☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
10 Questions To Sikhs From Muslims
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="max314" data-source="post: 47860" data-attributes="member: 2817"><p>Ah, this could be a fascinating discussion. It would be nice if you could provide links to this thread from your site if you haven't done so already, by the way. Just so we can get a really active and rounded discussion.</p><p> </p><p>So a summary of that above passage would be:</p><p></p><p>"A Prophet should be capable of performing miracles."</p><p></p><p>That is obviously your opinion, that a Prophet should be capable of performing miracles, and you base this quality on past Prophets.</p><p></p><p>But, in none of those definitions you give of being a Prophet (i.e. “A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed”, “someone who speaks by divine inspiration; someone who is an interpreter of the will of God”, “a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader”) is there any mention of performing miracles.</p><p></p><p>With all due respect, it would seem that you are imposing your own personal standards as to what constitutes Prophethood that are contrary to the very definitions you have provided.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't put much stake in miracles. Cheap tricks are not the way to a peaceful living, and Guru Nanak believed that. I believe that the truth is often distorted through time. One person tells another person who tells another person. School games like Chinese Whispers proove that distortion of truth across time is an innate human quality. Before you know it, a simple example of a pebble causing ripples in a pond becomes the parting of an entire sea of water...</p><p></p><p>I also believe that Guru Nanak, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, and all the other instigators of worlds faiths were no more 'divine' than you or I. Their enlightenment took the form of an understanding of societies needs and the requirements of what it would take to turn selfish animals into a noble family of people.</p><p></p><p>You are making assertions and half-deductions. Until you can provide concrete evidence to prove otherwise, I'm afraid that there is little substance to this claim.</p><p></p><p>The application of music to the verses of the Granth is nothing all that significant, other than the fact that it makes them sound good. These are easily altered and there is nothing erroneous about this at all.</p><p></p><p>I don't know where all this information is coming from about language use and which historical figures knew other ones (I doubt any of it is completely reputable, since I don't know many 600 year old people), but I do know that the fifth Guru, Arjun Dev, oversaw the redrafting of Guru Nanak's work as the Granth was beginning to be compiled under his supervision. If there do indeed exist such linguistic alterations/updates, it was undoubtedly done during this time...which, I believe, was approximately 100 years after Guru Nanak's death.</p><p></p><p>For the sake of illustration, <em>gurbani</em> describes God/the Cosmos/the Universe as being existent in two levels: the manifest and the unmanifest (i.e. <em>sargun</em> and <em>nargun</em>). This is, of course, completely subjective and is described from the <em>human</em> experience of the universe.</p><p></p><p><em>Maya</em> is what we perceive as the physical universe. God is manifest in what our five senses can detect (i.e. sargun[/i]).</p><p></p><p>But there are things in the universe that we cannot see or smell or taste or touch. And this is what is referred to as the unmanifest world (i.e. <em>nirgun</em>).</p><p> </p><p>Why? What would you do with those answers?</p><p></p><p>The only thing that matters is what you can do in this lifetime. Not dwelling on the events that took place billions of years ago.</p><p></p><p>In this sense, and many others, Sikkhism is a very pragmatic faith. It is forward looking and progressive. It established the first democratic body seen in Asia (the <em>akal takht<em>), and promoted hard work, family life and charitable conduct, and humility as the ultimate ideals.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Worrying about a distant and insignificant past is not something considered to be important for social development and tolerance.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>For someone who has obviously gone to considerable trouble to create this post, you really should be giving more specific quotations to back up your claims.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Personally, I've never interpreted the texts of the Granth as promoting 'reincarnation' in the characturist fashion that many perceive.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>I see it as a manifestation of Newton's First Law: energy is neither creted nor destroyed, it merely changes form. When we die, the constituent molecules in our body change to become something else. They don't just disappear.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Also, my interpretation of the Guru Granth Sahib leads me to believe that 'salvation' is simply the act of being at peace when you die by overcoming the five thieves of attachment, greed, lust, anger and ego, and by being satisfied that you have lead a full and moral life. It's not something 'supernatural' or ethereal. It's something very real.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Certainly, you can't be suggesting that the Islamic notion of a Heaven that resembles a Tesco's supermarket is any more "absurd" than that?</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>I don't know from where you pulled that quote. I'd like to see the origin source. If it has one.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>You are imposing your own subjective, human perspectives onto a God who does not relate to anything you are saying. Shit is only "impure" to you because we have evolved to understand that our bodies don't respond well to it. It's a purely biological issue. We perceive it to be "ew! Gross!", but it's actually nothing more than a chemical compund that's come about as a result of biochemical processes. Just as a small <em>obiter dicta</em>, cow dung is actually considered to be very hygenic and sanitary. But even then, that's just a perception because of what it means <em>to us</em>, and not the universe at large.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Free your mind, brotha <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Again, you're basing this on a third hand interpretation of Sikkh scriptures.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>My personal interpretation is that we are already One with God. If you insist on some kind of spiritual 'salvation', then it's attained simply by realising that simple fact.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Also, "evil" is something that we perceive. We project it onto things. It's an extrapolation of our survivial instincts. Little else.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Well, this is all a matter of assertion, isn't it? I'm very happy that the Koran decides to lay out every facet of life in a regimented routine, and that you are happy to obide by this.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>But it depends on what you're looking for in a particular faith.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>I've never called Sikkhism a religion. Religion creates hatred-inciting division, and this kind of hatred-inciting religion was something that Guru Nanak was vehemently opposed to.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Khalsaism, however, <strong>is</strong> a religion (though whether or not you consider it "complete" is up to you :}{}{}<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>You assume that all Sikkhs who claim to have killed for their religion or community were doing the right thing.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>That would be like me coming to you and saying that Islam sucks because it promotes the 9/11 hijackings.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>That is, obviously, not true.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>The actions of the individuals aren't a necessary reflection of the ideoligies they <strong>claim</strong> to follow.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Dude, you have <strong>got</strong> to tell me where you're getting these quotes from :}{}{}:</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Anyway, the bottom line is this: if you start asking questions on "how" and "why" God can do certain things, it would be like your dog enquiring "how" or "why" you are going to work/school...only with a one thousand time greater distance of understanding :}{}{}:</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Again, you are assuming that <strong>God's qualities are your human qualities</strong>, and the <em>mool mantra</em> states that God has no human qualities.</em></em></p><p> <em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>You're confusing societal norms with religious practices.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Sikkhism says nothing about divorce. It is neither for nor against it.</em></em></p><p> <em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="max314, post: 47860, member: 2817"] Ah, this could be a fascinating discussion. It would be nice if you could provide links to this thread from your site if you haven't done so already, by the way. Just so we can get a really active and rounded discussion. So a summary of that above passage would be: "A Prophet should be capable of performing miracles." That is obviously your opinion, that a Prophet should be capable of performing miracles, and you base this quality on past Prophets. But, in none of those definitions you give of being a Prophet (i.e. “A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed”, “someone who speaks by divine inspiration; someone who is an interpreter of the will of God”, “a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader”) is there any mention of performing miracles. With all due respect, it would seem that you are imposing your own personal standards as to what constitutes Prophethood that are contrary to the very definitions you have provided. Personally, I don't put much stake in miracles. Cheap tricks are not the way to a peaceful living, and Guru Nanak believed that. I believe that the truth is often distorted through time. One person tells another person who tells another person. School games like Chinese Whispers proove that distortion of truth across time is an innate human quality. Before you know it, a simple example of a pebble causing ripples in a pond becomes the parting of an entire sea of water... I also believe that Guru Nanak, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, and all the other instigators of worlds faiths were no more 'divine' than you or I. Their enlightenment took the form of an understanding of societies needs and the requirements of what it would take to turn selfish animals into a noble family of people. You are making assertions and half-deductions. Until you can provide concrete evidence to prove otherwise, I'm afraid that there is little substance to this claim. The application of music to the verses of the Granth is nothing all that significant, other than the fact that it makes them sound good. These are easily altered and there is nothing erroneous about this at all. I don't know where all this information is coming from about language use and which historical figures knew other ones (I doubt any of it is completely reputable, since I don't know many 600 year old people), but I do know that the fifth Guru, Arjun Dev, oversaw the redrafting of Guru Nanak's work as the Granth was beginning to be compiled under his supervision. If there do indeed exist such linguistic alterations/updates, it was undoubtedly done during this time...which, I believe, was approximately 100 years after Guru Nanak's death. For the sake of illustration, [I]gurbani[/I] describes God/the Cosmos/the Universe as being existent in two levels: the manifest and the unmanifest (i.e. [I]sargun[/I] and [I]nargun[/I]). This is, of course, completely subjective and is described from the [I]human[/I] experience of the universe. [I]Maya[/I] is what we perceive as the physical universe. God is manifest in what our five senses can detect (i.e. sargun[/i]). But there are things in the universe that we cannot see or smell or taste or touch. And this is what is referred to as the unmanifest world (i.e. [I]nirgun[/I]). Why? What would you do with those answers? The only thing that matters is what you can do in this lifetime. Not dwelling on the events that took place billions of years ago. In this sense, and many others, Sikkhism is a very pragmatic faith. It is forward looking and progressive. It established the first democratic body seen in Asia (the [i]akal takht[i]), and promoted hard work, family life and charitable conduct, and humility as the ultimate ideals. Worrying about a distant and insignificant past is not something considered to be important for social development and tolerance. For someone who has obviously gone to considerable trouble to create this post, you really should be giving more specific quotations to back up your claims. Personally, I've never interpreted the texts of the Granth as promoting 'reincarnation' in the characturist fashion that many perceive. I see it as a manifestation of Newton's First Law: energy is neither creted nor destroyed, it merely changes form. When we die, the constituent molecules in our body change to become something else. They don't just disappear. Also, my interpretation of the Guru Granth Sahib leads me to believe that 'salvation' is simply the act of being at peace when you die by overcoming the five thieves of attachment, greed, lust, anger and ego, and by being satisfied that you have lead a full and moral life. It's not something 'supernatural' or ethereal. It's something very real. Certainly, you can't be suggesting that the Islamic notion of a Heaven that resembles a Tesco's supermarket is any more "absurd" than that? [U][/U]I don't know from where you pulled that quote. I'd like to see the origin source. If it has one. You are imposing your own subjective, human perspectives onto a God who does not relate to anything you are saying. Shit is only "impure" to you because we have evolved to understand that our bodies don't respond well to it. It's a purely biological issue. We perceive it to be "ew! Gross!", but it's actually nothing more than a chemical compund that's come about as a result of biochemical processes. Just as a small [I]obiter dicta[/I], cow dung is actually considered to be very hygenic and sanitary. But even then, that's just a perception because of what it means [I]to us[/I], and not the universe at large. Free your mind, brotha :D Again, you're basing this on a third hand interpretation of Sikkh scriptures. My personal interpretation is that we are already One with God. If you insist on some kind of spiritual 'salvation', then it's attained simply by realising that simple fact. Also, "evil" is something that we perceive. We project it onto things. It's an extrapolation of our survivial instincts. Little else. Well, this is all a matter of assertion, isn't it? I'm very happy that the Koran decides to lay out every facet of life in a regimented routine, and that you are happy to obide by this. But it depends on what you're looking for in a particular faith. I've never called Sikkhism a religion. Religion creates hatred-inciting division, and this kind of hatred-inciting religion was something that Guru Nanak was vehemently opposed to. Khalsaism, however, [B]is[/B] a religion (though whether or not you consider it "complete" is up to you :}{}{}:). [U][/U]You assume that all Sikkhs who claim to have killed for their religion or community were doing the right thing. That would be like me coming to you and saying that Islam sucks because it promotes the 9/11 hijackings. That is, obviously, not true. The actions of the individuals aren't a necessary reflection of the ideoligies they [B]claim[/B] to follow. [U][/U]Dude, you have [B]got[/B] to tell me where you're getting these quotes from :}{}{}: Anyway, the bottom line is this: if you start asking questions on "how" and "why" God can do certain things, it would be like your dog enquiring "how" or "why" you are going to work/school...only with a one thousand time greater distance of understanding :}{}{}: Again, you are assuming that [B]God's qualities are your human qualities[/B], and the [I]mool mantra[/I] states that God has no human qualities. [U][/U]You're confusing societal norms with religious practices. Sikkhism says nothing about divorce. It is neither for nor against it. [U][/U][/i][/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
10 Questions To Sikhs From Muslims
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top