☀️ 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
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Do You Think That Sikhism Is Right/From God?
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="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 141201" data-attributes="member: 586"><p><strong>Re: Why Do You Think That Sikhism Is Right/From God?</strong></p><p></p><p>Shanger ji,</p><p></p><p>First of all I need to remind you that my argument with you is mostly with regard to your projection of wrong intention on the part of those whose thoughts have been expressed in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. You say that their aim is to ‘control people’ which up until now I interpreted more or less as ‘influence uncalled for’, but no real thought to control. But now I see that you have suggested, although only for the sake of argument, that they could in fact have lied. This means that you really think that they did have in mind to do what you claim they did.</p><p></p><p>Why do I bother to give my own comments, after all it is none of my business? One reason is that I like to argue ;-), or rather, I like to discuss, but there is also that I’d like to get some sense into you and yes, this is based on the judgment that I am right and you are wrong! Is this trying to control you? And what if interspersed are motivations influenced by kindness, by giving and by compassion, would you still think it is manipulative?</p><p></p><p>========</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>C: “Threatening”, this would be with evil intention conditioned by self-love and aversion. If reincarnation is sincerely believed to be a fact and if praying to God amongst other things, is sincerely seen as being the way out, how does conveying this message to other people qualify it as a threat, especially since that person himself does the same? It is clear that *you* do not believe in the concept and may have at one point read such message as a threat, but would this not have been due to your own misreading and inherent aversion?</p><p></p><p>========</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>C: Well, isn’t the problem in that you are *insisting on the negative interpretation*? Or are you here not so much to clarify things but in fact to test other people’s intelligence?</p><p></p><p>=======</p><p></p><p>C: No one has claimed that. What is suggested are attitudes of mind and practices leading to the “development” of good and the reduction of evil. But so what even if they are not revolutionary and were taught by other people in previous times? Can’t people just share their understandings and can’t others compile these into a comprehensive set of teachings?</p><p></p><p>=======</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>C: And like I said, were you not insisting on the negative, you’d not pursue with this line of enquiry, unless of course, you are in fact testing other people’s intelligence.</p><p></p><p>=======</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>C: No, this is not a case of judging anyone in particular and condemning them. But the fact is still there, that people are *not* equal in terms of ability to understand. Indeed they are not equal in the tendency to “misunderstand”. Not everyone can be encouraged to think good and act rightly, and of those who can, not all will have the understanding to “develop” those qualities. This should not stop those who teach, from adapting in accordance to the situation having taken into account both the person’s capacity as well as his present mental state.</p><p></p><p>========</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>C: Again, you read it as a threat, whereas others will read it as good suggestion. Why is it? I do not believe that you have a limited capacity to discern and in principle come up with possible alternatives as to what state of mind apprehends any statement made by others. What I keep seeing however, is cynicism on your part and the insistence on any reasoning issuing forth from this.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the rightness or wrongness of the particular teaching, you insist on proof, the kind which you are used to thinking about in matters of science and other convention. For example, you may be satisfied with proofs such as that the earth revolves around the sun as given by certain fields of knowledge. But this is preferred thinking on a matter which is limited in scope. I mean, someone cynical, how far could he go in trying to argue against the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? You are dealing with limited data here and one which need not take into account states of mind, whether this is tainted by ignorance, attachment, aversion, wrong understanding or right understanding. </p><p></p><p>When it comes to such matters as karma and rebirth however, there is either right understanding or there is wrong understanding with subsequent influence from attachment, aversion, faith etc. Someone who has high tendency to wrong understanding, what “evidence” would ever satisfy him? Indeed he’d insist on the kind of evidence such as that got by science, which to begin with, is a wrong approach, but even then would he not likely talk himself out of believing any evidence given down the road? And why is this?</p><p></p><p>The reason is that this is in fact a matter of “understanding” an aspect of experience where cause and effect are mental phenomena, and this is very different from that which is derived from conventional observation. In this regard, you with the influence of science are therefore in a totally different position from someone else, particularly those in India during ancient times, for whom the idea of karma and rebirth is more or less an accepted fact. In other words, you with your doubt and they with their faith / confidence are not to be compared.</p><p></p><p>And just to let you know, these same people could well be good scientists if they were inclined to, having separated the one kind of observation and thinking from the other. Indeed they’d not look for evidence for rebirth as in someone claiming and providing evidence that they were this or that person in a previous life. This is not what arouses their confidence, but rather the understanding of mind, including distinguishing what is cause from what is result.</p><p></p><p>========</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>C: When the urge to help someone arises and you do it, does it impress upon you as a case of ‘control’?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_member14, post: 141201, member: 586"] [b]Re: Why Do You Think That Sikhism Is Right/From God?[/b] Shanger ji, First of all I need to remind you that my argument with you is mostly with regard to your projection of wrong intention on the part of those whose thoughts have been expressed in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. You say that their aim is to ‘control people’ which up until now I interpreted more or less as ‘influence uncalled for’, but no real thought to control. But now I see that you have suggested, although only for the sake of argument, that they could in fact have lied. This means that you really think that they did have in mind to do what you claim they did. Why do I bother to give my own comments, after all it is none of my business? One reason is that I like to argue ;-), or rather, I like to discuss, but there is also that I’d like to get some sense into you and yes, this is based on the judgment that I am right and you are wrong! Is this trying to control you? And what if interspersed are motivations influenced by kindness, by giving and by compassion, would you still think it is manipulative? ======== C: “Threatening”, this would be with evil intention conditioned by self-love and aversion. If reincarnation is sincerely believed to be a fact and if praying to God amongst other things, is sincerely seen as being the way out, how does conveying this message to other people qualify it as a threat, especially since that person himself does the same? It is clear that *you* do not believe in the concept and may have at one point read such message as a threat, but would this not have been due to your own misreading and inherent aversion? ======== C: Well, isn’t the problem in that you are *insisting on the negative interpretation*? Or are you here not so much to clarify things but in fact to test other people’s intelligence? ======= C: No one has claimed that. What is suggested are attitudes of mind and practices leading to the “development” of good and the reduction of evil. But so what even if they are not revolutionary and were taught by other people in previous times? Can’t people just share their understandings and can’t others compile these into a comprehensive set of teachings? ======= C: And like I said, were you not insisting on the negative, you’d not pursue with this line of enquiry, unless of course, you are in fact testing other people’s intelligence. ======= C: No, this is not a case of judging anyone in particular and condemning them. But the fact is still there, that people are *not* equal in terms of ability to understand. Indeed they are not equal in the tendency to “misunderstand”. Not everyone can be encouraged to think good and act rightly, and of those who can, not all will have the understanding to “develop” those qualities. This should not stop those who teach, from adapting in accordance to the situation having taken into account both the person’s capacity as well as his present mental state. ======== C: Again, you read it as a threat, whereas others will read it as good suggestion. Why is it? I do not believe that you have a limited capacity to discern and in principle come up with possible alternatives as to what state of mind apprehends any statement made by others. What I keep seeing however, is cynicism on your part and the insistence on any reasoning issuing forth from this. Regarding the rightness or wrongness of the particular teaching, you insist on proof, the kind which you are used to thinking about in matters of science and other convention. For example, you may be satisfied with proofs such as that the earth revolves around the sun as given by certain fields of knowledge. But this is preferred thinking on a matter which is limited in scope. I mean, someone cynical, how far could he go in trying to argue against the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? You are dealing with limited data here and one which need not take into account states of mind, whether this is tainted by ignorance, attachment, aversion, wrong understanding or right understanding. When it comes to such matters as karma and rebirth however, there is either right understanding or there is wrong understanding with subsequent influence from attachment, aversion, faith etc. Someone who has high tendency to wrong understanding, what “evidence” would ever satisfy him? Indeed he’d insist on the kind of evidence such as that got by science, which to begin with, is a wrong approach, but even then would he not likely talk himself out of believing any evidence given down the road? And why is this? The reason is that this is in fact a matter of “understanding” an aspect of experience where cause and effect are mental phenomena, and this is very different from that which is derived from conventional observation. In this regard, you with the influence of science are therefore in a totally different position from someone else, particularly those in India during ancient times, for whom the idea of karma and rebirth is more or less an accepted fact. In other words, you with your doubt and they with their faith / confidence are not to be compared. And just to let you know, these same people could well be good scientists if they were inclined to, having separated the one kind of observation and thinking from the other. Indeed they’d not look for evidence for rebirth as in someone claiming and providing evidence that they were this or that person in a previous life. This is not what arouses their confidence, but rather the understanding of mind, including distinguishing what is cause from what is result. ======== C: When the urge to help someone arises and you do it, does it impress upon you as a case of ‘control’? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Do You Think That Sikhism Is Right/From God?
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