Manmukh or Gurmukh: Can Mind Serve as Spiritual Authority?

Archived_Member4 · #1 (**permalink**) 21-Mar-2009, 23:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aad0002

It is really a fine thing when 2, 3 or more Gursikhs can come to different conclusions about keeping hair per Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and can do it without animosity -- as our One Creator who is without animosity and sets the tone for all of his children.

They come to 2 or 3 different conclusions because some are allergic to the truth and Manmat is there dear friend.

Once you decide to let go of the Manmat mentality then the answer becomes clear. Told to give the head but people just want to give a broken nail and consider it Sikhi.

BhagatSingh · #2 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singh

Bhagat Singh, Guru Sahib calls this Manmukh behavoir.

Well, if Guru Sahib are calling this manmukh behaviour then surely, Guru Sahibs themselves must be manmukh. The highest authority for them was their own intellect.

Quote:

The highest authority is Guru ji

Who was their Guru ji?

Quote:

and for political decisions Guru Sahib gave the authority to Akal Takht with Guru Sahibs agreeing on the decisions.

Guru Saibs don't necessarily has to agree on the decision Akal takht makes. They are not here on this world anymore so they really have no say on what Akal Takht decides.

Quote:

Order given by Guru Har Gobind Sahib ji.

Why?

Whilte you think about that we must also look at the situation in which this hukam was given. Since its not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji like you said. We must also look at how practical it is now? how practical is it to give Akal takht authority nowadays.
Did Akal takht not ban books by kala Afghana and excommunicate him? Instead of refuting what he had to say, they banned his books.
and who banned tables and chairs from langar?

While you think about that let me remind you that this is irrelevant to the discussion about kes.

Quote:

Excuses by you, the Hukam was given limited to a situation.

A perfectly reasonable premise to support my conclusion. You have not even bothered to try and refute it.

Quote:

Excuse, not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. Excuse not practical today. None of these excuses are reasonable because of their false support or no support.

This fallacy is called straw person since a straw person is weak and easily knocked down. With a straw person argument, a very weak form of an opponent's argument is set up and then knocked down.
I could also add the fallacy referred to as card stacking, which is essentially ommiting information that supports an unfavoured view.
You said I have weak support or no support behing my arguments. But you intentionally ommitted the support from this discussion. You have not even considered it! You keep repeating what has been drilled into you over and over, without considering any thing else.
It is in fact, your conclusion that lacks any support.

Quote:

I have no excuse. Neither do I need one. The tenth Nanak made a Hukam and I follow the Hukam. A excuse is when one wants to be exempted from following the Hukam. In this case you are that person that uses excuse to release yourself from following Guru ji.

Hmm... if that's the case then the father of the tenth master, the ninth master himself, made an excuse. this is of course following your logic. When auranzeb asked him to convert to islam. He made an excuse that he should have the right to follow his own wishes.

Quote:

The reason why you disobey and lead others to disobey Guru ji

.
more fallacies to follow...sad
This is called argument against the person or argumentum ad hominem.

Narayanjot Kaur · #3 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 01:58 AM

Bhagat ji,

I understand what you mean by this statement. It is a rhetorical statement not to be understood at the literal level.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-youth/24321-manmukh-gurmukh-can-mind-serve-spiritual.html

Well, if Guru Sahib are calling this manmukh behaviour then surely, Guru Sahibs themselves must be manmukh. The highest authority for them was their own intellect.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24321

However some individuals may take the statement literally. Guru Nanak encouraged questions and did not have disdain for intellect. If you see fit would you elaborate on your meaning? Thank you: aad0002

BhagatSingh · #4 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aad0002

Bhagat ji,

I understand what you mean by this statement. It is a rhetorical statement not to be understood at the literal level.

Well, if Guru Sahib are calling this manmukh behaviour then surely, Guru Sahibs themselves must be manmukh. The highest authority for them was their own intellect.

However some individuals may take the statement literally. Guru Nanak encouraged questions and did not have disdain for intellect. If you see fit would you elaborate on your meaning? Thank you: aad0002

You are right. Manmukh is something different. If someone considers their brain authority, it does not mean they are manmukh.
I think manmukh is that person who listens to either only his Id or Superego, and acts according to them. But someone who listens to their Ego is not manmukh. Id, Ego and Superego were defined by Freud like so:
Id = I want it and I want it now. Its all about 'I'. What do I want?
Superego = is all about morality and society. It about 'Them'. What will 'they' say if I do this?
Ego reasons and is balance between the two.
The one who listens to 'ego' is Gurmukh.
Again, Ego is not your everyday ego. I use it the way it was defined by Freud.

Archived_Member4 · #5 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

Well, if Guru Sahib are calling this manmukh behaviour then surely, Guru Sahibs themselves must be manmukh. The highest authority for them was their own intellect.

As far as this comment goes im tell you to explain more indepth what you mean by their own intellect.

Quote:

Who was their Guru ji?

Bani is the Guru and Guru is the Bani and Bani is the True Guru and the True Guru is the Lord. All one and the same.

Quote:

Guru Saibs don't necessarily has to agree on the decision Akal takht makes. They are not here on this world anymore so they really have no say on what Akal Takht decides.

Bani is the Guru and Guru is the Bani and Bani is the True Guru and the True Guru is the Lord. All one and the same.

Quote:

Why?

To solve political issues

Quote:

Whilte you think about that we must also look at the situation in which this hukam was given. Since its not in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji like you said. We must also look at how practical it is now?

Why isn't practical? I'm looking for reasons here.

Quote:

how practical is it to give Akal takht authority nowadays.
Did Akal takht not ban books by kala Afghana and excommunicate him? Instead of refuting what he had to say, they banned his books.

In Guru Sahib time the Akal Takht got in the hands of invaders and still Guru Sahib said it was practical.

Quote:

and who banned tables and chairs from langar?

And whats your point by this? Once again looking for why you present this and give reason if your against or for this, if you wish.

Quote:

While you think about that let me remind you that this is irrelevant to the discussion about kes.

It is to prove a point and it does become relevant.

Quote:

A perfectly reasonable premise to support my conclusion. You have not even bothered to try and refute it.

The Tenth Nanak never put any limits on the Hukam. There is no need to refute anyting. Its simple as no limits on the Hukam.

Quote:

This fallacy is called straw person since a straw person is weak and easily knocked down. With a straw person argument, a very weak form of an opponent's argument is set up and then knocked down.
I could also add the fallacy referred to as card stacking, which is essentially ommiting information that supports an unfavoured view.
You said I have weak support or no support behing my arguments. But you intentionally ommitted the support from this discussion. You have not even considered it! You keep repeating what has been drilled into you over and over, without considering any thing else.
It is in fact, your conclusion that lacks any support.

If you consider the Tenth Nanak Hukam not support then its fair to say you do not consider Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji as support.

Quote:

Hmm... if that's the case then the father of the tenth master, the ninth master himself, made an excuse. this is of course following your logic. When auranzeb asked him to convert to islam. He made an excuse that he should have the right to follow his own wishes.

This relates to the first comment so until you explain what you mean by their own intellect I will not comment on this.

.

Quote:

more fallacies to follow...sad
This is called argument against the person or argumentum ad hominem.

Yes Bhagat Singh I'm attacking you because I like to attack you

Narayanjot Kaur · #6 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BhagatSingh

You are right. Manmukh is something different. If someone considers their brain authority, it does not mean they are manmukh.
I think manmukh is that person who listens to either only his Id or Superego, and acts according to them. But someone who listens to their Ego is not manmukh. Id, Ego and Superego were defined by Freud like so:
Id = I want it and I want it now. Its all about 'I'. What do I want?
Superego = is all about morality and society. It about 'Them'. What will 'they' say if I do this?
Ego reasons and is balance between the two.
The one who listens to 'ego' is Gurmukh.
Again, Ego is not your everyday ego. I use it the way it was defined by Freud.

Well, Bhagat ji

I appreciate that you are defining ego as it was defined by Freud. But that doesn't help with clarification because Freud was born around 450 years after Guru Nanak passed from his physical body.

So let me pose the question again. Man + Mukh. Man means your mind or the obsessions and desires of the mind. Mukh means "face". Together they mean or convey the message of a person who follows in any direction his/her mind goes, leads, wanders, or who follows his desires and mental dictates. Someone who is Manmukh is a person who is controlled by attraction to Maya and the needs of the self are unlimited. We can add or subtract words here and there, but I think I have the essence of manmukh.

So you are saying that the Gurus were manmukh. Please answer according to the definition I have given above. Because in coming up with unique and highly individual definitions of your own invention, confusion in the dialog rules supreme.

Did you mean that the gurus followed their desires and mental dictates, as per their attraction to Maya? It will help me a lot if you answer straight.

vsgrewal48895 · #7 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 06:54 AM

Dear aad ji, since the wording of self willed vs Guru willed have come up-due to some technical difficulties which I am unable to understand, I will be posting the post under a new thread.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24321
Virinder

Narayanjot Kaur · #8 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 06:58 AM

vsgrewal ji

That sounds like a great idea. We need to be clear-headed about this.

vsgrewal48895 · #9 (**permalink**) 22-Mar-2009, 07:10 AM

I have posted it under Sikh Symbols but each of these will be coming shortly.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=24321
Virinder