Where do you draw the line? Would you find a bunch of Sikhs worshipping a photo of the tenth master acceptable?
I wouldn't go over and physically stop them from doing it. If there are Sikhs who want to worship pictures of the Gurus then far be it from me to go over and rip them up. What I am referring to is a
doctrinal acceptance of these practices. That is what I am opposed to. Sikhs do many things which are not in-line with Sikhi because Sikhs, like everyone else, are also regular humans and none of us are perfect. But that doesn't mean we say "okay Sikhs are doing all these things, I suppose they are a part of Sikhi or we should adopt them into Sikhi." I want to maintain that there are many things Sikhs do in spite of Gurbani, not because of it.
So would I find Sikhs worshiping a picture of the tenth master acceptable? I would try to talk them out of it by showing how the practice contradicts Gurbani. But I wouldn't physically force them to stop. Regardless of the outcome, I would not say that the practice is endorsed or acceptable by Sikhi. I do many things in my life which probably wouldn't have been accepted by the Gurus and I like to be honest about how just because I do it, doesn't mean it is acceptable from the point of view of Sikhi.
How about a bunch of Sikhs spending more time worrying about the temperature in Babaji's room? the material used? the size of the room?
I think they're probably being overly fussy about things, but I wouldn't compare it to "idol worship" as you have done.
or how about paying someone money to mumble their way as fast as possible through the SGGS?
Is this a reference to Akhand Paaths? The Sikh Rehat Maryada is pretty clear that they are not supposed to be "mumbled through as fast as possible." If there are people who do so, then they should be reminded of their duty to recite SGGS Ji at a rate which is comprehensible to the attending Sangat.
so that covers idol worship,
lets see about caste, caste has a very very big place in Sikhism, it would be naïve to think otherwise, so caste and idol worship are both rife in standard mainstream Sikhism.
This is where choice of words is very important. I have never denied that there are many Sikhs, especially in India, who have unfortunately blurred the lines between Sikhi and Hinduism and engage in these sorts of practices. But what I was trying to get across in my last post and have stressed above in this one is that just because there are practices going on among Sikhs- no matter how wide-spread they may be- that go against the message of Gurbani, it does not give us the right to suddenly adopt them into Sikhi and proclaim them to be acceptable from the POV of the Guru. I would try and use reason to get people away from idol worship and believing in caste but regardless of the outcome I would never say these practices are accepted by Sikh doctrine. They happen in spite of Sikhi, not because of it.
And of course, I brought up meditation because I think it is encouraged in Sikhi and in-line with Gurbani. Which is why I can't understand the taunting (at best) or the vilifying (at worst) that happens to people who promote it on SPN...
let me make myself quite clear, I could not care less what other people do, worship god by inserting carrots in your orifices if its what you want, makes no difference to me,
Nice to know there is at least one person who can tolerate my method of worship
no what I have a problem with is being told repeatedly that by doing this, I feel a certain way, and open my eyes to experiences I could not possibly experience otherwise, by all means meditate,
Why do you have a problem with this?
by all means write about it, but I feel quite offended at the constant pressure
There is no "constant pressure" to meditate on SPN.
that if I am not meditating then I am doing something wrong, or worse, as an answer to a problem, often I read, try meditating, which is fair enough, followed by, you will feel such and such, and it will make you feel such and such, well, how can that possibly be substantiated?
I'm sorry I don't follow.
In any case, it begs the question what is meditation? Is meditation what I do in the bath? is it thinking? is it contemplating?
So the issue is with properly defining
meditation?
but when push comes to shove, it all seems to come back to one thing, the use of words and breathing to artificially put the brain into a suggestive state that feels pleasurable
How do you naturally "put the brain into a suggestive state that feels pleasurable" and how is this different from "artificially putting the brain into a suggestive state that feels pleasurable."
the trouble is, these feelings seem to only be present during this state, given the behaviour of some of the meditators on this forum, this can clearly be seen
That's a very small sample size. I know many people in my life who meditate and the consensus seems to be that the benefits of it carry over into all aspects of life. Secular studies on meditation overwhelmingly indicate the same thing.
life becomes irrelevant, a place full of problems and strife, best to wait for the 'happy place' where all is good, and there are no people to deal with, the desire to meditate, to escape becomes addictive,
I am highly skeptical of this being an inherent feature of practicing meditation even if there were people who exhibited this behavior. Humans can get addicted to almost anything. There are millions of people addicted to the internet, to television, to prescription pills. These numbers far outweigh any possible
addicts to meditation. I'll begin to consider this a valid argument against meditation when I see widespread calls to stop (among other things) internet, television and prescription drug uses for the same reason.
if your talking about thinking, I am all for it,
"Thinking" about what?
if your talking about Vedic relaxation techniques with a view to Vedic realisation through chanting, well that's something else,
What do the Vedas have to do with this? Meditation arguably outdated the Vedas by thousands of years. Who knows, perhaps it was developed very early on by humans following our arrival on the evolutionary scene.
the obsession with finding the tenth eye, is that particularly Sikhi to you?
I don't think
obsession with
anything is "particularly Sikhi".
Guru Arjan Devji was standing against tyranny, and showing the world that there are men, and women, who will stand up for what they believe in, and accept the consequences with bravery and without fear, personally the thought that he put himself in a trance like state to achieve this seems quite distasteful to me, did he need to?
The question wasn't "did he need to" (I have no idea if he did), but what exactly "
he was doing" when he was on there. Every version of this account I have come across states that he was meditating, almost certainly on Gurbani. I have come across no good reason to believe otherwise.
ah yes, Guru Tegh Bahadurji spent 26 years meditating, first, could you confirm you believe this to be good and true and line with Guru Nanakjis philosophies? , then we may continue.
I think it is important to point out that while he spent 26 years meditating, no one is saying that's
all he did for that period of time. He worked, he shared and did other things associated with a 'normal' Sikh life. The emphasis on meditation is used as a foil against the martial and political activities of the 6th-8th Guru during their reigns, reigns the 9th Guru lived through himself.
This also brings to light a potential difference in our approach to Sikhi. You have called it "Guru Nanakjis
philosophies". I don't believe it is a mere philosophy at all. I'm sure there are overlapping features between Sikhi and philosophy, but to say that Sikhi is Guru Nanak's philosophy is in a sense to say that Sikhi was
created by the Guru himself. I don't believe this to be true, and everything I have read in Gurbani and accompanying literature like the Vaars of Bhai Gurdas thus far seems to indicate that Sikhi was given to the Guru by Waheguru, not the Guru merely speculating on what may or may not be a "nice way to live."
And no, I don't find anything about those 26 years of Guru Teg Bahadur ji to be out of line with the Sikhi given to the first Guru.
sorry you will have to quote this, was it from another thread?
Yes, post 26:
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threa...hat-does-gurbani-say.44909/page-2#post-201963
Guru Nanakji wanted us to be householders not ascetics, he wanted us to be real people, with jobs, kids and wives.
Yes of course, I fully understand.
He wanted us to reject superstition,
Yes.
Not necessarily. Guru Nanak never spoke out against ritual and ceremony in general, just blind ritualism and blind ceremony in particular, or believing that it makes you somehow holier or purer than people who don't share the same rituals/ceremonies as yourself.
and just accept the one Creator, and assist in the work of Creator,
How do you "assist in the work of Creator"? What is this work? Why should we do it?
