Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair On Their Bodies

[lionprinceuk]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

I think sometimes the line can becomed blurred for what is atheism and God. To be honest, the Buddha followers aren't following an abrhamic (christanity/ismamic type) God, and something more similar to what I think Adi Guru Granth Sahib is really projecting. I think the supreme energy/power/shakti is similar or even the same between what sikhs and Buddha followers believe in, it is just that our beliefs have become more towards this kind of God because of mistranslations or even just mere translations of bani, such as people like Mcauliffe, whose translations project a christian God. Some people say we believe in monothesim, but I think what sikhi and Ek Onkar really represents something more like monism, which is perhaps what Buddha followers believe in as well? Again, some Buddha followers, and even some learned sikh I know, actually claim to follow atheism, because they are rejecting the belief of an abrahamic deity god (that gets angry and stuff), but they are not rejecting a supreme power, and actually believe in Akaal and Ek Onkar, I think sometimes things aren't just black and white.

Adi Guru Granth Sahib stands much of a chance, but only if we understand the real original meanings, (and Trump's translations were probablycloser to the meanings than Mccauliffe were) but the true meanings might cause paranoia in modern sikh due to the beliefs that have been programmed into them, unfortunately. Yes, Guru GRanth Sahib stands much of a chance, if we don;t distort banis meaning. Unfortuntaley even I* used websites to post translations of bani that are probably biased in some way.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

I think sometimes the line can becomed blurred for what is atheism and God. To be honest, the Buddha followers aren't following an abrhamic (christanity/ismamic type) God, and something more similar to what I think Adi Guru Granth Sahib is really projecting. I think the supreme energy/power/shakti is similar or even the same between what sikhs and Buddha followers believe in, it is just that our beliefs have become more towards this kind of God because of mistranslations or even just mere translations of bani, such as people like Mcauliffe, whose translations project a christian God. Some people say we believe in monothesim, but I think what sikhi and Ek Onkar really represents something more like monism, which is perhaps what Buddha followers believe in as well? Again, some Buddha followers, and even some learned sikh I know, actually claim to follow atheism, because they are rejecting the belief of an abrahamic deity god (that gets angry and stuff), but they are not rejecting a supreme power, and actually believe in Akaal and Ek Onkar, I think sometimes things aren't just black and white.

Adi Guru Granth Sahib stands much of a chance, but only if we understand the real original meanings, (and Trump's translations were probablycloser to the meanings than Mccauliffe were) but the true meanings might cause paranoia in modern sikh due to the beliefs that have been programmed into them, unfortunately. Yes, Guru GRanth Sahib stands much of a chance, if we don;t distort banis meaning. Unfortuntaley even I* used websites to post translations of bani that are probably biased in some way.

Lion_Prince_Jatinder ji

You make some interesting arguments here. Some echo readings on Buddhism that I have done. One difference between Buddhism and Sikhi however is that Sikhism does accept the idea of "God" however abstract whose intelligence and energy is greater than all of creation. Buddhism does not see things this way, but does agree that the divine force is present in all of creation. It is a matter of being similar on many ways, but different in this one sense.

On this point I have a problem, (and Trump's translations were probablycloser to the meanings than Mccauliffe were) Trump was the Christian missionary and was openly negative, even hostile, about Sikhism. Macauliffe was a Sikh -- who may have gotten some things wrong -- but was not projecting an abrahamic view of God. This bias against Macauliffe dies hard and I can't figure it out. :shock: Once this idea got into the drinking water it really spread fast.

 

[lionprinceuk]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

hmm that is interesting, because I thought Maccualiffe was the one who seems like a christian missionary, and Trump just done the translation without a missionary agenda.

Unfortunately I have not been able to read Trumps translations yet but I know a friend who has spare copies to sell, so hopefully I will have a look soon.
Mccauliffe, again I have probably not read but I thought that modern translations are probably influenced by him, but I need to say, the translations I read on most websites seem to project this protestant God where the words Guru ji has used are just quite generalised to just meaning God, which I think doesn;t portray the real meaning of what Guru ji is portraying.

Again, I thought that Trumpps translations don't portray a protestant God, and Mccauliffe's translations do portray a protestant God. That is what I thought, but perhaps I could talk more about it if I knew more.

Again, also about sikhi, we must remember that the actual european word "God" isn't used in bani is it now? We must also remember that for some people the belief of God is a man or being sitting in the clouds. That is why some people don't believe in a God, or rather just object to using the term because of the christian connotations.

Then there's the term theist and theism. Polythiest term describes believing in many gods and deities of course. But monotheist becomes believing in one god/deity, or even one of these gods/deities. Again, the theism term decribes more of a deity belief than an supreme power. so again that could perhaps be a reason for some sikhs and Buddha followers claiming to be atheists. I beleive sikhi is more towards monism than actually monotheism, and I think Ek Onkar also projects this.

I will have to research into this more, but some other time lol.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Well, what the discussion seems to be coming at is how you describe God. Athiests might say I do not believe in the Christian god but I believe in higher power. So from a Christian point of view they are athiests but from a different view tehy might be considered more like Deists.

About Budhists, the attachment can come by meditating on God, this is not always the case but it is a possibility. They fix this by meditating on "nothing". But I guess if God is everthing (as we Sikhs believe) then God must be nothing as well... at this point I start geting a headache because I try to picture that. haha

So anyway, when looking at it that way, my old statement "even Gurbani can be maya", which I am bashed for, makes a hell of a lot more sense. That is what I was trying to point out taht even though SGGS leads us away from maya, at times, it can be maya depending on how the individual relates to it.

Have I justified myself without offending anyone? :{-

 

[Archived_Member4]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Well, what the discussion seems to be coming at is how you describe God. Athiests might say I do not believe in the Christian god but I believe in higher power. So from a Christian point of view they are athiests but from a different view tehy might be considered more like Deists.

About Budhists, the attachment can come by meditating on God, this is not always the case but it is a possibility. They fix this by meditating on "nothing". But I guess if God is everthing (as we Sikhs believe) then God must be nothing as well... at this point I start geting a headache because I try to picture that. haha

So anyway, when looking at it that way, my old statement "even Gurbani can be maya", which I am bashed for, makes a hell of a lot more sense. That is what I was trying to point out taht even though SGGS leads us away from maya, at times, it can be maya depending on how the individual relates to it.

Have I justified myself without offending anyone? :{-

So anyway, when looking at it that way, my old statement "even Gurbani can be maya", which I am bashed for, makes a hell of a lot more sense. That is what I was trying to point out taht even though SGGS leads us away from maya, at times, it can be maya depending on how the individual relates to it.

If this is true then it would be written in Gurbani. You and Loin Prince Jatinder need to present proof the above statement is true. So start presenting Gurbani

Gurbani is True, 100%. If a person see Gurbani as maya then that does not make Gurbani maya. This makes the persons mind maya. Gurbani is not affected by how an individual relates to Gurbani. Gurbani tells the reader the Truth and is the Truth and if the reader takes the truth as maya that does not make Gurbani maya that makes the person mind maya. I know i have repeated myself here, but this was purposely done.

Here's a tuk that say what Gurbani is.

The Dear Lord is True, and True is the Word of His Bani. Through the Word of the Shabad, Union with Him is obtained. ||1|| ang 64

 

[pk70]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Well, what the discussion seems to be coming at is how you describe God. Athiests might say I do not believe in the Christian god but I believe in higher power. So from a Christian point of view they are athiests but from a different view tehy might be considered more like Deists.

About Budhists, the attachment can come by meditating on God, this is not always the case but it is a possibility. They fix this by meditating on "nothing". But I guess if God is everthing (as we Sikhs believe) then God must be nothing as well... at this point I start geting a headache because I try to picture that. haha

So anyway, when looking at it that way, my old statement "even Gurbani can be maya", which I am bashed for, makes a hell of a lot more sense. That is what I was trying to point out taht even though SGGS leads us away from maya, at times, it can be maya depending on how the individual relates to it.

Have I justified myself without offending anyone? :{-

How have you justified? Since Buddhists say, so it is alright to call Sree Guru Granth Sahib Maya? Is the Buddhist- view the highest measure to judge other faiths? Any wisdom that tries to negate other spiritual experiences because of its own inability to experience that, is nothing but a game of words deemed to end in speculative statements. This faith totally remains unaware of those personal experiences that were documented in Sree Guru Granth Saib ji, and it holds no merit to justify what you are talking about in context of Gurbani. Who went to the moon are only qualified to describe it in accuracy

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Lion_Prince_ji

Your words once more intrigue: "Again, the theism term decribes more of a deity belief than an supreme power. so again that could perhaps be a reason for some Sikhs and Buddha followers claiming to be atheists. I beleive Sikhi is more towards monism than actually monotheism, and I think Ek Onkar also projects this."

Again I agree with one part and disagree with another. Sikhism does believe in a Supreme Power -- Kartar Purakh(u). So in that sense Sikhism is not like Buddhism. Sikhism does have a monistic view of God and Creation, a "monistic" way -- as you say, Ek Onkar. But Sikhism is also without argument a monotheistic religion, Ek Onkar. Enjoying this dialog.

There are similarities between Buddhism and Sikhism; however these points above would not be how I would outline the similarities or the differences. Also, though the comparisons are very interesting, if one were to continue this discussion it would be better to raise the comparison in the Interfaith Dialogs section of the forum, BTW. Otherwise the discussion goes off-topic.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Also, there is some fundamental misunderstanding of "maya" being expressed in the thread.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Also, there is some fundamental misunderstanding of "maya" being expressed in the thread.

"In gurbani, maya is also equated with wealth (material goods) as also with the sense of attachment to worldly possessions." - Maya - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

"Sikh theology explains that everything in this world is an illusion, and that the only true reality is Waheguru." - Maya - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

Do you agree with those?

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Maya is always true and always false. Maya gives birth to illusion. Maya and illusion are not the same thing.

ਬਾਬਾ ਮਾਇਆ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਇ ॥
baabaa maaeiaa bharam bhulaae ||
O Baba, Maya deceives with its illusion.


ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲੀ ਡੋਹਾਗਣੀ ਨਾ ਪਿਰ ਅੰਕਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
bharam bhulee ddohaaganee naa pir ank samaae ||1|| rehaao ||
Deceived by doubt, the discarded bride is not received into the Lap of her Beloved. ||1||Pause||

ਭੂਲੀ ਫਿਰੈ ਦਿਸੰਤਰੀ ਭੂਲੀ ਗ੍ਰਿਹੁ ਤਜਿ ਜਾਇ ॥
bhoolee firai dhisantharee bhoolee grihu thaj jaae ||
The deceived bride wanders around in foreign lands; she leaves, and abandons her own home.


ਭੂਲੀ ਡੂੰਗਰਿ ਥਲਿ ਚੜੈ ਭਰਮੈ ਮਨੁ ਡੋਲਾਇ ॥
bhoolee ddoongar thhal charrai bharamai man ddolaae ||
Deceived, she climbs the plateaus and mountains; her mind wavers in doubt.

Guru Nanak
Sri Raag

In samsara, our subjective experience of Maya, we form attachments Moh which gives rise to dualistic thinking and faulty perceptions.

ਮਾਇਆ ਪਟਲ ਪਟਲ ਹੈ ਭਾਰੀ ਘਰੁ ਘੂਮਨਿ ਘੇਰਿ ਘੁਲਾਵੈਗੋ ॥
maaeiaa pattal pattal hai bhaaree ghar ghooman ghaer ghulaavaigo ||
The veil of Maya is a thick and heavy veil, a whirlpool which destroys one's home.

Guru Ram Das
Ang 1308

Maya never goes away. But its effects are overcome,

ਗੁਰਿ ਖੋਲਿਆ ਪੜਦਾ ਦੇਖਿ ਭਈ ਨਿਹਾਲੁ ॥੪॥
gur kholiaa parradhaa dhaekh bhee nihaal ||4||
The Guru has torn away the veil of illusion, and beholding the jewel, I am delighted. ||4||
Guru Arjan Dev
Ang 801

 

[BhagatSingh]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Maya is always true and always false. Maya gives birth to illusion. Maya and illusion are not the same thing.

ਬਾਬਾ ਮਾਇਆ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਇ ॥
baabaa maaeiaa bharam bhulaae ||
O Baba, Maya deceives with its illusion.


ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲੀ ਡੋਹਾਗਣੀ ਨਾ ਪਿਰ ਅੰਕਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
bharam bhulee ddohaaganee naa pir ank samaae ||1|| rehaao ||
Deceived by doubt, the discarded bride is not received into the Lap of her Beloved. ||1||Pause||

ਭੂਲੀ ਫਿਰੈ ਦਿਸੰਤਰੀ ਭੂਲੀ ਗ੍ਰਿਹੁ ਤਜਿ ਜਾਇ ॥
bhoolee firai dhisantharee bhoolee grihu thaj jaae ||
The deceived bride wanders around in foreign lands; she leaves, and abandons her own home.


ਭੂਲੀ ਡੂੰਗਰਿ ਥਲਿ ਚੜੈ ਭਰਮੈ ਮਨੁ ਡੋਲਾਇ ॥
bhoolee ddoongar thhal charrai bharamai man ddolaae ||
Deceived, she climbs the plateaus and mountains; her mind wavers in doubt.

In samsara, our subjective experience of Maya, we form attachments which give rise to faulty perceptions.

so where am I going wrong?

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Bhagat ji

I just added to my post. See above. Sorry you are too fast for me. :yes:

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Bhagat ji

Maya is condition of universal experience. Maya is neither positive nor negative. Maya just is what it is. Our problem is to overcome the illusions we create by the way that we experience of Maya.

Think of it this way. We are walking through a bog, and become mired in mud, and snared by roots and vines. The bog is real, the mud is real, the roots are real, the vines are real. Maya in this example is the bog, the mud, the roots and the vines. The mud, bog, roots and vines are not an illusion. We are the ones that create an illusion when we label our experience by saying "I am trapped." And when we attach to the perception that we cannot change our condition, then we are victims of an illusion of our own creation. We suffer because of our attachment to our own created illusions. To change our situation it is necessary to change our perceptions and disengage from the things that entangle us.

The lotus floats above the surface of the water -- and its roots never reach below into the mud. It is therefore a symbol of detachment. The water and mud (Maya) are there, but the lotus is disengaged. The Guru's shabad is the liberating message that tears away the veil of illusion -- the false reality that we have created.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

I checked the SikhiWiki links -- One sentence stands out...
The Sikh system acknowledges the existence of maya, and lays stress on the lessening of its spell on the human mind, so that with the liberated psychic faculties, one may attain to the state of spiritual enlightenment —a state wholly exempt from the trance of maya, a state of being liberated from its web and being one with the Absolute.

The point that stands out is that we can be liberated from the trance. But Maya is not the illusion, the web, the veil or the trance.
But to say that maya can be equated with material possessions and wealth -- to me that is sloppy thinking on the part of the author.The source is not one that I depend on very often.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

I checked the SikhiWiki links -- One sentence stands out...
The Sikh system acknowledges the existence of maya, and lays stress on the lessening of its spell on the human mind, so that with the liberated psychic faculties, one may attain to the state of spiritual enlightenment —a state wholly exempt from the trance of maya, a state of being liberated from its web and being one with the Absolute.

The point that stands out is that we can be liberated from the trance. But Maya is not the illusion, the web, the veil or the trance.
But to say that maya can be equated with material possessions and wealth -- to me that is sloppy thinking on the part of the author.The source is not one that I depend on very often.

Actually, maya is very often equated with wordly possessions.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

I know.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Bhagat ji

Maya is condition of universal experience. Maya is neither positive nor negative. Maya just is what it is. Our problem is to overcome the illusions we create by the way that we experience of Maya.

Think of it this way. We are walking through a bog, and become mired in mud, and snared by roots and vines. The bog is real, the mud is real, the roots are real, the vines are real. Maya in this example is the bog, the mud, the roots and the vines. The mud, bog, roots and vines are not an illusion. We are the ones that create an illusion when we label our experience by saying "I am trapped." And when we attach to the perception that we cannot change our condition, then we are victims of an illusion of our own creation. We suffer because of our attachment to our own created illusions. To change our situation it is necessary to change our perceptions and disengage from the things that entangle us.

The lotus floats above the surface of the water -- and its roots never reach below into the mud. It is therefore a symbol of detachment. The water and mud (Maya) are there, but the lotus is disengaged. The Guru's shabad is the liberating message that tears away the veil of illusion -- the false reality that we have created.

So would SGGS act in a similar way as those vines? fanatics immediately come to mind.

 

[Archived_Member5]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

Atheism when applied in reference to Buddhists or Sikhism is one guided by the wisdom of knowledge than the allegories or witness accounts of what are termed the ‘’Gods’’. It is used in its derogative intonation by present day so called protagonists and rebellious dissidents used by the state and media to rouse anarchy against the Church assisted by the disbanding of blasphemy laws implemented by the state with media collusion.

Atheism is one who studies all scriptural knowledge and is led and governed by the wisdom reasoned therein than any irrational argumentative debating or enquiry regarding such instances as miracles or accounts of leading figures of Godhood, who though sound in premise were all invariably subjugated and cast into defamation without variance.

Atheism is the belief of reasonable sound wisdom , logic and rational of the scriptures of all religions without overt and biased focus upon inconsequential matters relating to and for the benefit of certain groups rather than a bearing of any fundamental truth or sound judgment.

The lives and tales of our precious Guru’s is related fulsomely in the Bani but is secondary to their given sound truths as investiture for Sikhs to live liberated and prospering by.

 

[spnadmin]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

So would SGGS act in a similar way as those vines? fanatics immediately come to mind.

No. Fanatics create the mud, vines and roots. I create mud, vines and roots. You create mud, vines and roots. Guruji says - it is all a mirage. Even if we say Oh well I agree with that, we remain trapped until we are no longer trapped.

Talking about it won't change things.

 

[Archived_Member5]

Re: Sikh Girls Who Do Not Cut Their Head Hair, But Remove All Other Hair on Their Bod

A Fanatic does not create the quagmire and veritable cesspit of indecent treachery and warfare that the western world is and has caused to arise in the lands it barbarises with such drunken ravagery and unabashed cunning. Cite your reasoning to those captured and under siege, looted pillaged and devastated within their own homes and then dare to say it is a hell of our own thinking or making. Or to those massacre din their own states for defending their homelands against a tyranny of common thievery veiled as state control. Erudition undoubtedly lends sycophants credibility upon closer inspection is a web of lies and deceit caused by the cavorting with the decidedly ungodly and lacking in any moral approbation ...

Tend to those who dabble in witchcraft to unleash demonic suffering without evidence upon innocents thereafter stigmatised with mental disorder and emotional unbalanced minds. You have taken a pure truth valid as a tenet in civilised societies to defend the indefensible and morally bankrupt ...