Hi, I'm finding it difficult to reconcile what I think are certain paradoxes within Sikh philosophy. So I thought I would post my comments here to see if anyone could offer any insight.
The first major paradox that I am consistently puzzled by is how, there is emphasis, on the one hand on how God, the creator has ultimate control over human affairs and that we are mere puppets in his master play. I can cite many passages from the scriptures to support this, but briefly off the top of my head, see for instance sukhmani sahib, astpadi 11, (Jo tis bhavai soi hog) and Rahras, Asa Mahala 4 (Ji jant sabh tera khel). Correspondingly, we find themes such as what is in one's destiny or cards (bhaga) will come to be and is out of our hands (Sukhmani Sahib, Astpadi 14, Manukh kai kish nahi hath).
On the other hand though one also comes across passages that highlight how one sows he reaps (Jap Ji Sahib, Pauri 20, Ape bij ape hi khah) and that man must make efforts to realize god. However, if what's written in our cards is written in our cards and what is destined to happen will happen then where does that leave human action? Where does the balance between 'free will' and 'determinism' lie? If everything I do, down to the most minute thing and the thoughts I have are in fact willed by god (because he controls everything) then the idea of free will becomes a facade.
The second point I wanted to make concerns the importance of being a 'householder' in Sikh philosophy. Guru Nanak Dev Ji was critical of yogis, monks and mystics that would abandon their families and retreat into the mountains and jungles in their pursuit of enlightenment. Notwithstanding the fact that Guru Nanak Dev Ji himself and many of the other Gurus spent most of their lives away from their families, often in deep meditation for many years, sikhism in general emphasizes the importance of the household and civil engagement.
The question I have here though is what is the point in remaining engaged in household activities if at the same time one has to constantly appreciate how they are ultimately false and will not lead towards salvation. For instance in Asa di Vaar (koor meeaa, koor beebee khap hoe khaar), 'false is the husband, false is the wife; they all waste away their lives.' If love of the wife and children (whereby love undoubtedly entails some level of attachment) is ultimately false, why get married and bother in the first place? I think that it is far more difficult to practice detachment while engaged in worldy and householder activities. Although 'maya' manifests itself everywhere and cannot be escaped, I think in certain settings it would be easier to practice 'the truth' and to detach yourselves from vices (ego, anger, lust, greed, attachment)...That's why buddhist monks retreat to the monastary and why even many of the Sikh saints sought places of solitude to practice meditation. Although the point of abandonment (of your family) is a valid one, if you don't start a family to begin with then it's not really a problem (and thus the strong links between certain religious traditions and celibacy). Why buddhists retreat to monastaries isn't to remain there in relative isolation for the rest of their lives but to practice enlightenment in a controlled environment (where it is easier to do so) until higher levels of spirituality are attained--thereafter one can contribute back to society and spread the message of compassion.
I don't mean to promote buddhism or anything like that but sometimes I just don't see the point in engaging in worldy affairs when the underlying point even in sikhism is to remain detached from them.
Amar
The first major paradox that I am consistently puzzled by is how, there is emphasis, on the one hand on how God, the creator has ultimate control over human affairs and that we are mere puppets in his master play. I can cite many passages from the scriptures to support this, but briefly off the top of my head, see for instance sukhmani sahib, astpadi 11, (Jo tis bhavai soi hog) and Rahras, Asa Mahala 4 (Ji jant sabh tera khel). Correspondingly, we find themes such as what is in one's destiny or cards (bhaga) will come to be and is out of our hands (Sukhmani Sahib, Astpadi 14, Manukh kai kish nahi hath).
On the other hand though one also comes across passages that highlight how one sows he reaps (Jap Ji Sahib, Pauri 20, Ape bij ape hi khah) and that man must make efforts to realize god. However, if what's written in our cards is written in our cards and what is destined to happen will happen then where does that leave human action? Where does the balance between 'free will' and 'determinism' lie? If everything I do, down to the most minute thing and the thoughts I have are in fact willed by god (because he controls everything) then the idea of free will becomes a facade.
The second point I wanted to make concerns the importance of being a 'householder' in Sikh philosophy. Guru Nanak Dev Ji was critical of yogis, monks and mystics that would abandon their families and retreat into the mountains and jungles in their pursuit of enlightenment. Notwithstanding the fact that Guru Nanak Dev Ji himself and many of the other Gurus spent most of their lives away from their families, often in deep meditation for many years, sikhism in general emphasizes the importance of the household and civil engagement.
The question I have here though is what is the point in remaining engaged in household activities if at the same time one has to constantly appreciate how they are ultimately false and will not lead towards salvation. For instance in Asa di Vaar (koor meeaa, koor beebee khap hoe khaar), 'false is the husband, false is the wife; they all waste away their lives.' If love of the wife and children (whereby love undoubtedly entails some level of attachment) is ultimately false, why get married and bother in the first place? I think that it is far more difficult to practice detachment while engaged in worldy and householder activities. Although 'maya' manifests itself everywhere and cannot be escaped, I think in certain settings it would be easier to practice 'the truth' and to detach yourselves from vices (ego, anger, lust, greed, attachment)...That's why buddhist monks retreat to the monastary and why even many of the Sikh saints sought places of solitude to practice meditation. Although the point of abandonment (of your family) is a valid one, if you don't start a family to begin with then it's not really a problem (and thus the strong links between certain religious traditions and celibacy). Why buddhists retreat to monastaries isn't to remain there in relative isolation for the rest of their lives but to practice enlightenment in a controlled environment (where it is easier to do so) until higher levels of spirituality are attained--thereafter one can contribute back to society and spread the message of compassion.
I don't mean to promote buddhism or anything like that but sometimes I just don't see the point in engaging in worldy affairs when the underlying point even in sikhism is to remain detached from them.
Amar