The God Element

It is not possible to discuss the validity of Sikhism without questioning the gurus?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/questions-and-answers/34754-the-god-element.html

Banning that basically makes this a place for sikhs to co-sign each other rather than have debates with others.

Doesn't send a very good message out imo.
*

Do you agree or disagree with the writer above? Why not share your immediate thoughts with us! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views... Gurfateh!

No it is not possible to question the Gurus. Though one can and should ask questions about the Gurus.

It sends out an excellent message. The message sent says that Sikhs co-sign the message of their gurus. They debate with one another, and with others. We do not debate the validity of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji which emanates from our Gurus. We do not debate the validity of our Gurus.


Otherwise, why bother to be a Sikh?

Shanger ji

Obviously your either did not read or chose to ignore my warning above, and decided to continue to bicker on this point.

Quote:

In addition, do not take me to task on this thread. That will only hasten your departure.

There will be no more chances. If I find one more example of this anywhere on any thread, you are out of here permanently.

Any time I counter your points you delete my posts to make it look like i was flaming or something.

If you had any honour you'd reply to my posts, keeping them there, and let the readers make their own minds up.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34754

Banned and forum leaders will decide whether to make it permanent.

Shanger,
Freedom of speech comes with a responsibility not to be offensive for the sake of it.

It is not our job to educate you. You must do that for yourself. The Guru's were human beings but they were better humans that you or I will ever be. This is revealed through their teachings which empowered people away from the slavery of the time (slavery in terms of enforced belief systems as well as physical rule). People who are not Sikhs and have studied Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji cannot find fault with it and agree it is a wonderful trove of wisdom. The Guru's lives also showed how amazing they were as they made many sacrifices and constantly stood up for others in a very selfless way.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34754

The only way to remove ignorance is to research. School teaches us the skills to be able to do this. If you are really interested in Sikhi then you will spend time studying Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If not, your posts become mischievous. We have many members from other faiths and belief systems. This is respected and welcomed. All we ask in return is mutual respect. Undermining Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji on unfounded grounds is a slap in every Sikh's face.

You talk about honour. So show us your honour. Increase your understanding by being constructive not critical at every turn.

spnadmin ji this was developing into a very thought provoking thread with good participation. It appears this person just cannot tolerate good dialog. By the way dialog was not about everyone agreeing but sharing.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34754

Is it possible to delete the posts from this person to maintain discourse without distraction?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=34754

Thank you and it will be much appreciated.

Sat Sri Akal.

Kjsinghhyd ji,


Quoting me: What I gather from your own statements is that it doesn’t matter if one believes in God or not

C: Are you suggesting that in the end it does not matter what one believes in as long as one follows the suggestions of any particular religion? What the Truth is does not matter? I wonder how anyone can hold onto such a position and still be motivated enough to move in the one direction until the goal is reached?
C: So you are saying that one system of beliefs explicitly encourages a belief in God and another does not, yet both are moving towards the same goal and both would in the end come to realize directly, the reality of God? Anyway, I suspect that your source with regard to Buddhism comes from some Mahayana tradition, one which I happen to reject completely.


C: There is the simile of a man being shot by an arrow. Someone comes forward to help him, but this man refuses help until he finds out who shot the arrow, what his clan is and so on. When the answers are given, he insists on knowing which wood was used, which kind of bow etc., and then it is too late and he dies. This simile is used to show the danger of philosophical speculation and the importance of having enough understanding to condition a sense of urgency, one which leads to taking into consideration only what is “now”.

It is not so much a matter of ‘how’ it was created, but more of ‘when’ it all started. After all, how it is and maintained is explained by the concept of the five ‘cosmic orders’ and these are:

1. Caloric order.
2. Germinal order.
3. Moral order.
4. Psychical order.
5. Natural phenomena sequence.

Without getting into the details, I’d just point out that this explains the arising, maintenance and falling away of all conditioned existence. And with the development of understanding, one comes to be more and more convinced that this is true and was so in the past and will be in the future. The only way that this kind of understanding is ever developed, is by the study of the present moment. Everything else is speculation and some of the questions asked are symptomatic of madness even.


C: I hope that you can now see why yours must be a wrong representation of the Buddha’s teachings? Both physical and mental phenomena rise and fall away in an instant by complex set of conditions. Nothing ever remains for even one millisecond to affect other objects, let alone be the basis for the kind of belief which suggests ‘unity’ of some kind.

Ambarsaria ji,

There is good reason why we should avoid a discussion on this topic. It would have been better had Msbaath ji made it clear from the beginning that the Buddha was not included in his or her mention of ‘enlightened’ people. But since you have asked, I think I should give a response, but would suggest that we leave it here and not go any further after this.

====
C: Only one enlightened person will understand what another enlightened person has experienced. In terms of what otherwise is the object of experience, that of enlightenment will be expressed in terms of negating all those other experiences.

====
C: Sorry I do not agree with this line of enquiry, since the fact is that the Buddha did not believe in God and Guru Nanak did so. Enlightenment is supposed to reveal the “Truth” and this is then taught to others. And it is this Truth expressed which is what attracts the followers and maintains their confidence. Had it been that it does not really matter what the conclusion arrived at is, such confidence could not be aroused.

====
Ambarsaria:
Without having the benefit of their physical presence amidst us, I humbly submit that they will be closer rather than further to their realization. For me "great minds think alike but not 100% similar".

====
C: I surely would like to hear what the basis for this is. But it is perhaps better that I not insist on it.

====
C: There is really no need to think in terms of the quality of the ‘experience’ itself. But one thing that caught my attention in Msbaath ji’s original message was the idea that “all enlightened people would come to the same conclusion”. This is because a similar idea is expressed in Buddhism as well, namely that all enlightened people of the past and future would arrive at the same Truth and end up teaching the same thing.

====
C: No two moments are ever the same, including what goes on within the individual. But in terms of what “kind” of mental and physical phenomena there are, the experience of “seeing” for example, is the same for a fish, an insect or a man. Being that seeing has a particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause which are not the same as in the case of say, hearing or thinking. So sure, wisdom understands that no two moments are ever the same; however it must also have arrived at the conclusion that the elements are what they are and what conditions them. This latter is what all those who “know” will also agree upon.

====
C: And the question is, can two persons both enlightened, come to a different conclusion about the Truth?

====
C: Yes, it would manifest in the actions performed. However, this is not really how we determine if someone is enlightened or not. Obviously, the person judging would himself have to have a good degree of understanding, but I’d suggest that this person will not be looking so much at the results, but rather the “causes”. And one sure way for this to happen, is to be involved in a discussion with the individuals concerned.

====
C: I appreciate the initiative.

Regards.

Msbaath ji,


Had you made this clear in that first post, this discussion needn’t have taken place. Perhaps, I should not have poked my nose into the matter anyway regardless of the perception. But since we have come so far and this being one of the things I had in mind and wanted to address, I’d like to response to the following part of your message:


C: At one time in my life I would probably have made a similar comment. My stating that ‘Buddhism is a great religion’ or that the ‘Buddha was enlightened’ would have been more or less a product of hearsay, rather than any attempt to study the teachings.

The Buddha at one point, in response to someone who was attracted to his outward appearance and demeanor and following him everywhere, said that “only if you understood my teachings would you really ‘see’ me”.

The implication of this is that we should first develop some understanding of what he taught before we can make any statement about the value of his teachings. And in the process we’d come to understand better the qualities of the Buddha and only then can we say that he was in fact enlightened.

And for this reason I would have preferred that you did not include the Buddha in your reference to ‘enlightened people of the past’.
C: Yes you have. ;-)