On God, Energy And Principle

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat ji

Nirgun and Sargun have a place in most religions, Sikhism included. These ideas refer loosely to the notion of God's immanence and God's transcendence. They are fundamental to our desire to describe the nature of God. There are Sikhs who study Gurbani with the desire to understand God in nirgun and sargun states. There are Sikhs who think this is a boring pursuit. There are Sikhs who never think about it at all. In this regard, Sikhs are just like everybody else. :welcome:

So what makes Sikhism so special?

 

[spnadmin]

So what makes Sikhism so special?

Bhagat ji

I am in pain now from laughing! What can I say? Why did I think when I was a little girl that my mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw? All my little friends thought that their mothers were the most beautiful. We would get into arguments about it. I would look at their mothers and say to myself, No, no one is more beautiful than my mother.

Today I look at my mother and I think -- You have a lot of flaws. You made some big mistakes. Certainly you are not a perfect beauty. You got older before my eyes. I have known you all my life and I have watched you wrinkle, become weak, and forgetful. But you are the most beautiful woman I know.

I think Sikhism is special-- because even though it has wrinkles, flaws, makes mistakes, and is not a perfect beauty it is the most beautiful religion I know.

 

[pk70]

So what makes Sikhism so special?

Amazing .....

Where aad ji is saying "Sikhism is a special" in her quote?

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat ji

I am in pain now from laughing! What can I say? Why did I think when I was a little girl that my mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw? All my little friends thought that their mothers were the most beautiful. We would get into arguments about it. I would look at their mothers and say to myself, No, no one is more beautiful than my mother.

Today I look at my mother and I think -- You have a lot of flaws. You made some big mistakes. Certainly you are not a perfect beauty. You got older before my eyes. I have known you all my life and I have watched you wrinkle, become weak, and forgetful. But you are the most beautiful woman I know.

I think Sikhism is special-- because even though it has wrinkles, flaws, makes mistakes, and is not a perfect beauty it is the most beautiful religion I know.

Antonia Ji,
You didn't answer my question because now I will ask you why you think its beautiful. Which is what I was asking initially" what is so special"? (something that anyone can look at admire)
I know you think its beautiful.

I am going to get back to what we were discussing. But I need you to answer this, what makes Sikhism so special?
You mentioned it has flaws. What kind of flaws? What are they?

 

[mystique_void]

Bhagat Singh wrote:

"Sargun-Nirgun is the context of Sikhi is it not? So to each his own. You
forgot about that bit when you replied."

The God is infinitely powerful whether manifested (sargun) or
not manifested (nirgun). Period. Think of an absolute monarch.
The absolute monarch may play different roles, may wear
different dresses for state functions or for hunting but he
remains the absolute monarch under all circumstances.

In some plays (stage dramas), the monarch may play the
role of an accountant or a beggar but these are just roles.
His powers remain intact no matter which role or form
he is in.

Suppose the absolute monarch does not make a public
appearance for a while. It doesn't imply he has abdicated
the throne and his responsibilities and now the "Energy"
or the 'Universal Principle" is in control.

See the sabads below:

SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge

http://www.sikhitothemax.com/page.asp?ShabadID=212

SikhiToTheMAX - Enabling Gurmat Knowledge

 

[spnadmin]

Antonia Ji,
..... Which is what I was asking initially" what is so special"? (something that anyone can look at admire)
I know you think its beautiful.

I am going to get back to what we were discussing. But I need you to answer this, what makes Sikhism so special?

Bhagat ji

I answered the question based on the meaning of "special" that applied for me. So Sikhism is special to me because it is so beautiful.

Which definition of "special" were you using when you asked the question? See below:

Definitions of special on the Web:

• particular(a): unique or specific to a person or thing or category; "the particular demands of the job"; "has a particular preference for Chinese ...
• for a special service or occasion; "a special correspondent"; "a special adviser to the committee"; "had to get special permission for the event"
• adapted to or reserved for a particular purpose; "a special kind of paint"; "a special medication for arthritis"
• a special offering (usually temporary and at a reduced price) that is featured in advertising; "they are having a special on pork chops"
• limited: having a specific function or scope; "a special (or specific) role in the mission"
• a dish or meal given prominence in e.g. a restaurant
• particular: first and most important; "his special interest is music"; "she gets special (or particular) satisfaction from her volunteer work"
• a television production that features a particular person or work or topic; "the last of a series of BBC specials on Iran is being shown tonight"
• extra: added to a regular schedule; "a special holiday flight"; "put on special buses for the big game"

Also, Bhagat ji, were you also asking me to explain why I think Sikhism is beautiful? I am not sure that you are. Which definition of beautiful are you basing your quesiton on?

Definitions of beautiful on the web:

• delighting the senses or exciting intellectual or emotional admiration; "a beautiful child"; "beautiful country"; "a beautiful painting"; "a ...
• (of weather) highly enjoyable; "what a beautiful day"
  
  

 

[spnadmin]

Antonia Ji,
You mentioned it has flaws. What kind of flaws? What are they?

The flaws I have spotted over time have more to do with how Sikhism is practiced and understood by some individuals. I have not identified flaws within Nanakian philosophy. There are areas of theology that I don't think have been well explained, and the same goes for areas of contradictory meaning for some ideas like reincarnation. But again, the flaw is not within Nanakian philosophy but rather with how Nanakian philosophy is interpreted.

Let me give you a more personal example. For a long time I struggled to understand why anger is a basic evil. My search on this forum and in other readings written by Sikh scholars were not helpful. Only after a systematic study of Buddhist thinking did I get the answer. When I applied the Buddhist understanding to Gurbani there was no inconsistency. Buddhist scholars in this instance were more helpful than Sikh literature on the subject. Why?

Well this is my intuition only. Buddhism has a longer and fiestier tradition of "teaching." Within Sikhi we have a very hard time with two trends, and I see this on the forum every day. First, among many Sikhs, there seems to be unwillingness to allow debate, and by that I only mean friendly intellectual debate. By contrast, in Judaism there is a centuries old tradition of religious argument among students and teachers that helps to clarify important ideas. Rabbi's and scholars debate with the intention of finding common ground and consensus on the meaning of scriptures. Among some Sikhs, intellectual arguments too often end with accusations of heresy and name-calling across the board. Second, there seems to be among some Sikhs another pattern: unwillingness to explore, probe, and analyze altogether. So rather than engage in serious elaboration on an issue, there is mad-cap posting of Gurbani with little if any explanation. Or someone will say, "There is no point in discussing this any longer. The matter is settled. We should all now be quiet." Of course, there are glorious exceptions to what I am saying, such as the kathas of Sant Muskeen Singh ji. But even with this example, I don't see serious discussion. Rather there is a kind of mum acceptance of what he has said; or wild accusations of heresy against him because he quotes Urdu poets.

So the flaws are in the application of Nanakian philosophy, not in Sikhism itself. Again forgive me if I have offended anyone. These are my opinions.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

The flaws I have spotted over time have more to do with how Sikhism is practiced and understood by some individuals. I have not identified flaws within Nanakian philosophy. There are areas of theology that I don't think have been well explained, and the same goes for areas of contradictory meaning for some ideas like reincarnation. But again, the flaw is not within Nanakian philosophy but rather with how Nanakian philosophy is interpreted.

Let me give you a more personal example. For a long time I struggled to understand why anger is a basic evil. My search on this forum and in other readings written by Sikh scholars were not helpful. Only after a systematic study of Buddhist thinking did I get the answer. When I applied the Buddhist understanding to Gurbani there was no inconsistency. Buddhist scholars in this instance were more helpful than Sikh literature on the subject. Why?

Well this is my intuition only. Buddhism has a longer and fiestier tradition of "teaching." Within Sikhi we have a very hard time with two trends, and I see this on the forum every day. First, among many Sikhs, there seems to be unwillingness to allow debate, and by that I only mean friendly intellectual debate. By contrast, in Judaism there is a centuries old tradition of religious argument among students and teachers that helps to clarify important ideas. Rabbi's and scholars debate with the intention of finding common ground and consensus on the meaning of scriptures. Among some Sikhs, intellectual arguments too often end with accusations of heresy and name-calling across the board. Second, there seems to be among some Sikhs another pattern: unwillingness to explore, probe, and analyze altogether. So rather than engage in serious elaboration on an issue, there is mad-cap posting of Gurbani with little if any explanation. Or someone will say, "There is no point in discussing this any longer. The matter is settled. We should all now be quiet." Of course, there are glorious exceptions to what I am saying, such as the kathas of Sant Muskeen Singh ji. But even with this example, I don't see serious discussion. Rather there is a kind of mum acceptance of what he has said; or wild accusations of heresy against him because he quotes Urdu poets.

So the flaws are in the application of Nanakian philosophy, not in Sikhism itself. Again forgive me if I have offended anyone. These are my opinions.

Antonia ji,

Guru Fateh.

Well put. Sikhi needs more debates on the interpretation of Gurbani. Interpreting Gurbani is more difficult than the scriptures in other religions because it is written in a poetic form. So, there are more interpretations to the poetic form when converted into the prose than the scriptures that are already in the prose form. The proof is in the 2 widely used literal translations by Sant Singh Khalsa and Manmohan Singh. They both differ and sometimes contradict each other, hence the real intent of the Gurbani gets lost.

Once we come to the realisation of this that everyone has something to offer in their prose form, then only a constructive debate can have a room to take place.

Once we shed this notion of Me-ism where our claim becomes that only our interpretation is valid then only we can encourage all to pitch in. By doing this we will be able enrichen ourselves and empower others with the understanding of Gurbani, especially the ones who have been only parroting it for a long time.

So, openmindedness is very important which breeds acceptance and where disagreements are welcome and respected.

What I would suggest here is that we should have a Gurbani studying class in a serious manner like NamJap ji started withBhagtan di Baani. We can choose any other part of Gurbani, may be some from the Nit Nem and register people who may be interested in participating in it and let them bring their interpretations and let us all discuss and debate that by respecting each other even when we disagree.

By starting with these baby steps, we all can pitch in bringing the understanding of Gurbani to a much larger public. Hence we will be able to live and savour the aura of , "Mil Sadh sangat, bhaj keval naam".

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

This is a terrific idea Tejwant ji -- We need some time to get it organized. Brainstorming the Gurbani sections that we could focus on might be an excellent discussion in the Mentors section. Then everyone would be able to look at options and pick a section of SGGS to explore.