warning to wftw is be-carefull many are sharpening their daggers.


Hmmnn...so everyone should agree without debate and expressing alternative viewpoints??? Looking back on this thread, it is clear to me that the majority of posters disagree with the original poster of this thread....those people have as much right to do so as WTWF has to raise concerns...and it has been a very interesting thread so I would thank (again as I did in my first reply) WTWF for starting this discussion


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 6, 2010)

> OK - So then, in your humble opinion, how should the gurgaddi have been passed? And who should have judged that it landed in the right place.



I do not wish to stir controversy or go off at a tangent on this thread
I cannot answer the above question
But I think the point Sunmukh Ji raises is an interesting one

At a surface level, could it be said there appears to be an element of "keeping it in the family"?  

Could it also be said that the 8th Guru stands out from the other Gurus by virtue of his young age? 

I have two sons aged 6 and 10 respectively and wonder how one so young could shoulder such a great responsibility


Again I don't know the answers....just wondering what others think...and it is tangenital to this thread so apologies for that .... if it merits more detailed discussion, perhaps it could be moved to a new thread?


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 6, 2010)

Seeker9 said:


> Could it also be said that the 8th Guru stands out from the other Gurus by virtue of his young age?
> 
> I have two sons aged 6 and 10 respectively and wonder how one so young could shoulder such a great responsibility



I think the actions of Guru Har Krishan Ji answers this questions without any explanation. Despite his young age, Guru Ji looked after the smallpox victims with utmost devotion-not normal behaviour for a boy. He was also very intelligent and understood Gurbani well.

As for staying within the family, the gurgaddi was not always passed to the eldest son as expected but jumped around the family tree and across generations. I think this proves that it was based on who was most appropriate for the task. 

This thread may be of interest, especially Gyani Jarnail Singh Ji's reply
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-gurus/27443-gurgaddi-questions.html

Any further questions based on gurgaddi, please start a new thread so we can stay to topic here. Thanks, Jasleen


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 7, 2010)

Thank you
I have opened a new thread to explore this further
rangesingh:


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 7, 2010)

Guru Gobind Singh  liberated the panth when he vested ethical leadership in granth and panth. This means Guru Gobind Singh concluded that  principles would take the place of personalities, and governing by consensus would take the place of individual will. That was a very modern decision existing in few other places in his world. *In light of this, IMHO, nepotism fails as an issue, and to continue discussiong it is like beating a dead horse.*

Future comments should be on the topic of the thread.


----------



## iaminpunjab (Nov 8, 2010)

Doojay di thali vich laddoo vadda dikhda hai

the same thing applies to wftw. instead of appreciating sikhism, which has been appreciated by several great scholars (www.sikhquotes.org) as the greatest, modern and practical religion. wftw feels ashamed to be a sikh. then what about all other religions like christianity and islam and hinduism? all are based on lies. even their scriptures contain lot of lies. but sikh scripture guru granth sahib has been appreciated by all scholars, specially by english (christian) scholars. sikhism means guru granth sahib, and not sakhis told by granthis.

wftw should feel ashamed that he has not read guru granth sahib. and by just by a small reading of granthi sakhis, he has made conclusions.

wftw is surely a anari, nausikhia, amature and neem hakeem. little knowledge is dangerous. he knows very less and his conclusions are really baseless. instead of believing in sakhis, he should start reading guru granth sahib, which is real sikhi.

in christianity, christ was born without a father. is it not a lie?

in islam, koran is full of lies and full of hatred, where they call kafirs to everybody except muslims. they are told that they will enter into heaven once they die or commit suicide by killing others in the name of islam. they will get hoors (beautiful women) in heaven. but do they say that woman suicide bombers will get several men for sex in heaven?

hinduism scriptures like ramayan and mahabharat are full of lies, where sons are born to queens by just eating fruits, or by just gazed upon by rishis. there are countless lies.

there is an audio by vir bhupinde singh (sanjha pita - common father), where he says that instead of going to other religions, we should understand our own religion (sikhism), because by going to other religions, we will be more confused as they have more lies than sikhism. then the person going to other religions will be like a "dhobi da kutta na ghar da, na ghat da).

it is well said that all sakhis were written by muslim and hindus, who believe in lies, miracles, chamatkars as their own religions are full of these. so they wrote all these sakhis in their own style.

JUST READ AND UNDERSTAND GURU GRANTH SAHIB AND NOT SAKHIS. YOU WILL REALLY KNOW SIKHISM, TO WHICH ALL THE WORLD IS APPRECIATING.

If anyone wants the mp3 of sanjha pita, pl mail me *personal email has been removed. This is not a safe Internet practice. Members may contact through SPN private messages. *

THANKS AND GOD BLESS


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 8, 2010)

I just had a quick look at the SPN Forum rules and came across this text in bold red font:

_**Gurfateh Ji, SPN is a unique platform, where you can indulge in scholarly debates on virtually every issue. It is very important to understand and bear in mind that topics/posts/comments made by any member do not reflect upon the ideology of SikhPhilosophy.Net (Sikh Philosophy Network). If any particular message from a member is not removed then that does not mean that we support it. This means you have the equal opportunity of countering the argument in an authoritative manner. Religion and philosophy are general but unique for each person's understanding and progress. If you disagree, simply accept the differences and ask for information you may not know. 

Please Discuss the Issues not the Personalities debating the Issues. Thank you. *_

This has been an interesting thread but I wonder if we have scared away the original poster without taking the opportunity to increase his knowledge and understanding from all the learned individuals who post on SPN?

I know this may sound like a u-turn having myself posted this recently:


_



			MY warning to wftw is be-carefull many are sharpening their daggers.
		
Click to expand...


Hmmnn...so everyone should agree without debate and expressing alternative viewpoints??? Looking back on this thread, it is clear to me that the majority of posters disagree with the original poster of this thread....those people have as much right to do so as WTWF has to raise concerns...and it has been a very interesting thread so I would thank (again as I did in my first reply) WTWF for starting this discussion_

It's good to have a debate and respond to issues raised 
I also appreciate these issues can be emotive for some
I just think some of the replies I have seen are more likely to scare than inform.....

I hope I have not offended anyone by saying this


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 8, 2010)

Seeker9 ji

You raise interesting questions as usual. This issue is a continuing moderation concern. And it is not easy to draw lines in the sand either.

The most fundamental rule to follow is also not easy to enforce and that is that open insults and verbal abuse are not acceptable. "Sharpening daggers" was not intended as I read it as a material threat, but a heads-up that there would be sharp disagreement.

Sharp disagreement is not a violation of forum rules. Forums would be very boring without it. The dilemmas lies in our perceptions. Some individuals are personally "insulted" by anyone who disagrees with them. It is also impossible for anyone else to know the true state of mind of someone else: Insulted? Afraid?

The other side of this coin. When someone pitches a hard b.all, as in "ashamed to be a Sikh," then it is self-serving to expect one's audience to be kind. Kindness is a virtue we can embrace for ourselves, not others. The forum, members and leaders, can only impose the rule of  forum etiquette, which is very different from a rule of kindness. How do you impose a rule of kindness on other people? 

wftw ji has already reported that he is busy with school assignments and will need time to reply. No reason not to believe him.

*p/s Things about forum discussions that have always irritated me personally are "straw man"  arguments and false dichotomies. I have to work very hard not to get riled by them. And have to spend a lot of time thinking of how to word a logical reply to an illogical complaint. That is one of my own challenges. *


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 8, 2010)

If wftw is ashamed of Sikhi then it is his problem not ours. Why are we upset with him?
I think I wrote it discuss the problem Sikhism is going through. 

WE have to look inside of our self and see if we truer to Sikhism.

I could not find any where in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib it is written and advised us to do the rituals. Can some one tell me what ritual Nanak told us to do?

Here are some of the rituals are being done to disgrace the Sikhism. Take a look if you guilty as the Hindus are.

Getting bhi ji to reading at the time of boy’s birth but no on girls birth.
Why do the reading at all?
If you have any guru’s picture at home?
Do you bow your head to the picture of guru?
Do you bow your head to Sri Guru Granth Sahib?
Get the reading done at the death of family member?
Get the path at and after the funeral?
If you do nit name of 5 bani?
If u get married by going around Sri Guru Granth Sahib? 
If you got any of your kids got married the same way u got married?
If you do ardas and ask for the blessing or give you peace?
If you have asked for healing of the sickness?
If you do the jap of waheguru?
If you are sehsdhari and cover your head when u go to gurdwara? If you live in ffice:smarttags" /><st1lace w:st="on">north America and sit on floor to eat langar?
If you wear 6” dagger (sword)?
If you do the ardas before u eat food any where?
If you treat the Granth book as guru? 
If you agree that book should put in heated room in winter n AC room in summer?
If you believe that book can hear your ardas?
If you think book can bless you?
If you think gurus had supernatural powers to change of nature’s course?


These are just the few of the things. F you are doing any then u need to look inside of you.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 8, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> If wftw is ashamed of Sikhi then it is his problem not ours. Why are we upset with him?
> I think I wrote it discuss the problem Sikhism is going through.
> <?"urn:fficeffice" /><o> </o>
> WE have to look inside of our self and see if we truer to Sikhism.
> ...




Dear Seeker3k Ji

The general observation about ritual is a good point to make

However, in terms of Sikhism and the little understanding I have gathered to date, it does appear a large number of items on your list are fundamental to Sikhism....

for example the great and deserved respect to be bestowed on a Guru, not a book incidentally which is the physical outward appearance, but the last Guru in the line of Gurus as revered by Sikhism

the articles of faith like the wearing of the 5ks or daily spiritual practice through prayer and meditation

Pictures in one's home is an easy target as it can be seen as a form of idolatry

But some of your other things less so...

Would you ask a Muslim or Jew to be one without eating ritually slaughtered Halal or Kosher meat?  According to the requirements of their religion, could they still be regarded as being followers of that religion? Is it fair and reasonable for you to even ask them to do so?

I would therefore suggest you humbly reconsider some of the items on your list as it would appear you are asking Sikhs not to follow Sikhism, which would be an unusual thing to ask on this forum..........


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 8, 2010)

> p/s Things about forum discussions that have always irritated me personally are "straw man" arguments and false dichotomies. I have to work very hard not to get riled by them. And have to spend a lot of time thinking of how to word a logical reply to an illogical complaint. That is one of my own challenges.



Valid point...I daresay I may be guilty myself or even play Devils Advocate but all in the interests of getting more out of a discussion..... :blueturban:


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 8, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> If wftw is ashamed of Sikhi then it is his problem not ours. Why are we upset with him?
> I think I wrote it discuss the problem Sikhism is going through.
> 
> WE have to look inside of our self and see if we truer to Sikhism.



Just to understand your viewpoint better, please can you clarify are you agnostic or sikh? Thanks. 



> I could not find any where in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib it is written and advised us to do the rituals. Can some one tell me what ritual Nanak told us to do?
> <o>


No because Sikhi is against rituals so it is important to make people aware of that point.

</o> 





> <o>Getting bhi ji to reading at the time of boy’s birth but no on girls birth.
> Why do the reading at all?


</o>

This is the remnants of culture, and goes against Sikh teaching. Most Sikhs celebrate the birth of boys AND girls.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/32365-how-does-your-faith-group-celebrate.html




> If you have any guru’s picture at home?
> Do you bow your head to the picture of guru?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-gurus/14776-gurus-pictures-portraits.html

There is another real good thread which included a poll but I cant find it right now.



> Do you bow your head to Sri Guru Granth Sahib?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8879-matha-tekna.html



> Get the reading done at the death of family member?
> Get the path at and after the funeral?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/business-and-lifestyle/15451-death-of-a-sikh.html

The prayers carried out are to focus the mourners rather than pary for the dead person. They provide solace for those left behind and remind them they are not alone.




> If you do nit name of 5 bani?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/spiritual-articles/31332-naam-japo-meditation-prayer-its-purpose.html

It is only a ritual if you are doing this without thought. However, it is like revisiong, the more you go over the bani, the more you will understand and the more you will follow the advice given.



> If u get married by going around Sri Guru Granth Sahib?
> If you got any of your kids got married the same way u got married?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...h-marriage-ceremony-anand-karaj-metaphor.html



> If you do ardas and ask for the blessing or give you peace?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/28509-ardas-in-sikhism.html



> If you have asked for healing of the sickness?


As in the above thread, this is done to help us focus our thoughts and we say our own desires. In the end all that happens is within God's hukam.



> If you do the jap of waheguru?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/15034-vaheguru-is-gurmantar.html

It is one way of stilling the mind but is not the most important aspect in Sikhi. The ultimate aim is to follow the Guru's advice but simran helps the mind tune in for many.



> If you are sehsdhari and cover your head when u go to gurdwara?


This is a mark of respect. You go to a church and take your hat off as respect!!

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/24440-what-reason-covering-ones-head-gurdwara.html



> If you live in <st1lace w:st="on">north America and sit on floor to eat langar?


Sorry but whats the problem here? The point is everyone is on the same level so no-one ahs superiority.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/995-ok-have-langar-chairs-n-tables.html



> If you wear 6” dagger (sword)?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-youth/777-how-do-you-explain-what-kirpan-5.html


> If you do the ardas before u eat food any where?


http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/24510-ardas-over-food-purification-like-halal.html



> If you treat the Granth book as guru?


I find this point quite insulting. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji IS our 11th Guru as dictated by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. the physical people or the physical book is not the Guru-more important is the knowledge/wisdom. The shabad is our Guru but we are humans so need a physical vehicle. This also stops the Gurbani being distorted and misused. It is not a living Guru but is accorded the respect equivalent to a living Guru. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the foundation of Sikhi. If you do not believe in Sikhi that is fine but do not insult those that do. For us the Guru Granth Sahib Ji is our guide, teacher, support. Therefore it is much more than a book.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/295-need-of-siri-guru-granth-sahib.html

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/906-guru-granth-major-currents-sikh-scripture.html



> If you agree that book should put in heated room in winter n AC room in summer?


This is for the comfort of the people reading/listening to Gurbani



> If you believe that book can hear your ardas? If you think book can bless you?


Where did you get such a notion from???!




> If you think gurus had supernatural powers to change of nature’s course?


Again where did you get such a notion from? If this were true then Guru Har Krishan Ji wouldn't have died of smallpox!!



> These are just the few of the things. F you are doing any then u need to look inside of you.
> <o>


I think you need to do more research and stop judging all Sikhs based on your limited personal experience and misinformation!
</o>


----------



## Amandeep_barabanki (Nov 9, 2010)

well said WFTW,

All the religions lack something, the only difference is that in other religions people who question the religion are welcomed but in sikkism they r not.



> [_I will point out that as a student of religion, you have either deliberately or with a certain pre-reasonning omitted to say,[ based on the scientific evidence] ...that the koran was written 80 years AFTER Mohamad's death.While the bible even based on the old testament was written more than 90 years after Christ's.
> 
> _ _At this point, may, I point out that the Guru Granth sahib was dictated and written by followers and scribes of the Gurus as the Gurus spoke the messages of God.NOT after and NOT before.Neither ANY of the shabads can be changed for as long long as the world lives on._]



Someone said this above, but the fact is that the Guru Granth Sahib written by the gurus was LOST in a river. And Guru Gobind Singh Ji got it written again.

Now, who knows if he didn't alter anything from the original book.

No other guru specified any limitations on Sikhs, but only Guru Gobind Singh Ji did; Y?



> [_There must be something here since so many have chosen death over conversion._]



Someone wrote this, now tell me dont we find people making such statements in every other religion. This topic needs facts to answer, not sentiments.



> [_As to not believing our history, next you'll be trying to convince me that Baba Deep Singh didn't really carry his head in one hand and fight with his sword in the other. Be careful. Be very, very careful.]
> _



Sikhism curses hinduism because of the stupid incidents in their books(the holy books of hindus). 

For instance, according to hindus the world is resting on a cows horns.

Guru Granth Sahib mentions this and many other statements and tells us that this cannnot be true as it is not sensible....

Then how can we talk about BABA DEEP SINGH carrying his own head fighting.

Is this sensible?

But people dont wanna listen anything against this.

Still they call their religion the best, although they do the same thing that others do,

They just praise their religion, without ever willing to find the truth based on facts..

This is a good topic for discussion raised.....

Thanx for sharing...


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 9, 2010)

Seeker9 said:


> Dear Seeker3k Ji
> 
> The general observation about ritual is a good point to make
> 
> ...


 

Dear Seeker9

This is Sikh site. My questions are on the Sikhism rituals not on other religions. People always compare them self with who is higher then them? As in advertising Papsi compare with Coke. Coke is # 1 soft drink in the world.

By comparing Sikhs ism we are admitting that others are better then Sikhism.

I don’t think it is right. 

I said it many times don’t put other religions down that doesn’t make Sikhism best.
Talk only about what is asked in the forum.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 9, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> Dear Seeker9
> fficeffice" />
> This is Sikh site. My questions are on the Sikhism rituals not on other religions. People always compare them self with who is higher then them? As in advertising Papsi compare with Coke. Coke is # 1 soft drink in the world.
> By comparing Sikhs ism we are admitting that others are better then Sikhism.
> ...



Dear Seeker3k Ji

I stand by the brief references I made to other faiths to illustrate my point which I made as follows: 



> I would therefore suggest you humbly reconsider some of the items on  your list as it would appear you are asking Sikhs not to follow Sikhism,  which would be an unusual thing to ask on this forum..........



I will restate the point that some of the items on your extensive list are in fact requirements of the faith. The "Book" you refer to has the status of Guru. 

I believe Findingmyway Ji provided a fairly comprehensive response to that effect..

You cannot re-write a religion
You cannot tell the devotees of that religion to turn their backs on key requirements and aspects of faith
By all means air your opinions but don't expect everyone to agree with them


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 9, 2010)

Dear Amandeep Ji

Welcome to the debate!

I appreciate what you have said here about some of the responses and the perception of how people have reacted to the concerns raised by WFWT

May I draw your attention to the poll results attached to this thread....at present, it looks like 85% of voters are in favour of discussing these issues...so that does not reflect your comment:



> that in other religions people who question the religion are welcomed but in sikkism they r not.



I am not qualified to comment on the point you raise about authorship of SGGSJ. It is an interesting point. I would still say that SGGSJ has a unique integrity in that it was written in the time of and by the hand of the Gurus.

That is fact

The fact that other texts in other faiths were written by different people some time after the events is also fact

Re this issue:


> Then how can we talk about BABA DEEP SINGH carrying his own head fighting.
> 
> Is this sensible?



I hope Mai Ji won't mind if I state on her behalf that she was attempting to inject a bit of humour which I for one, appreciated!! If you search SPN, there is a complete thread where this event is discussed

So can we put this particular issue to rest?



> They just praise their religion, without ever willing to find the truth based on facts..
> 
> This is a good topic for discussion raised.....



I can't help thinking this is a bit unfair. It is entirely natural for believers on any path to honour, respect and promote their faith

And i do agree it is a good topic for discussion and I did thank WFWT for starting it

Many others agree as well....just look at those poll results

Now that you have joined the debate...perhaps you can expand a bit more on what concerns you have

In response, you will find that you have access to a wealth of knowledge across the planet...I have learned a lot since I joined 6 months ago ....I am sure you and others can as well

Don't be put off and keep the debate going!!

winkingmunda


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 9, 2010)

Findingmyway:

You have strengthened my belief that Sikhism is blind faith. You are defending your fake useless reituals with tooth n nail. You can not see what is wrong with doing these retiuals. I think is insult to Sikhism

I see only 4 gurus birth days are being celebrating in gurdwara. Why not the rest? Why not all the bhagat’s BD?

I have seen some people have only one guru’s picture framed in their home rest are just hug up on the wall.Almost all have Gobibd Singh’s pic some have Nanak’s. The goldsmiths always have Her-Krishan’s picture. Some hindu have Tage behadur picture.

I wonder why?

Instead giving me the links why not wtie in your own words what u have to say?

You did not agree with me in most of the points I made.I  think you also said these rituals are good in Sikhism. Few you asked me where I got the notion from? Don’t you go to gurdwara? Are your eyes and ears open when you are in gurdawas?

The AC is not for the listener that I am talking about. It is when they put the book to sleep.

When you do ardas in front of Sri Guru Granth Sahib do u think Sri Guru Granth Sahib can hear your ardas?

I asked you if you think guru had supernatural power it is just yes or no. Why u asking me where I got this notion. Don’t u listen to people talk about the powers of guru how they healed n cursed people?

If we have living guru as Sri Guru Granth Sahib then why do we worship the dead gurus? Don’t tell me they are still living in heaven.

If we believe that we have living why he don’t get up and stop people fighting with kirpans in front of him?

Sure I Agree the granth have very good writing that show us how to live our life. But to worship the guide book? Haha

Ardas is only done in front of some who don’t know about the situation. Here we claim Guru knows all past n feture. Whay do the ardas? Is it not insulting to guru when u do the ardas? Has he made a mistake that we ask him to correct it? Maybe not in the gurdwara u go to. But in many people ask bhi ji to do ardas for their heppiness and give peace at home.

If the bokk is living for u then why not bathe him also. They shange the clothing (rumalas) Put him in AC or heated room to sleep. No one have washed him ever since it was written..
It is people like you are who want to keep doing what Hindus are doing. Is this not insult yo all the gurus?

As for kirpan I asked who made it to be 6”. It was 3’ when Guru gave it to us?

WTW
You can keep on believing it don’t bother me. As far I am concern I will never do those things as rituals.

Please don’t give other religion’s ref.  Keep it in Sikhism


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 9, 2010)

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Seeker3 wrote:



> You have strengthened my belief that Sikhism is blind faith


 
It surely doesn't matter to you either way? If you are agnostic, why would it concern you if WFTW is "ashamed to be a sikh", or if Findingmyway supports her faith. Shouldn't you be making up your own mind? If you are sitting on the fence with respect to God, then nobody is saying you have to jump onto a Sikh path, whether it leads to shame or not, whether it is built on blind faith or not. You appear not to have faith in the Lord so it shouldn't matter to you what others choose to believe. Or are you looking to join a group of religious people, but without faith in the Lord? If you are then, then you should look at disciplines, like some forms of Buddhism. If you do have faith in  the Lord, then this requires blind faith, with no ifs or buts. If you have such faith, then all the other "stories" become immaterial. If you can manage your mind to retain faith in one concept without reason, or evidence, then it is possible to believe in a whole host of other facets of a faith.

If you are simply "picking" points with Sikhs, then surely you cannot expect Sikhs, or indeed members of any other faiths, to second rate their own faith. They are hardly going to say they follow a faith and then agree with others comments that seek to blow gaping holes in it at the same time. They will keep on justifying what they believe in, and they have to, in order to maintain faith, whether it is built on fact or on somebody's imagination.

You are being completely unrealsitic, if you expect Sikhs to malign their faith to any great degree. They might listen to you and humour you, but will not change course. Please look up what the generic definitions of "faith" and "religion" are in an encyclopedia. Faith requires belief, whether it is blind or not. 

If you (or Amandeep_barabanki or WFTW) don't like what Sikhi is about, you can look elsewhere or set up your own faith, or stay on the fence.
This is not being intolerant to discussion, but when you have no aim but to bring down sikhs' values then there is no point discssuing with you. You have no constructive objective whatseover, whether to help yourself to a better more contented future, or to help sikhs to one.

Good luck whichever way you go as you walk along the fence.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 9, 2010)

This is my point. Sikhs don’t discuss their useless ritual but very quick  to condemn other religion for their rituals.

I am not sitting on fence. nor I am agnostic. I love Sikhism and when people like you making it look bad then I write.


----------



## Seeker9 (Nov 9, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> This is my point. Sikhs don’t discuss their useless ritual but very quick  to condemn other religion for their rituals.
> fficeffice" />
> I am not sitting on fence. nor I am agnostic. I love Sikhism and when people like you making it look bad then I write.



Dear Seeker3k Ji

I am confused again

I see nothing in Sunmukh Ji's post that makes Sikhism look bad

It would be interesting to learn more about what your definition of Sikhism is?

To date, it looks like you have issues with the respect afforded to Sri Guru Granth SahibJ (althought I will agree there can be a thin line between respect and ritual...which was has been explored before in at least 2 SPN threads already)

You have issues with key articles of faith like the wearing of a Kirpan or recital of daily prayers. Again, I will agree that the recital of prayers should not be seen as an automatic daily chore but as a significant spiritual undertaking

If you could point to someone and say...."See that person over there...I admire him/her for being a true Sikh!"

Please describe that person to us so we can understand where you are coming from better.

What is that person's outward appearance?
What is it that person does to merit your admiration?
What are the things they don't do but you see other Sikhs do?

And on a different note..if you are not Agnostic but love Sikhism, may I suggest you amend your profile which is currently showing your preference to be Agnostic


----------



## sunmukh (Nov 9, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> This is my point. Sikhs don’t discuss their useless ritual but very quick to condemn other religion for their rituals.
> fficeffice" /><?"urn:
> 
> 
> ...


 

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Seeker3 ji,

a) Your profile suggests you are agnostic. 
b) If you loved "Sikhism" you would not have such long lists with mocking undertones, relating to such a wide range of practises. 
c) If you really do love sikhism, then to be constructive, then please also list the facets you "love", which also distinguish it from other religions which you do not hold as dear. It does not help any Sikhs who put value in their practices when you do not present a positive alternative, and I can't see how it could help you to merely mock practices. Sikhi presented an alternative to existing practitioners during its formative years, which lead to an inclusive society. There was no discrimination over caste or gender. There was rationalisation of multiple deities. There was freedom from superstition, and a move to a more humble, tolerant, compassionate society. These facets are still there, by and large,, whether somebody does an ardas, or puts up a photograph or not. If individuals do not follow all aspects, it does not imply there is any problem with the religion. If you love sikhism, as you say, then it behoves you to take on the responsibility of teaching others to follow the Gurus teachings, instead of mocking practices which in some cases may not be in accord with bani. Refer to BANI to higlight your case, rather than making general, subjective or emotional outbursts. If you do this, there is one less person for the Guru to guide, and you will be ading the Guru instead of undermining the Guru. 

Thanking you in anticipation.

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## grew1952 (Nov 9, 2010)

GURFATEH, if you read Japji Sahib and understood it you would not have raised the question. It is mentioned in it that there is not one patal/sky but many. Now, it has been discovered about the other suns being discovered(two). 

One of your point was "why, everyday we should do path"  If u have read Japji Sahib, it states "bharee-ai hath pair tan dayh.paanee Dhotai utras  khayh.moot paleetee kaparh  ho-ay.day saaboon la-ee-ai oh Dho-ay.bharee-ai mat paapaa kai  sang.oh Dhopai naavai kai rang. I hope u can understand this simple punjabi, it tells u why we should meditate every day.

If you have read the holy scriptures then u can argue, from your own statement, it shows that u donot have any knowledge. It is very easy to criticize. Neem hakim khatree jaan. 

I am sorry if I have said anything harsh.
Gurfateh.


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 9, 2010)

grew1952 ji

My own feelings are very strong on this issue. There are lessons we learn from personal experience that lead to personal knowledge. It is important to learn from experience, as that is  learning from life. But these are not the same as lessons learned from shabadguru, which is guru's wisdom not munn's knowledge. 

So to base our understanding of Sikhi based on life experience takes us only so far. The experience of any one person is always limited by the experience itself. Shabadguru teaches us to reach beyond those limitations. Gurmath is not munmath. You have stated it very clearly.


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 9, 2010)

Seeker3k ji,
I am extremely disappointed with your responses.



seeker3k said:


> This is my point. Sikhs don’t discuss their useless ritual but very quick  to condemn other religion for their rituals.



SPN is all about questioning and realising the true word. If you read my many posts across this site I have said again and again I am working very hard to dispel rituals in my local Gurdwara, in my family and amongst other Sikhs I know. I don't think you've taken the time to read a single one of my posts :down:



> I am not sitting on fence. nor I am agnostic. I love Sikhism



You words demonstrate the exact opposite. YOU are the one that is quick to criticise and refuses constructive discussion or knowledge. The fact that you call Guru Granth Sahib Ji a mere book shows your contempt for Sikhi.



seeker3k said:


> You have strengthened my  belief that Sikhism is blind faith. You are defending your fake useless  reituals with tooth n nail. You can not see what is wrong with doing  these retiuals. I think is insult to Sikhism



Actually I condemned the rituals you mentioned. But if you had bothered reading my posts which I spent a lot of time and effort compiling, you would know this. Some things you call ritual but there is a very good reason for those things and again this was all explained in my posts. Please please spend some time reading before commenting otherwise admit you have nothing to do with Sikhi. 
You keep giving examples of extreme things -some I've never heard of, some I'm fighting against myself as they are wrong and some you have completely the wrong end of the stick.

Your next door neighbour is black and mugs you. Does that mean all blacks are muggers? NO. You school friend is a Jew. He refused to lend you meny for lunch. Does that make all Jews misers? NO. Some people don't understand Sikhi as they don't make the effort to understand Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Does that make all Sikhs superstitious? NO.

Increase your own knowledge 1st then educate others rather than just criticising. That is if you really love Sikhi. However, if you have another agenda, now would be a good time to declare it......


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 9, 2010)

seeker3k said:


> Findingmyway:
> You have strengthened my belief that Sikhism is blind faith. You are defending your fake useless reituals with tooth n nail. You can not see what is wrong with doing these retiuals.
> 
> Instead giving me the links why not wtie in your own words what u have to say?



Seeker3k Ji and all who have issues with rituals, please read this:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/gurmat-vichaar/32638-use-metaphor-gurbani-how-use-when.html

You asked for my words. Well here is something I wrote for the teenagers in my gurmat classes. It  clearly shows how the mistaken concept of ritual has arisen by using  literal translations and what is actually meant is completely different. READ IT before replying please. I gave the links so you can see I am not a lone voice and I did not want to give my word as authority as I am not capable of that. I am still learning like all Sikhs. The links show the words of the sangat and are more informative than my words alone.


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 25, 2011)

When I was younger, I watched my mother 'regurgitate' all the time, I'm not quite sure she understood all the words, but I think she did her best to squeeze every last piece of knowledge out of what she could, and to my memory, it made her very happy and content, that sometimes she would cry with emotion at the meaning of the words. I am sure we all know people like this, and if others find even one word a day that touches them in the daily prayers, surely this is better than sitting around trying to dissect what millions know to be true, and pointing at what others do. Read the GGS, absorb what you can, as in the Koran, get a translation, till you have done this, you have no authority to make such a post, in my view


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 25, 2011)

harry haller said:


> When I was younger, I watched my mother 'regurgitate' all the time, I'm not quite sure she understood all the words, but I think she did her best to squeeze every last piece of knowledge out of what she could, and to my memory, it made her very happy and content, that sometimes she would cry with emotion at the meaning of the words. I am sure we all know people like this, and if others find even one word a day that touches them in the daily prayers, surely this is better than sitting around trying to dissect what millions know to be true, and pointing at what others do. Read the GGS, absorb what you can, as in the Koran, get a translation, till you have done this, you have no authority to make such a post, in my view




Harry ji

I am fighting tears myself reading this. I think given a choice it would at least for me be better to sit by the side of your mom than "dissect what millions know to be true." What a moving image. I thank you.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 9, 2013)

I am PROUD to be a SIKH...because I have READ thoroughly the SGGS..from cover to cover many many many times...over the past 60 years..

I have also READ THOROUGHLY..the Koran, the Bible, The Mahabharta, The ramayana, Vedas etc etc...and found them WANTING - 

I Only beleive in the AUTHENTIC WRITINGS of my GURU- SGGS. I Dont beleive in rituals, sakhis, fake tall tales pilgrimages, teeraths, paaps punns karmas reincarnations, good vs evil etc etc..

I Totally beleive in the FACTUAL BATTLES of the GURUS..Eimnabad, Guru Angad ji, Guru Amardass Ji, Guru Arjun ji, Guru hargobind Ji, Guru teg bahadur Ji, Guru Gobind Singh ji, Baba Banda Singh ji up till 1984 and BEYOND. The WORLD is witness...SARAGHARREE is One of the EPIC Battles recognized by UNESCO...and that was 21 VS 10,000 ++++ 1984..how many SIKHS vs the Entire might of the Modern Indian Armed Forces including Air Force and artillery ??   SIKHS came out of NOWHERE and DEFEATED the MIGHTY MUGHAL EMPIRE more than 1000 years in the making..in just a few DECADES after 1708 and established the mighty Khalsa Empire that the British were loath to face..The  Anglo-Sikh  Battles of Chellianwallah etc etc.. are recorded by BRITISH HISTORIANS..not "biased sikhs"...and SHAH MUHAMMED who wrote the VAAR of Sham Singh Ataree at Chellianwallah is a MUSLIM !!

IF One DOES NOT READ the SGGS...but claims he has read Koran bible etc etc..then he is 100% RIGHT to be *ASHAMED of being called a "Sikh"..he is clearly NOT a SIKH.* He is just like a donkey in lions clothing..as Guru Gobind Singh ji demonstarted in Anandpur long long ago...

READ the SGGS...PICK out SHABADS..and quote them  and say what you are ASHAMED OF...Compare them to the Koran, the Bible..and then say what makes you so "PROUD" of those and ashamed of the SGGS ??

Imho..ONLY ONE or two at the most picked out the undeniable FACT..that the original poster has not read a single TUK form the SGGS...all he saw his whole life was people regurgitating...and he drew his conclusions that regurgitating is "ashaming act"..  I totally AGREE...REGURGITATING is acceptable in INFANTS because of their under developed digestive system...but never in ADULTS...and all i found was more regurgitating...


----------



## namritanevaeh (Oct 9, 2013)

wftw said:


> a. Most  other religions, do not teach their religious history as "fact," but  rather "this is what we believe." This is fundamental difference that  must be addressed. When ever I try to question a key fact in Sikhism, it  is as if i were questioning the word the god. In fact, all Gurdwara and  Sikh treat their religious stories as "fact" and do not even entertain  the notion that there can be misrepresentations or logical / historical  inconsistency.
> 
> b. In all other major regions, there is stories  that do not match with with historical account. However, to a large  degree, these religions have a vast literature and intellectual  inquiries in their houses or worships about these abnormality. I was  takn a back the first time I went to the mosque and there were 4 Muslims  discussing the supposed site of Muhammad's first house. I have also  gone to Churches where there is open dialogue between the congregation  where they openly question their religion and the inconsistency.  However, I do not find this in the Sikh temples. Regardless of this, how  is it possible that these religions still have documented evidence and  open dialog about the lack of about such things from Noha's Arch, shroud  of turin, to what is in the kabah.



I come from a non-baptized athiest family that nonetheless celebrates Christian holidays mostly (and a few Jewish ones to a lesser extent).  I would disagree with this point.  Despite being non baptized, I did attend a United Christian church on a semi-regular basis when I was younger, partly to sing in the choir, and I know many people who are Christian and I disagree that the religions are not taught as "fact".  I think that Christian religion (and actually any religion) definitely DOES teach people as if their stories are factual and the only possibility out there of truthfulness.

Just my humble thoughts on this.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (Oct 10, 2013)

:ikonkaar:​
I am not ashamed to be a Sikh.  I am not proud to be a Sikh.  Both shame and pride of this sort are not appropriate in my thinking.  I am grateful to be a Sikh.  To be taught and to study the beautiful shabads of Gurbani is a privilege not to be taken lightly.  To attempt to put these teachings into action in my daily life is a happy challenge.

True, I am often appalled at some of the antics of my fellow Sikhs, whether they involve pulling kirpans on each other or corruption in the ranks or practicing female foeticide or castism.  I cannot overlook the fact that I usually don't live up to being what a Sikh should be.  But I cannot lose sight of the fact that each of these are contrary to the teachings of our Guru Sahiban and the Bhagats.  The fault lies with us;  not with Sikhi.

I am a Sikh.  I love being a Sikh.  It has given me "something to live for, great enough to die for."  I would challenge any Sikh - or anyone else who is interested - to try reading Siri Guru Granth Sahib ji, as I do.  Start immediately after Japji Sahib and, every day read a shabad or two, or however much you feel you want to read, but not enough to overload yourself.  I will be most amazed (and dismayed) if after a few days or weeks, you do not see the incredible beauty and depth in what you are reading.  If you make this practice a habit, you will eventually have read Guru ji in its entirety with some understanding of it.  It will take several years, but so what?  You will have had the experience of Gurbani.  When you have done this, you will know for certain whether you have cause to be ashamed of being a Sikh.  	

:wahkaur:​
If that is too much of a commitment for you, that is okay, too.  Just try it for a few days or weeks.  It's totally up to you.

I suggest you start reading after the Japji Sahib because I assume you read that every day anyway.  If you don't, feel free to start at the very beginning.

BTW, once you finish, you start over again.  It will be a new experience because you will have moved on with your life and Guru ji speaks to you where you are.

:animatedkhanda1:​


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Oct 10, 2013)

"You BETTER BELIEVE IT.." is the Final Bottom Line argument the Bible/Koran followers have..just in case anyone feels like questioning the "fantastic FACTS" presented in the Holy texts..like Moses Opening wide the RED SEA..or Noah's ARK supposedly having a COUPLE for EACH LIFE FORM on EARTH !!! Childhood illustrations almost always showed a few of the reasonable ones  a pair of lions, tigers, elephants, cows, sheep, chickens, goats, camels etc...and we are supposed to beleive the flesh eating LION and TIGER can SURVIVE next to a cow couple..or sheep couple..its then that the "YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT MATEY..its the WORD OF GOD !! argument si supposed to SHUT you UP. Another is.."Your man Brain is too FEEBLE ti understand GOD's ideas..like Noahs Ark..opening oceans etc etc..or even STOPPING THE SUN FROM SETTING !!!

NO SUCH arguments in SGGS. NONE WHATSOEVER.


----------



## spnadmin (Oct 11, 2013)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> its then that the "YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT MATEY..its the WORD OF GOD !! argument si supposed to SHUT you UP. Another is.."Your man Brain is too FEEBLE ti understand GOD's ideas..like Noahs Ark..opening oceans etc etc..or even STOPPING THE SUN FROM SETTING !!!
> 
> NO SUCH arguments in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. NONE WHATSOEVER.



This is the level of thinking that stands behind efforts to convert Sikhs, in particular, via the da'wah method of preaching. A "QUIZ MASTER" puts out questions -- he already has the answers -- because instead of thinking things through he accepts the "truth" of his scriptures. The objective is to convince the idiot-who-should-and-would-be-convert that his brains are weak and he requires the quiz-master to bring him to this realization. Sad to say, the would-be/should-be convert may not realize that "not knowing" is a good thing. It stimulates bibek into seeking a deeper meaning -- which is a gift to keep us from being enslaved by imposters and rank fools.

NO SUCH quiz-masters in SGGS. NONE WHATSOEVER


----------



## Randip Singh (Oct 14, 2013)

wftw said:


> *1. Historical Inconsistency and Unverifiable History*



Agree partly

There are a lot of nonsensical stories purporting miracles in Sikhism. None of tehse occured. The biggest miracle was in that peasants were turned into Saint Soldiers.

There are 3rd Party sources. Sikh History from Persian Sources is a good book. There are many others. I suggest you do some more in depth research.

If anything out of all teh major religions the Sikh faith is probably the most verifiable. - Grewal , Kharak Singh , Mcleod etc



wftw said:


> *2. Lack of Knowledge and Desired Knowledge / Religious Text *



Bani is pretty straight forward. there are metaphors. The problem is the vast majority are just more concerned with carrying Bani on their head tahn reading it. It's teh 11th Guru for a reason. It should be studied like a book rather than memorised like in a madrasa.




wftw said:


> *3. Hypocrisy in Sikhism *


I would argue that it is hypocrasy amongst Punjabi's rather than Sikhism.


			
				wftw;136081[B said:
			
		

> ] 4. Attacks on Islam / Lack of Understanding / Denial of Similarity [/B]


It could be argued Sikhism is similar to Christianity - they have Baptism, so do we. Or maybe Hinduism? Also Islam. The relaity is there maybe some common aspects, but Sikhism is not any of these.

I don't recall reading anywhere in the Sikh texts direct attacks on Islam. Attacks on hypocrasy but not Islam.

There definitely is a lack of understandding of the Sikh texts and its message.




*


			
				wftw;136081[B said:
			
		


			]
		
Click to expand...

*


			
				wftw;136081[B said:
			
		

> 5. Sikh Theory vs. Reality
> [/B]



All faiths suffer with this. The problem with Sikhi is the narrow minded and conservative Punjabi culture.


----------



## NavKaur (Jun 17, 2014)

Just to the poster, you say people were being narrow minded but you had no problem in proclaiming yourself more learned, which is a manifestation of "ego."

"Regardless, my point for pointing out my well versed religious knowledge is to point out that, I as a Sikh, consider my self to be well versed in History and Religion. I do not want to sound condescending or an elitist, but I would consider my self more versed than 90% of the public when it comes to matters of region and history." This is what you said.

And you went on to say that you graduated from a reputed university and are now in Law School. Good for you ji, but that does not give you authority to then proclaim yourself a knower of Sikhi or other religions for that matter.

You came off as aggressive sister, I too have gone to Church and studied other religious philosophy in depth and came to Sikhi after years, but still I am not smarter than "90%" of people and still have so much to learn. Cause Gurbani is nirankaar. I am sorry but this seemed to get off on the wrong foot in the beginning. 

It seemed to say "I am ashamed of being Sikh here is why, I am super smart, in Law School, all read in religions and know more than 90 % of people" (which doesn't leave a lot of us behind does it.) And then later it was as if you said I just came to engage in critique, you did not come to engage but merely criticize. That is NOT Sikhi either, as you were quick to point out behaviour of others as non-sikhi.


----------

