It's my pleasure to be sharing it with the future custodians of Sikhism.
Why This Forum Thesedays Is Full Of "saakats" (skeptics And Atheists) ?
- Thread starter Seeker2013
- Start date
- Replies 97
- Reads 11K
-
- Tags
- atheist sikhs sikhs skeptics
- Apr 8, 2015
- 49
- 71
- 34
Thank you for your reply.Please take what I say with a grain of salt, I am no university graduate.
No wonder you're so smart. Most university degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on these days, tbh
So I see a lot of interesting points of discussion here. Just like you mentioned in your reply to me, I too "could start disagreeing with you right here" about "what Gurbani actually says", about Sikh history and the distinction between "Sikh philosophy" and "Sikh religion". If you would like a full-reply to your post, please let me know. But the reason I am not going to do it here is because it appears to me that when we get past the surface, the following points are at the heart of our different approaches to Sikhi.
Are those the only two options here? Do we either have to accept the Gurus as Abrahamic/Jesus-esque prophets or as philosophers? Is there nothing else they could have possibly been?
Again, are Jesus-esque prophets or philosophers the only two options for who the Gurus were?
And this is exactly what I've been stressing over and over again. We can go into deep discussions on hukam, on whether Sikhs are practicing Sikhi in line with Gurmat, or who has the best interpretation of this concept or that. But none of this matters one bit unless we first know why we should accept Gurbani and why we listen to the Gurus in the first place.
The crux of my argument thus far can be summarized as such: "if the Gurus were philosophers, then there is no real reason for us to follow them or accept their teachings. No matter how nice of human beings they may have been, no matter how feel-good their teachings may be, even if they were the greatest philosophers the world has ever seen, at the end of the day they were simply presenting what they felt to be the best way to live human life. There is no reason to accept their way of living life over the way of any other philosophers, thinkers, or even a way of life we come up with ourselves because at the end of the day it is all arbitrary. None of it is based on any independent truth, how we choose to live our lives then is simply based on our own whims, our own desires and what is most convenient and comfortable to us."
You then presented the counterargument of (paraphrase) "well if they are prophets, then why not follow Jesus who is (potentially) the greatest prophet of all?". That's actually exactly what I'm advocating Sikhs start doing. If the Gurus were more than simply philosophers then there is (potentially) a real, non-arbitrary reason to follow them and accept their Gurbani. Because then their message isn't simply based on what they felt to be the best way to live human life, but some external, independent truth that remains valid whether you, myself or anyone else accepts it or not. It then becomes the responsibility of Sikhs to present the case for Gurbani to the entire world and show people how the message of the Gurus has real meaning and is not just arbitrary. The Gurus didn't need to be Abrahamic or Jesus-esque prophets for that to be the case. It is not simply a case of "were they Abrahamic prophets or philosophers?" There are more options than that and we should look to Gurbani and the accompanying literature of great GurSikhs like Bhai Gurdas before we decide who the Gurus really were. But if we say they were philosophers, then they may have been the greatest philosophers the world has ever seen. It doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day there is no real reason to accept their Gurbani beyond personal whims and appeal.
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
First of all, JourneyOflife Ji, I'd like to defer to Original Ji's most excellent post about religion vs philosophy.
The Jesus reference was merely an example of what I understood your argument to be - "Why should we follow the Guru, instead of Jesus?" Substitute Jesus for any other religious figure of equal importance within its related religion and the example would still stand. There is no deeper meaning to my choice of 'Jesus' for the example.
The reason to accept their teachings, is that their teachings are the most pragmatic and make the most sense. They don't make so many supernatural claims, or proclaim time-bound laws for a specific society. They simply describe life, and the sukhmani available for the devotee and lover of the Creator.
I'm not sure I understand how you get from following the Guru's teachings, to living our own lives based on whims, desires and what is most convenient and comfortable to us?
I take your point. However, the Gurus themselves say how they are often at a loss for words to explain or describe the Sat Naam. Can we ever access the external, independent truth in any way but through our own experience and relationship with the Creator, the Creation, and our generous Guru's greatest endeavour to try to teach and reveal it to us? We can't. We can only perceive the external, independent truth ourselves, with Gurprasaad.
No, it doesn't. By what standard do you measure claims before deciding they can be accepted, and aren't followed due to personal whims and appeal?
The Jesus reference was merely an example of what I understood your argument to be - "Why should we follow the Guru, instead of Jesus?" Substitute Jesus for any other religious figure of equal importance within its related religion and the example would still stand. There is no deeper meaning to my choice of 'Jesus' for the example.
The reason to accept their teachings, is that their teachings are the most pragmatic and make the most sense. They don't make so many supernatural claims, or proclaim time-bound laws for a specific society. They simply describe life, and the sukhmani available for the devotee and lover of the Creator.
I'm not sure I understand how you get from following the Guru's teachings, to living our own lives based on whims, desires and what is most convenient and comfortable to us?
I take your point. However, the Gurus themselves say how they are often at a loss for words to explain or describe the Sat Naam. Can we ever access the external, independent truth in any way but through our own experience and relationship with the Creator, the Creation, and our generous Guru's greatest endeavour to try to teach and reveal it to us? We can't. We can only perceive the external, independent truth ourselves, with Gurprasaad.
No, it doesn't. By what standard do you measure claims before deciding they can be accepted, and aren't followed due to personal whims and appeal?
I tell you why i take what Guru Ji says as the complete truth...
I came across a whole load of funky stuff in Gurbani that sounded completely out of this world...
a lot of people told me...its just a metaphor, its just this and that
but i put what i understood certain parts of Gurbani to mean....into practice..
and one day.... booom!....that whole load of funky stuff that sounded completely bogus and out of this world...
well...
it turned out to be true ...
and the even crazier thing is...i'm no more special than anyone else because of it....we all have it in us. how amazing is that?
I came across a whole load of funky stuff in Gurbani that sounded completely out of this world...
a lot of people told me...its just a metaphor, its just this and that
but i put what i understood certain parts of Gurbani to mean....into practice..
and one day.... booom!....that whole load of funky stuff that sounded completely bogus and out of this world...
well...
it turned out to be true
...and the even crazier thing is...i'm no more special than anyone else because of it....we all have it in us. how amazing is that?
Last edited:
- Apr 8, 2015
- 49
- 71
- 34
I'll check it out, thank you.
And this is exactly what I am trying to get Sikhs to think about. Why should we follow the Guru instead of Jesus, or "any other religious figure of equal importance within its related religion"? The point I am trying to make in this discussion is not to list those reasons, but to simply put forth the proposition that if they are mere philosophers then there is no actual reason to do so beyond your own desires. But if the Gurus weren't just philosophers, then there is (potentially) an actual objective reason to follow them and their teachings. Whether you or I or anyone else followed them or not would have no effect on the truth of their message.
Pragmatic in what sense? According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of 'pragmatic' is "dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories."
What is 'pragmatic' about choosing to be tortured to death on a hot plate instead of taking out a few verses from Gurbani and changing your religion, as Guru Arjan Dev Ji had done?
What is pragmatic about choosing to be sawed in half and burned alive rather than changing your religion, as the companions of the 9th Guru chose to do in Delhi?
What is pragmatic about choosing to keep your long hair even when there is a warrant demanding your death, as the Khalsa of the 18th century chose to do?
This is highly subjective. I know many Sikhs who have tried explaining Sikhi to others only for the other person to turn around and say "this is so confusing and makes no sense."
Many people in the 21st century would claim it is unnecessary to even talk of a 'Creator' at all. Besides, if "rejection of supernatural claims" and "time-bound laws for a specific society" are the reasons we should accept Sikhi, then why not just accept secular humanism? It doesn't make any supernatural claims, not is it time-bound for a specific society...
If the Gurus were philosophers, then there is no reason to accept their teachings aside from our own subjective whims, desires and convenience. If the Gurus were philosophers, what reason do you or I have to follow the Gurus if we don't "feel like it"?
Once again, if the Gurus were philosophers, then on which basis am I to accept this worldview of our connection with Sat Naam over anything written by Aristotle, Plato, Socrates or any of the other great philosophers of history, aside from my own subjective "whim, desire or convenience?"
Objectivity vs. subjectivity.
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
I'm sorry Ji, but I'm not understanding the point. Please don't take that the wrong way, I would love to continue the discussion at your discretion.
Can you please tell me how you have applied objectivity vs subjectivity in choosing Sikhi over, say, Islam?
"Just philosophers" is a belittling statement. A philosopher is at least someone who rationally looks at the world and presents some explanations to existential questions, and usually provides an ethical structure. When you look at what Guru Sahib achieved, and the community that exists today as His legacy, then surely He is one of the greatest.
From what I understand so far, they do present objective reasons to follow their teachings. We can look to the Gurus themselves, and the great Sikhs they inspired.
The Gurus taught real-life truth. Aad such, jugaad such, hai bhi such, Nanak hosi bhi such. It will continue whether the human race even exists or not, let alone you or I!
I am not about to analyse the reasons for why Guru Arjan Sahib Ji did what he did. Bt I see no problem with these examples here. Indeed, they are examples of the kind of genuine character that Sikh teachings can produce. If following these teachings, this philosophy, this way of life can make me even a fraction of what these people were, I would die a happy woman.
I've tried, actually. But secular humanism is only part of the story. Sikhi is the whole package. My experience of secular humanism was dry, like cereal without milk. Sustaining, but lacking depth and completeness of the Sikh way of life.
Read their work, look at history, then tell me what more you need?
Guru Sahib tells the Muslim how to be a good Muslim. The Muslim is not instructed to keep up with meaningless ritual, but to turn to good, pragmatic actions. The Muslim can still be a Muslim, Guru Sahib was simply teaching the underlying philosophy of good actions and simran.
Please tell me how choosing one religion over another is not subject to "whim, desire or convenience"?
Can you please tell me how you have applied objectivity vs subjectivity in choosing Sikhi over, say, Islam?
"Just philosophers" is a belittling statement. A philosopher is at least someone who rationally looks at the world and presents some explanations to existential questions, and usually provides an ethical structure. When you look at what Guru Sahib achieved, and the community that exists today as His legacy, then surely He is one of the greatest.
From what I understand so far, they do present objective reasons to follow their teachings. We can look to the Gurus themselves, and the great Sikhs they inspired.
The Gurus taught real-life truth. Aad such, jugaad such, hai bhi such, Nanak hosi bhi such. It will continue whether the human race even exists or not, let alone you or I!
I am not about to analyse the reasons for why Guru Arjan Sahib Ji did what he did. Bt I see no problem with these examples here. Indeed, they are examples of the kind of genuine character that Sikh teachings can produce. If following these teachings, this philosophy, this way of life can make me even a fraction of what these people were, I would die a happy woman.
I've tried, actually. But secular humanism is only part of the story. Sikhi is the whole package. My experience of secular humanism was dry, like cereal without milk. Sustaining, but lacking depth and completeness of the Sikh way of life.
Read their work, look at history, then tell me what more you need?
Guru Sahib tells the Muslim how to be a good Muslim. The Muslim is not instructed to keep up with meaningless ritual, but to turn to good, pragmatic actions. The Muslim can still be a Muslim, Guru Sahib was simply teaching the underlying philosophy of good actions and simran.
Please tell me how choosing one religion over another is not subject to "whim, desire or convenience"?
I think what he might be getting at is...
a philosopher might have some ideas and interesting thoughts and concepts based on what he/she see's around them....but does the philosopher have a method by which me, you or someone else can prove it...for ourselves...to ourselves?
if they were just philosophers..i don;t think i would be following them...
they used language like..."now is the time....don;t waste this opportunity of human birth'...that to me signals...they know the truth...and spoke the truth, and want us to waste not a single breath to experience and see it for ourselves whilst we still have the opportunity...
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
Thanks Chaz Ji.
The proof of a philosopher's teaching is in the fruit of their students. I think Sikhi demonstrates this perfectly well. What other kind of objective proof do you suggest there could be for Sikhi?
What is the measure you and JourneyOflife are using?
The proof of a philosopher's teaching is in the fruit of their students. I think Sikhi demonstrates this perfectly well. What other kind of objective proof do you suggest there could be for Sikhi?
What is the measure you and JourneyOflife are using?
Dear All
The lore of religion is built around moments of revelation and mystical experiences, pretty much like the eurekas of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein. Together they've given us in succession valuable incremental insights that has transformed our lives beyond belief.
Nanak saw further because he stood on the shoulders of the giants like Islam n Hinduism [re ontology n theology] and gave the world Sikhism. His transcendental truth-reality cannot be understood without the understand and initiation of "nam". Debate n discuss until the cows come home for Nanaks Subject Object will remain aloof.
Nanak, Muhammed Sahib n the like we're people who made spirituality the focus of their lives. Living with this focus, they embody the finest human qualities and transcended normal human limitations which otherwise is assigned to philosophers. They were to teach humankind the truth n reality that was beyond the reach of science n philosophy, the prerequisite of which was and still is the "belief" in God. Moreover, they had developed themselves to their full potential and having mastered the science of the soul, having "personally" experienced the realms beyond mind n matter. By virtue thereof they were the best qualified to instruct others on the road to lead humankind to develop their potential to max and "experience" the divine.
The lore of religion is built around moments of revelation and mystical experiences, pretty much like the eurekas of Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein. Together they've given us in succession valuable incremental insights that has transformed our lives beyond belief.
Nanak saw further because he stood on the shoulders of the giants like Islam n Hinduism [re ontology n theology] and gave the world Sikhism. His transcendental truth-reality cannot be understood without the understand and initiation of "nam". Debate n discuss until the cows come home for Nanaks Subject Object will remain aloof.
Nanak, Muhammed Sahib n the like we're people who made spirituality the focus of their lives. Living with this focus, they embody the finest human qualities and transcended normal human limitations which otherwise is assigned to philosophers. They were to teach humankind the truth n reality that was beyond the reach of science n philosophy, the prerequisite of which was and still is the "belief" in God. Moreover, they had developed themselves to their full potential and having mastered the science of the soul, having "personally" experienced the realms beyond mind n matter. By virtue thereof they were the best qualified to instruct others on the road to lead humankind to develop their potential to max and "experience" the divine.
Since, you have mentioned the name - it gives me more of an incentive to join in. Muhammad (peace be upon him) claimed that he was authorised by God to reveal what was revealed to him. Was it the case with Guru Nanak Sahib according to the Sikhi beliefs?
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
Thank you Ji. Worded this way, I can understand and accept. Perhaps it is time to soften my 'philosophy philosophy' approach somewhat.
The prerequisite "belief" in God is the kicker here - but the Ik Onkar does not appear to be a supernatural force, but rather part and parcel of existence. Therefore I'm not sure 'supernatural' is the word I'd use to describe It - seems perfectly natural to me.
I have an odd brain, quite linear in its processing ability. Thank you for having patience with me.
.....young lady, you needn't thank me nor be surprised about your metamorphosis in general, its the word [waheguru], the invisible behind the visible that is responsible. Like the butterfly who knows nothing of lift, wind speed, air resistance, vacuum or indeed, physics in general. This does not prevent it from flying coz it was born to fly. Emerged from the homogeneous of nature with the ability to do something it could never understand. That caterpillar is you, wait until your a butterfly - read p938 SGGSJ !
...no, instead be a philosopher-disciple of SGGSJ! A philosopher is someone who recognises that there is a lot she/he does not understand and is troubled by it. And, that as a result, prompts the GURU to do something about it, like right now for instance.
..who said anything about "supernatural", the weak survive and the mild persist by His hukam. Nanak's Nirgun cannot be pigeon-holed for the want of western conventional accommodation, so look for Gurmukh intention and meaning in the first instance.
....yes, ad sach jugad sach.....Nanak is sach [truth], therefore His prescribed way is truth. Similarly, Muhammed Sahib to the Muslims, Jesus to the Christians n Buddha to the Buddhists is the way, the light and the truth.
...Gur Ghar offers an alternative, and that alternative IG comes gradually - Gur Prasad. One becomes static from the dynamic.
...you're the future, Gurbani comes from behind the clouds where there is no time [Akal]. You're not connected to me but to the word that was in the very "beginning" - SATNAM WAHEGURU JI ! It is the word of our forefathers. They were not philosophers but servants and knew they could only serve the ONE, the philosopher [mind] or the master [Guru] - AP. They chose the latter - so will we by understanding and accepting the word enshrined within the pages of SGGSJ.
Last edited:
..you're welcome, but pls, few ground rules ! I'm a Sikh, I take Quran Sharif, The Holy Bible and all else professing the love n wisdom of God to be gospel, kindly repay me with the same should you fancy chit-chat.
...both Muhammed Sahib Ji and Baba Nanak Ji had a divine experience, result of which as you know is Islam n Sikh, respectively. The use of the word claim renders it willy nilly and robs it majestic divinity. But, yes, from a mystical perspective they could be classed as transcendental.
Thanks Chaz Ji.
The proof of a philosopher's teaching is in the fruit of their students. I think Sikhi demonstrates this perfectly well. What other kind of objective proof do you suggest there could be for Sikhi?
What is the measure you and JourneyOflife are using?
Once upon a time I used to read Gurbani and think....some of this stuff just sounds way too out of this world...and often wondered what it meant for a nobody like me...
Over the past three years...there have been occasions I come out of meditation thinking 'holy holy shizzle!...this stuff is the real deal' completely wonders truck...I.Ve sat there completely silent...no movement.. trying to put some logic into what just took place...
Yes' as sikh we try to live truthfully... share with others...to live without harming others...understand nature and creation...etc etc
But beyond that there is a very real...very personal experience awaiting us...of something words cannot describe....for me..I am just skimming the surface of this...my mind hurts trying to contemplate the possibilities of what could lie ahead.
What helps is that much of what I. Ve come across is there in gurbani...it's just that I never 'saw' it there before...this is my measure..
To know it is speaking the truth...
Everyone's journey is unique but this inner experience is there for us all to one day dive into...
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
Brother, I understand what you're saying here.
I have those same 'omg!!' moments when I'm carried away reading page after page of Gurbani. A kind of meditation in and of itself.Yet, you have given me an entirely subjective reason to follow the Guru instead of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha. JourneyOflife Ji (unless I'm mistaken) is looking for objective reasons why we should follow our Guru, as only objective reasons set them apart from being "just philosophers", and therefore worthy of our dedication.
Good morning Everyone
The beauty of Sikhism is the science of subject [you] object [God] and the "oneness" experienced, meaning non-duality, transcendental state of being, hence,
Classic example is afforded by Heer [subject] n Ranjha [object], "Ranjha Ranjha kardi nee main apay Ranjha hoyee II sado nee manuu dee dao Ranjha, Heer na akhay koi II Ranjha main, vich main Ranjha'y vich hoar khayal na koi II main nahi O aap ha aapna aap kara dil joyee"
Guru Gobind went as far as saying, 'look people, I don't expect you to chew over the entire SGGSJ, just one shabd [Ranjha, for example] is enough to get you across the ocean of life [...khoj shabd main lay], meaning, the power of the word when religiously practiced will reveal all.
That said, "love" for the self is essential [meaning, love yourself, be of righteous disposition] it is through the love of the self that will culminate into the the transcendental love of the real self, the formless, shapeless, timeless being.
The beauty of Sikhism is the science of subject [you] object [God] and the "oneness" experienced, meaning non-duality, transcendental state of being, hence,
- Waho waho Bani Nirankar hai [Bani is God, 515 SGGSJ]
- Bani guru, guru hai bani [Bani and Guru are the one and the same 982 SGGSJ]
- Parbraham Gur nai pha'id [Guru is God, between the 2 is no difference 1142 SGGSJ]
Classic example is afforded by Heer [subject] n Ranjha [object], "Ranjha Ranjha kardi nee main apay Ranjha hoyee II sado nee manuu dee dao Ranjha, Heer na akhay koi II Ranjha main, vich main Ranjha'y vich hoar khayal na koi II main nahi O aap ha aapna aap kara dil joyee"
Guru Gobind went as far as saying, 'look people, I don't expect you to chew over the entire SGGSJ, just one shabd [Ranjha, for example] is enough to get you across the ocean of life [...khoj shabd main lay], meaning, the power of the word when religiously practiced will reveal all.
That said, "love" for the self is essential [meaning, love yourself, be of righteous disposition] it is through the love of the self that will culminate into the the transcendental love of the real self, the formless, shapeless, timeless being.
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
