Contradictions of Opinion

i don't think of it in terms of transformation or deification... they have the authority of Guru, they speak for Guru, they act for Guru, and they give us Guru's Amrit and Naam dhrir (infusion).


however, when they walk out the door of the Darbar Sahib after the Amrit Sanchar is over, they become individuals again and that authority is gone.

at least this is my understanding.

__________________

Quote:

I am not questioning the legitimacy of the panj piare, I am questioning what sounded to me like an implication of their deity.

I have answered your question a few times now.

Guruka Singh Khalsa is a very nice man, but he's not exactly sharing mainstream Sikh teaching. Take the best of what you find here. Ultimately you have to follow a path of your own choosing. And that is perfectly fine. I am happy to try and answer any question you ask, and you don't even have to agree. (Definitely question what I say, I'm a morakh!) You're starting to wear kara and want to tie dastaar. I applaud you and hope you dive very deeply into Sikhi. 3HO people do a lot of good things as a Jatha. They were friends of Bhai Fauja Singh Shaheed at a time when being a friend was dangerous. I respect that.

Quote:

"So Guru gives you a secret, he gives you a formula. And that is, for you, a thing you need individually and personally to connect yourself to that touchstone within yourself. And that thing is unique for each person. And that thing is what we call Naam. So people who are rigid in saying, "this is the only mantra or Naam is this and Naam is not that... It's a state of being. It's a frequency. It's an experience. It's deep. It's universal. No one owns it. It doesn't belong to this religion or that religion. It's much deeper than that." -Guruka Singh Khalsa

According to this rather loose definition of Naam ਨਾਮੁ (which literally means God's Name), it's a thing unique for each person, it's univeral, it doesn't belong to this or that religion. And it's only people being "rigid" who say "this is the only mantra...no one owns it..."

Well the deciding factor for a Sikh isn't anyones or even his own opinion, but what is Gurmat (mind and intention of the Guru). And unequivocally Gurbani is Gurmat. And if Gurbani says Naam is chanting the Name of the Lord, no other definition could be there. No matter if somebody had 20 million fantastic experiences and claimed to be a brahmgyani and fireworks were going off... he could not persuade a single Sikh to believe against Gurbani. Because Sikhism is about submission to a Satguru.

Even Harbhajan Singh Yogi. He was a Tantric yoga master. Did he write instructions about how to do yoga that 3HO follw? Or did he say, do it any way you like, whatever works and is unique to you is Tantric yoga and you can call yourself a Master? Last I checked, Kundalini Research Institute has very definite guidelines for their yoga practices and kundalini teacher training courses. Guruka Singh Khalsa is saying Naam is very loosely defined and individual and unique and no one has a monopoly on what it means. It can mean whatever an individual wants it to mean... But he wouldn't pass certification as a Kundalini yoga instructor with the 3HO seal if he didn't conform his yoga teachings and definitions to precisely what Yogi Bhajan and Sikh Dharma teach.

Is Yogi Bhajan more of a Master than Guru's bani?













Forgive my assumption, but a lot of converts bring some prior religious teaching into Sikhism. Perhaps I'm mistaken. But the terminology of "legalism" is really an artifact of Christianity and used by those who challenge either their own Church traditions or even Judaism based on biblical passages where Jesus corrected corrupt religious leaders as legalistic and unspiritual. Protestant Christians get so annoyed over a concept like praying to the Virgin Mary, because that implied Catholic Christians were going against the Bible to make her a deity.

When you said, "Are the Panj Piare human beings?" I remembered if I shared something about any other religious teacher, my family would say in accusatory tone: "are they human beings?" It wasn't a question. The implication was only Jesus is God. They are human, they are fallible and make mistakes. Only Jesus is infallible. No disciples, no Church, no Popes, no doctrine could stand between an individual's interpretation and experience... and Jesus. But it doesn't translate to Sikhism.

Sikh teaching is somewhat different. And I suppose it's confusing because people talk about 10 Guru's. But, it isn't 10 Guru's, it's 1 Guru in 10 physical forms. All the 10 Guru's and the 11th Shabad Guru Ji Maharaaj have the same Jyot. The Shabad Jyot passed from one form to another like transmission. And when Guru passed Gurgaddhi (Guruship) to the Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, he also passed Gurgaddhi to the 5 beloved ones, and also to the Panthic body of the Khalsa (Guru Panth). This is why Sarbat Khalsa can be convened over difficult matters. Because the Sarbat Khalsa, like the Panj Piare has the Guruship. They have the right to pass Gurmattas (declarations of Guru's intention).

Now as Jasleen Kaur Ji pointed out, an ordinary Singh goes for Panj Piara seva. But when the 5 are together, and only for the time they act as the 5 beloved ones, they have the transmission, they are Guru's sargun (perceivable) saroop (form). The moment the Singh comes out of Panj Piara seva, he is no longer a Panj Piara, but only an ordinary Singh. Guru Panth plus Guru Granth and Guruship of the Panj Piares is mainstream Sikh teaching. Naam


~Please forgive my mistakes and assumptions

Quote:

Interesting. Intermediaries. Like Sikh priests passing out the body of Christ. Wow. There are so many different philosophies the Sikh community. Thank you for your explanation.

No, lol. Forgive that I'm not doing a better job of explaining. I think maybe we need a brahmgyani here. I'm doing my best but I'm not one.

Okay, let me try this. The Panj Piare are NOT Sikh priests. they don't mediate on our behalf or plead to Guru as our advocates. Please, try for a bit to empty your mind of previous Christian theological conditioning. because I sincerely believe your mistaking a whole cultural context. Guruji is NOT like Christ. He is not an avatar or an incarnation of God. And the Sikh religion is not like the Catholic religion.

It is not a philosophy of the Sikh community that Sikh priests are intermediaries. We may disagree on a hundred other things, but on this we agree... It is mainstream Sikh belief that the 5 beloved khalsas were elevated to the status of Guru Panth. It is not them individually or as a person elevated to status of Godhood. But as the Panj they have the authority and saroop of Guru to decide in temporal matters. When Akal Takht delivers a hukamnama for the Sikh Panth, it's decided by Panj Piare.

Try and understand this according to the Punjabi history as well, not Christian teachings which look harshly at "legalism" and the Jewish sanhedrin as corrupt unspiritual institutions which persecuted Christ. Try to understand how hard it was for the Sikh community to deal with the murder of a Guru and all his surviving sons and decide who would take His place? How does a community decide temporal matters of state and faith?

All these traditions, rehitnamay, granths have been preserved after the near destruction of the Sikh community. That's why Sikh scholars are still finding Guru's bani and compilations and rehitnamay and debating their authenticity before Akal Takht. Some rehitnamay confirm traditions which existed only by word of mouth because everyone who knew had been killed. Things like sarbloh rehit, shakti of sarbloh, Sarbloh Akal are still not well-known that had formerly been purataan traditional practices.

This isn't like bad "legalists" persecuting "nice" spiritual guys who want to do what feels best. This is more like a traumatized community trying to preserve it's identity under crisis. The Indian government is trying very hard to infiltrate the Sikh Nation to assert political control over Punjab. BJP-RSS is well-funded. They are fascist nationalists who work in concert with Congress Party against who they feel are enemies of India: Christians, Muslims, Khalistani Sikhs. They fund groups like Nirankaris, Radhasoamis, Naamdharis, and thousands of babas, dedhari guru cults and deras with the express political aim to redefine Sikh religion and bring it into conformity with radical Hindutva. This is Kalyug. It is a spiritual war. Are we ready to sacrifice?

YouTube - The Making of a Muslim Terrorist

YouTube - Shaheeds Of 1978

YouTube - 1984 teri yaad

YouTube - The Jathedar created by Khalsaforce.net

YouTube - Shaheed Kamaljeet Singh


Sikh religion loves and honors its shaheeds! A lot can be said about differing opinions whether its Naam abiyaas, keski rehit, strictness, legalism, lack of open-mindedness, etc. But the Akhand Kirtani Jatha more than paid a price in blood, torture and shaheedi for the Sikh Panth. And that says something about strict rehit Gursikh practices and points of contention. AKJ has left a legacy of honor forever that can never be denied to the Jatha. It is my ardaas we could all have such great spiritual jeevans as the Shaheed Singhs/Singhnia.

~Please forgive my foolishness

Harjas Kaur Khalsa,

Thank you so much for your informative and insightful post. It helped me a lot, although the brutality of humans towards each other is something I have never been able to really get my mind around. Thanks for the video links as well. What you are saying makes quite a bit more sense to me now, as does some of the things I tend to perceive as legalism.

Thank You!

caroline

The following controversial post by Balbir Singh had me thinking if he is a Sikh, RSS, Namdhari, Nirankari or Radha Soami or own self-styled Guru.
Was his intention to create confusion or meant to educate :-

Who told them that their Guru needs clothing?


Pray Truth for all and say Satsriakal!
Dear all!

Sikhs offer their Guru Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee Rumaalaas. Who told them that their Guru needs clothing?
Please explain.

Balbir Singh

He adds on to ask questions and make statements like:

May I ask if offering Rumaalaa is a technique of falling in love with the Guru? Did He ask for it once? Is this a universal technique?

Parents also feel that the child needs clothing. They should protect him. This is the common sense.
In my view Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is not our child nor the Guru is sensitive toward climatic hazards.
The True Guru is singing about people who offer clothing to wear.

ਅਨਿਕ ਬਸਤ੍ਰ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਪਹਿਰਾਇਆ ॥
अनिक बसत्र सुंदर पहिराइआ ॥
"anik bastar sundar pehraa-i-aa."
Many robes are decoratively worn.

ਜਿਉ ਡਰਨਾ ਖੇਤ ਮਾਹਿ ਡਰਾਇਆ ॥੨॥
जिउ डरना खेत माहि डराइआ ॥२॥
"ji-o darnaa khayt maahi daraa-i-aa. ||2|| SGGS 190-17
Like scaring in the field are frightened.

__________________

Guru Arjun Sahib put the Adi Granth on his own bed, with clean blankets, and slept on the floor. what other proof does one need?

__________________

NanJap ji, Jasleen ji,


In this instance simple logic will work against your understanding what is going on. I often wonder myself.

__________________
gux gwvw idnu rwiq nwnk cwau eyhu || gun gaavaa dhin raath naanak chaao eaehu ||To sing Your Glorious Praises day and night - O Nanak, this is my heart-felt desire.

it's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of respect.

do we NEED to put fancy rumalla probably not. so why do we do it? to show our love and respect for our Guru ji.

i really don't see the point in over-thinking things like this. who does it harm if we wish to show respect to our great teacher? if others feel comfortable treating Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as they would any other book, that's their wish. personally, i'd prefer to follow the example set my my Guru.

__________________

Jasleen ji

Read my comment again. There may be another meaning to it.

__________________
gux gwvw idnu rwiq nwnk cwau eyhu || gun gaavaa dhin raath naanak chaao eaehu ||To sing Your Glorious Praises day and night - O Nanak, this is my heart-felt desire.

While searching one of the links on this page for literature about Sikh history I found a link to a study by Harjot Oberoi called "The Construction of Religious Boundaries." The reference read like the thesis of the study was that present day mainstream Sikh theology (for lack of better word) was brought about as a sort of British conspiracy to fragment India and that it ended up creating a sort of doctrine that was never intended by the founders of Sikhism. It was pretty weird -- it seems to present the conflicts in the 80s as some sort of Sikh "terrorism."

Is this book part of the propaganda of the group that was brought up earlier?

And what about this accusation of Sikh "terrorism?" I watched a video a week or so ago of a news report in Canada that called the Khalistan groups a "terrorist organization."

It was awful!