Why This Forum Thesedays Is Full Of "saakats" (skeptics And Atheists) ?

[JourneyOflife]

Just my personal opinion, but I think different words are used for a couple of reasons; the main one is use of synonyms for the same concept to fit with the rhyme or metre of the poetry, and the next is use of subtlety of meaning.

I'm not sure they can be adequately translated, really, at least not without making one line of Gurbani poetry worth three lines of English prose to try to explain.

I have found that the context of the shabad in which the word appears generally gives one a good impression of what the words should mean.

I think we're on the same page here. I'm interested in hearing your take on this whole meditation fiasco.

 

[Ishna]

I think we're on the same page here. I'm interested in hearing your take on this whole meditation fiasco.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page, too.

My take on the whole meditation fiasco? Okay...

1. I don't think it's wrong to nurture your spirituality with meditation, prayer, chanting, music, conscious ritual/ceremony, voluntary work, sharing, contemplation, etc. I think it's good to do what you need to do to fan your own inner spiritual flame as long as you do so in the spirit expressed by Gurbani.
2. I personally feel that studying the spiritual wisdom contained in Gurbani is an absolute essential, as well as living what you learn.
3. I believe that Gurbani teaches an attitude, a perspective and a philosophy.
4. We all tend to understand the Gurbani in our individual way, and there is also a tendency for each of us to display the occasional 'my understanding is the right one / my way or the highway' part of our selves.
5. I strongly believe the forum can be about more than a) talking about meditation and b) arguing about it. I think discussion of meditation techniques is perfectly good and should be encouraged in the proper threads and areas, but I observe that the meditation debate is brought up in most threads by both sides. I'm guilty of this, too.
6. It is my hope that all members of the SPN community will some day be able to consciously decide to leave meditation (overtly or just by suggestion) out of their posts for the sake of other topics. Everyone has said their piece many times over the last couple of years, it's time for both sides to recognise that there isn't going to be a resolution on the issue by talking about it, and will choose to put the forum ahead of their urge to jab, slide, argue, refer, pontificate, joke about and otherwise bring up meditation et. al. in practically each and every single thread.

 

[JourneyOflife]

1. I don't think it's wrong to nurture your spirituality with meditation, prayer, chanting, music, conscious ritual/ceremony, voluntary work, sharing, contemplation, etc. I think it's good to do what you need to do to fan your own inner spiritual flame as long as you do so in the spirit expressed by Gurbani.

Exactly. I completely disagree with this idea of "Sikhi/Guru Nanak is against rituals and ceremonies." No they're not. I brush my teeth twice at the same times every day. I try and buy the same brand of toothbrush and toothpaste every time because I find they leave my mouth feeling more minty clean after each use. Is that a ritual? I'm an above-average germaphobe and hate touching any sort of food if my hands have not been washed with soap. Is the need to wash my hands before eating also a ritual? Or how about forcing myself to study hours on end before every big exam or test. Isn't that a ritual?

The truth is you can define almost anything to be a ritual if our definition of ritual is so broad it may as well just be "a ritual is any sequence of actions or behavior performed over and over again." Under that definition you could say that things like meditation, congregation, "prayer, chanting, music conscious ceremony, voluntary work, sharing [and] contemplation" are rituals. But then under this definition brushing teeth, washing hands and studying for tests can also be counted as potential rituals and that is absurd.

In this sense I think it makes no sense to make a blanket statement about how "the Gurus were against ritualism. Period." Because they're not. They're against blind ritualism and thinking your particular set of religious ceremonies makes you holier than everyone else, because these in particular breed ignorance in the population and a sense of superiority towards those who follow another path. Guru Nanak did actually start a community in Kartarpur, a community which was centered around meeting together on a regular basis every day, singing, playing and dare I say it, meditating on Gurbani. Isn't that ritualism, then? That isn't directed at you, just food for thought for the sangat as a whole because the "Sikhi is against all ritualism" narrative is pretty strong in contemporary Sikhi.

I believe that Gurbani teaches an attitude, a perspective and a philosophy.

I have also noticed the phrase "Philosophy, yes. Religion, no" under your username. Could you elaborate on this?

Spot on with the next points. I know there are some heated topics that get discussed here like reincarnation and meditation, why not have formal debates on these in logic-book style instead of the usual manner of discussion which doesn't tend to lead anywhere?

 

[chazSingh]

Chaz Singh ji,

Guru Fateh,

I beg to differ with you. JourneyOflife was talking about one particular post of mine which he had posted and we have clarified that.
I would request one thing from you though, please post where I mentioned the above in Bold as you claim I did.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

Tejwant ji,

before i go through your past quotes, i can across one of your comments and wanted to ask you something...

on another thread you wrote to me...

"If you consider, you are not a parrot of Gurbani, then there is no discussion to be held because I was talking about the parrots of Gurbani who parrot senselessly for hours and feel a transitory high like a drug addict would feel, which happens especially when one is in a Vaheguru chanting group, the way I was"

So you was a part of some kind of waheguru chanting group? if so, why did you senselessly parrot Waheguru for hours?

why didn't you say the word waheguru with love? with a pouring of your heart? with longing? like a child wanting to say 'i love you' to his mother?

why did you senselessly parrot waheguru for hours? were you drugged by them prior to speaking the words waheguru which made you devoid of any feeling or emotions? did they force you to be there against your free will? so you just sat there senselessly parrotting and ended up being on some kind of drug like high?

how did this happen? i often tell my mother that i love her...when i say the words...there is a pouring from my heart...it is a powerful thing...this thing called love...when the words come out...she hears them...she can tell that i really mean it...she feels it...wow! what a wonderful thing..and then i feel great...she feels great...two hearts connecting...

of course...if i senselessly parrot the words "i love you" to my mother...i'm pretty sure she will 'feel' the difference...she will know there is no love behind my words...

why did you become so senseless uttering like a parrot? i don't get it...what got you into that state becoming like a robot where your words had no pouring of your heart or no emotions?

 

[Original]

Dear All

The less said the better for JourneyOflife Ji is profoundly navigating the sangat back home to the land of the five alive, Anandpur Sahib. A commendable dispostion for the want of Sikhism to flourish to fulfill its divine nature, well argued and held a position.

On my part then, an overview perhaps, to say the least, but first, two notable observations:

1. Is Sikh a philosophy ? In short, no ! Why ? Because of its belief in the transcendental [Ikonkar] deem it an ideology. Classification that Sikh is a religion by conventional standards is thus arrived because, philosophy seeks truth by reason and argument, religion and mysticism do so by intuition and revelation. The dichotomy is in pursuit of "truth" [sat]; the basis of religionis faith in the unseen and in philosophy is the quest in the unseen. It was through revelations on the whole and mystical in part that the word [shabd] came to glorify the greatness of God without human intervention [meaning, subjectivity removed, ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥ As the word of the Husband Lord comes to me, so do I express it O'Lalo, Ang 722 SGGSJ] and directly from Akal Purakh [AP, nam, source]. Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible. It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]. And, it is the faith of the individual that constitutes belief. Academians have accepted Nanak's AP as trancendental , confirmation of which is Sikhi, meaning, it cannot be argued but experienced [live-it, note here the importance of meditation as a mean to an end from teleological perspective] hence the three pillars, that is KK, VS and Nam Jap [open to wider interpretation].
2. Does Sikhi overlap with Philosophy ? Personally speaking, I don't think it does. Gur Ghar is absolutely clear on its doctrinal foundations. It's not so much the overlapping but rather the conceptual understanding. For example, Nanak completely changed the trend of religious life in India, that is, against the world being regarded as unreal [maya], miserable and suffering, he called it real and meaningful [teleological]. That taken as a world-view perspective, potentially has a philosophical ring to it, but not in its entirety is it ideologically a philosophy. It is this anomaly perhaps, which gives rise to abstract thinking, moving away as it were, from the real deal. But, for clarification sake, it must be noted that although, Nanak promoted and encouraged social reform, he never moved away from his ideology nor did the rest of the Banikars in maintaining the status quo of the perishable [physical] and the imperishable [spiritual] world of the soul, Sachkhand. Nanak's emphasis were on social and not religious. He promoted householder's life [garhasthya jeevan] as the bedrock of society. Any society that ignores the sanctity of marriage [voicing against asceticism] ultimately undermines its moral foundation. The individual's personality finds its expression through participation in family life, the training ground for usefulness. This was in view of the sargun nirgun maxim, classic example of which is pauri 38 of Jap Ji Sahib.

What I mean by understanding is, its deep conceptual message. Going to the Gurdwara, doing seva and nam simran all amounts to nothing unless a relationship is found with the "guru" [SGGSJ and Panth, the individual n the state, deontological perspective]. That is not to say, one accords with the Panth's procedural view n belief, but with substantiative Sikhism in order to both, build its institutional image and social status, for the betterment of society as a whole. Furthermore, it helps to understand how Gur Ghar was steeped in the historical perspectives [religion] of its time so it could reproduce and clarify their distinctive vocabularies and conceptual tools [meditation, reincarnation] ensuring contribution of knowledge through its applications to new objects of enquiry [removal of inequalities] were compatible to better the human condition. The only way possible was questioning and pushing at the boundaries of their respective traditions.

Comment [write-up below, is tailored made to reflect contemporary issues. It is not entirely my own, I've used it as a template to advance a contentious issue].

At a time when so many "venerable" traditions are being skeptically scrutinised, if not harshly attacked, it is hardly surprising that moral reasoning is also attracting increasing criticism. Growing number of youngsters [including my own] are questioning whether religious institutions like the science of logic n analysis are indeed proper tools for contemporary problem solving. Sizeable population believe [perception, youngsters] that the institutions and their method of communication and teachings obscures rather than clarify relevant issues in assessing religious fundamentals, mixed marriages [mm] for example.

From a lawyers perspective [past tense], it is true that passes for logic in some judicial decisions are no more than rhetorically weaved words, but equally, it must be noted, that pure logic does not offer a solution to all contemporary problems. In reaching a great many solutions [mm] a value judgment or aesthetic choice becomes inevitable, no matter how much the decision maker [me] exercises caution by means of careful analysis. In deed in some cases [instant] the logical solution may even be inappropriate because certain emotional or other supposedly illogical factors are proper considerations.

Little imagination is required to interpret these statements of the religious thought process that moral principles be sacrificed on the alter of Panthic reasoning. What do you think ?
.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Chaz Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

before i go through your past quotes, i can across one of your comments and wanted to ask you something...

on another thread you wrote to me...

"If you consider, you are not a parrot of Gurbani, then there is no discussion to be held because I was talking about the parrots of Gurbani who parrot senselessly for hours and feel a transitory high like a drug addict would feel, which happens especially when one is in a Vaheguru chanting group, the way I was"

So you was a part of some kind of waheguru chanting group? if so, why did you senselessly parrot Waheguru for hours?

I was introduced to the Dodra group in Vancouver in Aug 1988 and fell in love with it because Simran made me high, put me in trance in a transitory manner. I saw many people getting emotional and saw the tears flowing from their eyes which was touching. The only funny thing which I did not do after an hour of Vaheguru chanting was the silent chant because I heard many snoring during that.

why didn't you say the word waheguru with love? with a pouring of your heart? with longing? like a child wanting to say 'i love you' to his mother?

When did I say "I did not say the word waheguru with love"? Why are you making things up?

This has nothing to do with Simran. I recite Gurbani with love because it is a Miracle Gro for my love that I cultivate within through Gurbani. But if you mean about the Vaheguru Simran, why would not one do it with love? I am sorry, I have no idea what the premise of your question is.

why did you senselessly parrot waheguru for hours? were you drugged by them prior to speaking the words waheguru which made you devoid of any feeling or emotions? did they force you to be there against your free will? so you just sat there senselessly parrotting and ended up being on some kind of drug like high?

The above realisation came in front of me after many months, perhaps I was blinded and high on this drug of trance when I saw the honchos of the group hugging vulnerable emotional women, some of them quite young not in a brotherly fashion.

how did this happen? i often tell my mother that i love her...when i say the words...there is a pouring from my heart...it is a powerful thing...this thing called love...when the words come out...she hears them...she can tell that i really mean it...she feels it...wow! what a wonderful thing..and then i feel great...she feels great...two hearts connecting...

I have no idea what your question is above. Please elaborate.

of course...if i senselessly parrot the words "i love you" to my mother...i'm pretty sure she will 'feel' the difference...she will know there is no love behind my words...

You seem a bit confused. Let's stick to the topic that you wonderfully started by asking me questions. Now it has stopped making any sense. Your love for your Mum has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

why did you become so senseless uttering like a parrot? i don't get it...what got you into that state becoming like a robot where your words had no pouring of your heart or no emotions?

LOL . Now, you are trying to be a shrink. When I was in the group, for me everything made sense and I participated in it wholeheartedly, went to the Smagams all over the US and Canada till I found out about their naughty shenanigans of affairs, rapes and jail time. They were taking advantage of the women because of the emotional drain that the Simran environment created. I was shell shocked once, when some women who were not happy in their marriages asked for help. They told them to just do Vaheguru Simran and everything would be OK and which was not.

I was also very uncomfortable from the very beginning about their way of hugging each other especially the women. I did hug the men but from day one I did not hug any woman.

Any more questions? Please do not hesitate to ask.

Tejwant Singh

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Guru Fateh to All,

I know we have discussed this before here several times but it is worth bringing the subject back.

Original ji posts the following one liner from Gurbani in his interesting post in order to justify his Sikhi thought process by saying this:

"and directly from Akal Purakh [AP, nam, source]. Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible. It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]".

ਤਿਲੰਗਮਹਲਾ੧॥

ਜੈਸੀਮੈਆਵੈਖਸਮਕੀਬਾਣੀਤੈਸੜਾਕਰੀਗਿਆਨੁਵੇਲਾਲੋ॥

As the word of the Husband Lord comes to me, so do I express it O'Lalo, Ang 722 SGGSJ]

There are many verses like this in the SGGS, our only Guru. The following is just one more one liner (I do not fancy one liners because they are incapable of expressing the true message of the whole shabad but give the writer a weapon to use in his/her argument.

The literal translation of the below is by Sant Singh Khalsa who is a convert from Christianity and hence has the Abrahamic baggage.

ਸੋਰਠਿਮਹਲਾ੫॥
Soraṯẖ mėhlā 5.

ਧੁਰਕੀਬਾਣੀਆਈ॥
Ḏẖur kī baṇī ā▫ī.
The Bani of His Word emanated from the Primal Lord

ਤਿਨਿਸਗਲੀਚਿੰਤਮਿਟਾਈ॥
Ŧin saglī cẖinṯ mitā▫ī.
It eradicates all anxiety Ang 628 of SGGS

As mentioned above, this subject was discussed here before. The followers of the Abrahamic religions say the same thing but they do it more bluntly by saying, "God spoke to Me,Moses,Jesus, Prophets and others".

My question in those Christian forums and also here at SPN was and still is:

What is NOT inspired by Ik Ong Kaar in our lives? Please take a note of the word Inspire in the view of positive action in this context. Please share your list here. I am still looking for the list which is not inspired by Ik Ong Kaar in all of us. Hence, it has nothing to do with "Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible.It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]." as Original ji mentioned in his post. But in my view, it has everything to do with pragmatic reasoning on which Guru Nanak based our Sikhi.

Tejwant Singh

 

[chazSingh]

Chaz Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



I was introduced to the Dodra group in Vancouver in Aug 1988 and fell in love with it because Simran made me high, put me in trance in a transitory manner. I saw many people getting emotional and saw the tears flowing from their eyes which was touching. The only funny thing which I did not do after an hour of Vaheguru chanting was the silent chant because I heard many snoring during that.

Ahhh the silent simran....i often used to fall asleep during that...with time my awareness and focus got me through that...but i guess sometimes you just have to listen to your own body and get some rest

When did I say "I did not say the word waheguru with love"? Why are you making things up?

This has nothing to do with Simran. I recite Gurbani with love because it is a Miracle Gro for my love that I cultivate within through Gurbani. But if you mean about the Vaheguru Simran, why would not one do it with love? I am sorry, I have no idea what the premise of your question is.

ok, this is interesting and it's basically the reason i bought this up....you often mention on Simran and meditation threads this whole 'parroting' that goes on....and you stated in your quote that you were involved with a group that was doing "parrot senselessly for hours"..

so from your reply, you have bought to attention a difference between what they we doing and what you were doing...

they were senselessy parroting....and you were reciting with love...

The above realisation came in front of me after many months, perhaps I was blinded and high on this drug of trance when I saw the honchos of the group hugging vulnerable emotional women, some of them quite young not in a brotherly fashion.

Ahh, so you realized that the ones who were senselessly parroting i.e. reciting in a robotic manner with no love and emotion or thirst and longing for waheguru...were the ones involved in this 'huggin' and you decided to leave...

I'm glad you did leave...Lust affects us all...one of the 5 thieves...it drains our energy.

You seem a bit confused. Let's stick to the topic that you wonderfully started by asking me questions. Now it has stopped making any sense. Your love for your Mum has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

No confusion Ji....from many responses of yours on meditation and Simran threads you have made clear you have a very big issue with this whole Mindless Senseless Parroting that often goes on...

and my reference to saying 'i love you' to my mother was to highlight that words can be said with an infinite amount of love and longing and feeling and emotion for the subject that the words are intended for...the words come alive

and you have lovingly stated that you were the one that was thankfully 'reciting with Love'

This is what most posters on these threads have stated many times...that they meditate, focus their dyaan...with IK Man on shabad as their heart lovingly thirsts for awareness of waheguru...love just keeps enveloping the words...love being the primal power behind it all whether they are reciting verbally or mentally.

Thankfully you have shown yourself that this can be done...and is an important part of being a Sikh with your words
" I recite Gurbani with love because it is a Miracle Gro for my love that I cultivate within through Gurbani. "

LOL . Now, you are trying to be a shrink. When I was in the group, for me everything made sense and I participated in it wholeheartedly, went to the Smagams all over the US and Canada till I found out about their naughty shenanigans of affairs, rapes and jail time. They were taking advantage of the women because of the emotional drain that the Simran environment created. I was shell shocked once, when some women who were not happy in their marriages asked for help. They told them to just do Vaheguru Simran and everything would be OK and which was not.

I was also very uncomfortable from the very beginning about their way of hugging each other especially the women. I did hug the men but from day one I did not hug any woman.

unfortunately this is the way of the world...there are fake untrustworthy plumbers amongst the ones that work honestly and truthfully...good merchants and bad merchants, good sikhs and bad sikhs. light and dark..hot and cold...

I'm happy that you were the one who took reciting gurbani seriously....and did so with love and affection and a REAL PURPOSE

I wouldn't let these hugging shenanigans of others put you off your Recitation and Simran...one musn't stop just because of the senseless parroting ones...

me personally...i don't get this drug like high...i've taken drugs...different types...what i get from Simran does not compare in any way to the feeling of drugs.

what i do however feel is waves of love, i know i have been drawn into His Domain...i'm fully aware during this and the only thing that tries to pull me out of this loving sanctuary is my mind that starts to pull me into thoughts of Sex, Money, Anger, Ego and Desire...

I know now that me and you are the same...we recite with love, longing and a thirst...our compasses are set in the correct direction...we are not the mindless, senseless parroters that do exists unfortunately....we are the reciters super charged with Love for Waheguru...

Any more questions? Please do not hesitate to ask.

For now i am content...i have learned a lot from just this brief discussion with you...God Bless Ji

 

[Original]

H

Ahhh the silent simran....i often used to fall asleep during that...with time my awareness and focus got me through that...but i guess sometimes you just have to listen to your own body and get some rest




ok, this is interesting and it's basically the reason i bought this up....you often mention on Simran and meditation threads this whole 'parroting' that goes on....and you stated in your quote that you were involved with a group that was doing "parrot senselessly for hours"..

so from your reply, you have bought to attention a difference between what they we doing and what you were doing...

they were senselessy parroting....and you were reciting with love...





Ahh, so you realized that the ones who were senselessly parroting i.e. reciting in a robotic manner with no love and emotion or thirst and longing for waheguru...were the ones involved in this 'huggin' and you decided to leave...

I'm glad you did leave...Lust affects us all...one of the 5 thieves...it drains our energy.




No confusion Ji....from many responses of yours on meditation and Simran threads you have made clear you have a very big issue with this whole Mindless Senseless Parroting that often goes on...

and my reference to saying 'i love you' to my mother was to highlight that words can be said with an infinite amount of love and longing and feeling and emotion for the subject that the words are intended for...the words come alive

and you have lovingly stated that you were the one that was thankfully 'reciting with Love'

This is what most posters on these threads have stated many times...that they meditate, focus their dyaan...with IK Man on shabad as their heart lovingly thirsts for awareness of waheguru...love just keeps enveloping the words...love being the primal power behind it all whether they are reciting verbally or mentally.

Thankfully you have shown yourself that this can be done...and is an important part of being a Sikh with your words
" I recite Gurbani with love because it is a Miracle Gro for my love that I cultivate within through Gurbani. "



unfortunately this is the way of the world...there are fake untrustworthy plumbers amongst the ones that work honestly and truthfully...good merchants and bad merchants, good sikhs and bad sikhs. light and dark..hot and cold...

I'm happy that you were the one who took reciting gurbani seriously....and did so with love and affection and a REAL PURPOSE

I wouldn't let these hugging shenanigans of others put you off your Recitation and Simran...one musn't stop just because of the senseless parroting ones...

me personally...i don't get this drug like high...i've taken drugs...different types...what i get from Simran does not compare in any way to the feeling of drugs.

what i do however feel is waves of love, i know i have been drawn into His Domain...i'm fully aware during this and the only thing that tries to pull me out of this loving sanctuary is my mind that starts to pull me into thoughts of Sex, Money, Anger, Ego and Desire...

I know now that me and you are the same...we recite with love, longing and a thirst...our compasses are set in the correct direction...we are not the mindless, senseless parroters that do exists unfortunately....we are the reciters super charged with Love for Waheguru...



For now i am content...i have learned a lot from just this brief discussion with you...God Bless Ji

Hey Meditator, grazing on the same field with the Gladiator ! WOW ! Miracles do happen !

 

[Original]

Guru Fateh to All,

Gur Fateh, Veer Ji !

I know we have discussed this before here several times but it is worth bringing the subject back.

Be my guest !

Original ji posts the following one liner from Gurbani in his interesting post in order to justify his Sikhi thought process by saying this:

"and directly from Akal Purakh [AP, nam, source]. Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible. It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]".

ਤਿਲੰਗਮਹਲਾ੧॥

ਜੈਸੀਮੈਆਵੈਖਸਮਕੀਬਾਣੀਤੈਸੜਾਕਰੀਗਿਆਨੁਵੇਲਾਲੋ॥

This was to show that "gurbani" is divine revelation and mystical in places. I used the above verse to show what Nanak was trying to explain to Lalo, [exactly what I'm doing right now], that is, "hey Lalo, it aren't me who's voicing this here verse, voluntarily ? No ! But, Akal Purakh [ਖਸਮ, meaning husband] is himself, speaking through me, directly. I used the word comprehensible to show, hey wait, since this is coming dircet from AP [transcendental, beyond time n space], rationality [mind] and emperical data [senses] are bystanders, this is beyond their remit. What this does, it removes the subjective element of the object in question.

Consider the following :

• Waho waho Bani Nirankar hai [Bani is God, 515 SGGSJ]
  
• Bani guru, guru hai bani [Bani and Guru are the one and the same 982 SGGSJ]
• Parbraham Gur nai pha'id [Guru is God, between the 2 is no difference 1142 SGGSJ]

The following formula is pretty good:

• God>Guru>Nanak>Word

If that'd be correct then it follows, Nanak was the instrument through which the word of God was REVEALED and not inspired.

There is a differnce between revelation vs inspiration, that is, where the former's source is always divine, the latter could sometime be otherwise [agent intervention], thus, rendering it suppostioin; revelation, absolute.

NOTE: whether one is Abrahamic or Vedic or Martian or Spok - Nanak's Ikonkar can accommodate them all. And, if they'd be up to no good to mislead the children of Waheguru, I'll have bit more of that coz journey so far, has been wkd !

What is NOT inspired by Ik Ong Kaar in our lives? Please take a note of the word Inspire in the view of positive action in this context. Please share your list here. I am still looking for the list which is not inspired by Ik Ong Kaar in all of us. Hence, it has nothing to do with "Rationality and Emperical observation fall short of the transcendental to render it comprehensible.It is not what one thinks [manmukh] but what one believes [gurmukh]." as Original ji mentioned in his post. But in my view, it has everything to do with pragmatic reasoning on which Guru Nanak based our Sikhi.

The day you'll archive pragmatic reasoning the day you'll get an out-of-body excursion with brother Chaz around another galaxy, compliments of the house of Nanak.

Love n leave ya - lunch time ! Long live Singh Kings and Prince Kaurs of the Five Alive Paradise

 

[Ishna]

I have also noticed the phrase "Philosophy, yes. Religion, no" under your username. Could you elaborate on this?

Apologies for the late reply, I have been very busy with work and my in-laws have been staying with us while they're in town.

I am nowhere near as knowledgeable or eloquent as dear Original Ji, and merely present here my point of view.

The 'Philosophy, yes. Religion, no' tag under my username is indicating that I am interested in the study of the Sikh philosophy as presented in Gurbani, and I am not interested in the religion as commonly seen today. When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.

When I read Gurbani, I feel as though the Guru is the great philosopher, and I am His student, wondering in awe and searching for answers to questions like, "What is the nature of reality?" and, "How should I live life in the best way?" These questions can be asked (and answered) independently of religion, which brings with it so much cultural and traditional baggage.

Gurbani doesn't teach religion... It doesn't say 'do this, don't do that'. It gets you to use your mind, and to question, assess situations for yourself, and act in the way of a Gurmukh.

 

[chazSingh]

Apologies for the late reply, I have been very busy with work and my in-laws have been staying with us while they're in town.

I am nowhere near as knowledgeable or eloquent as dear Original Ji, and merely present here my point of view.

The 'Philosophy, yes. Religion, no' tag under my username is indicating that I am interested in the study of the Sikh philosophy as presented in Gurbani, and I am not interested in the religion as commonly seen today. When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.

When I read Gurbani, I feel as though the Guru is the great philosopher, and I am His student, wondering in awe and searching for answers to questions like, "What is the nature of reality?" and, "How should I live life in the best way?" These questions can be asked (and answered) independently of religion, which brings with it so much cultural and traditional baggage.

I am no longer ashamed to be a no-Punjabi interested in Sikhi, because I no longer identify as a Sikh (in the religious sense). I am a Sikh in the student/teacher sense, and religion has no place in the classroom. Religion only answers, it doesn't ask, it doesn't grow, it doesn't adapt. Philosophy questions, and answers, and teaches a way of thinking that equips a person to go forth in the world independently and operate in the best way. Religion is like giving a person a shovel and saying it is the only tool you'll ever need. Philosophy gives a person a toolbox with some basic tools and sends you off. You test, experiment, ask, discover, add tools to your toolbox as your learn and can use a range of tools depending on the task at hand.

Gurbani doesn't teach religion... It doesn't say 'do this, don't do that'. It gets you to use your mind, and to question, assess situations for yourself, and act in the way of a Gurmukh.

to me these are all just mere words...religion, spirituality, philosophy...

they can mean whatever they like to each individual....

for example to me, religion is the seeking, the testing, the questioning...
for others it is a box to put yourself into, just as a labeling mechanism to belong to a group...to feel a part of a group to affirm identity..but there is no attempt to seek, test, question and breath.

we all individually decide what the words mean to us...

i hear often people saying, i don;t like using the word religion..i rather use spirituality....but even spirituality will start to be identified by our egotistical world as a religion in itself...then people who don;t want to associate with any kind of religion will develop a new word...truthists, new ageists

its always down to the individual...are you seeking...or just passing your life by and just labeling yourself...

 

[Ishna]

That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias.

 

[chazSingh]

That's why we have dictionaries and encyclopedias.

[mass noun]
1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
More example sentences
1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion

which one of the above would you say you fall into? from your description of yourself, i would say 1.2? we can call your religion 'truthism' and you can be deemed a truth seeker...enjoy

 

[Ishna]

It's fun to label me, isn't it? I know, I've been doing it my whole life. Such is my lot, I suppose.

I like this one:

Philosopher
In the classical sense, a philosopher is someone who lives according to a way of life, whose focus is upon resolving existential questions about the human condition.​

 

[JourneyOflife]

Apologies for the late reply, I have been very busy with work and my in-laws have been staying with us while they're in town.

No problem, thanks for replying. I'm going to go through this because I am unsure of how to draw a distinction between Sikh religion and Sikh philosophy, and would love to learn more.

The 'Philosophy, yes. Religion, no' tag under my username is indicating that I am interested in the study of the Sikh philosophy as presented in Gurbani, and I am not interested in the religion as commonly seen today. When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.

See that's the thing- I disagree with many of the practices I see Sikhs engaging in around me- but to say you are not interested in the religion as "commonly seen today" gives the impression there was a time in the past when you would have been interested in the way the religion was "commonly" practiced.

I can't think of any time when there weren't some problem or the other in Sikhi. Whether it was the fusion with Hinduism that began under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the prohibition of women taking Amrit that developed in the 18th century as the Khalsa became more and more regal, it does not appear to me that any such time existed. Even during the era of the Gurus themselves you had the relatives of the Gurus trying to usurp the gurgaddi for themselves. You had masands during the times of the Gurus who became so corrupt they thought they could make or break the Guru. Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was barred from Sri Harmandir Sahib by these people. It took the establishment of Khalsa on Vaisakhi 1699 and the battles which followed for Sikh institutions to finally be back under the direct control of the Guru.

There has never been a time in any religion's history when the teachings were practiced consistently across all sections of the community. What does this tell us? That there is always both good and bad. It has never been one or the other. Even after Sikhi had become almost a branch of Hinduism following Ranjit Singh's reign, you still had great Sikhs like Kahn Singh Nabha rise up and lead the charge of the Singh Sabha movement, a movement which cemented Sikh identity in the SRM. Even during the era of when the masands barred Guru Teg Bahadur Ji from Sri Harmandir Sahib, we are provided with some of the greatest GurSikhs to have ever existed, people who chose to accompany the Guru to Delhi and be tortured to death by the Mughals rather than give up their Sikhi.

What, then, does this tell us? That good and bad always go together. Even during the worst of times there have always been and always will be great individuals who will rise up and open the floodgates of change. Banda Singh Bahadur did that right after Guru Gobind Singh ji. And even during the best of times there will always be individuals in the community who are apathetic towards the greater teachings and are happy with being tied to the Path on a nominal level. This applies not just to Sikhi, but to all religions.

As a result, if "not interested in the religion as commonly seen today", then at what point in history would the interest have been there? Furthermore I would argue that this is a great time to be a Sikh. Sikh history has been overwhelmingly married with holocaust, genocide and violence. The last 20-25 years have represented some of the most peaceful and stable times the Sikh community has ever experienced, perhaps the single most peaceful and stable time of all history. Same goes for practicing the religion, because as Sikhs have branched out all over the world it seems to me like the community has started moving closer and closer to Sikh teachings, not further away from them. This has particularly been the case in the last 5-10 years.

When I put Gurbani next to today's religion of Sikhi, it does not appear to be consistent.

In addition to what I mentioned above about being careful about glorifying Sikh past or being overly condemning of the present community, doesn't this really depend on the fundamental nature of Sikhi? I mean if we take the SGGS to be completely subjective because "it is poetry and interpreted differently by different people" as many say today, then what gives any of us the right to say that our interpretation of Gurbani is the correct one and as a result be able to say the "Sikh religion [today]" is not consistent with Gurbani?

To be able to make those claims, doesn't it require the existence of certain objective truths to be present in Gurbani, certain statements that are actually meant to be taken 100% literally and not be subjective? Without this objectivity, how can any of us say our interpretation of Gurbani is the correct one or that what we believe to be true is actually true at all? Without some degree of objectivity, how do we know we are actually understanding Gurbani in the way the Gurus intended us to?

When I read Gurbani, I feel as though the Guru is the great philosopher, and I am His student, wondering in awe and searching for answers to questions like, "What is the nature of reality?" and, "How should I live life in the best way?" These questions can be asked (and answered) independently of religion, which brings with it so much cultural and traditional baggage.

I agree there is much parallel between Sikhi and philosophical curiosity. But if "the Guru is the great philosopher", why should I follow the Guru over Socrates, Plato or Aristotle? They too were great philosophers and dealt with some of the most fundamental questions concerning "the nature of reality" and "How should I live life in the best way?" And many of their conclusions were at odds with what the Gurus said. So on which basis am I to trust the Guru's conclusions over those of the Greek powerhouses, three of the greatest philosophers if not the greatest philosophers to have ever walked the earth?

Gurbani doesn't teach religion... It doesn't say 'do this, don't do that'.

Perhaps not to the same degree as a religion like Islam, and that is because Gurbani recognizes that change must come on the inside before it can translate to true virtue on the outside. But it does tell us to do certain actions which help bring about that change. One of those is to meditate/contemplate/absorb ourselves in the Naam when we awaken. Others include trying to make our speech sweet and singing kirtan in Sangat. It tells us to not speak harshly and to not associate with certain groups of people, among others. So to a degree Gurbani does tell us to "do this, don't do that".

It gets you to use your mind, and to question, assess situations for yourself, and act in the way of a Gurmukh.

This is interesting because in many places Gurbani stresses the folly of simply following our own minds. No doubt it asks us to think, to be aware and to question, but someone who relies entirely on their own mind is arguably the dictionary definition of a manmukh- someone who faces towards their own mind. On the other hand, as you pointed out, Gurbani tries to get is to act in the way of Gurmukh- someone who has positioned themselves to face in the direction of the Guru's hukam.

And this goes right back to what I was saying before... what is the Guru's hukam, and how do we know our interpretation of it is correct? And if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers to have walked the Earth across history? What authority did the Gurus have to tell us "the best way to live life?"

 

[Ishna]

Thank you for your reply. Please take what I say with a grain of salt, I am no university graduate.

See that's the thing- I disagree with many of the practices I see Sikhs engaging in around me- but to say you are not interested in the religion as "commonly seen today" gives the impression there was a time in the past when you would have been interested in the way the religion was "commonly" practiced.

What I mean to say is that many elements of the religion seem to be at odds with the message found in Gurbani. Most likely I am just not understanding it all correctly. When I read Gurbani, I see it saying that it doesn't matter if you are shaved bald or have matted hair, it's your thoughts and conduct that matter most, yet the Sikhs I meet either emphasize the 5Ks, or are content to be mona Sehajdharis believing they'll be more devout in their next life, or put more emphasis on the thought process and meaning behind outward appearance and get labeled as shaktas.

I see it with three prayers purposefully set aside in its first 13 pages, yet a requirement to be a 'devout religious Sikh' is to add in all these other poems from another book, as if the Guru Granth Sahib Ji isn't enough.

I see a universal message talking about Reality, but so many Sikh denominations (and plenty of Sikhs denying the denominations even exist).

I see a stand-alone philosophy that endows a human with a compass to guide them in life, and not instructions on how to get married, how to get your daughter married, what gifts the groom should receive from the parents. These are specific to Punjabi culture, and I understand why they are in the SRM, but it is not from Gurbani, it is one society's attempt to bring their society as a whole closer to the ideal taught by the Guru. It is not relevant in all places or at all times.

I can't think of any time when there weren't some problem or the other in Sikhi. Whether it was the fusion with Hinduism that began under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the prohibition of women taking Amrit that developed in the 18th century as the Khalsa became more and more regal, it does not appear to me that any such time existed. Even during the era of the Gurus themselves you had the relatives of the Gurus trying to usurp the gurgaddi for themselves. You had masands during the times of the Gurus who became so corrupt they thought they could make or break the Guru. Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was barred from Sri Harmandir Sahib by these people. It took the establishment of Khalsa on Vaisakhi 1699 and the battles which followed for Sikh institutions to finally be back under the direct control of the Guru.

There has never been a time in any religion's history when the teachings were practiced consistently across all sections of the community. What does this tell us? That there is always both good and bad. It has never been one or the other. Even after Sikhi had become almost a branch of Hinduism following Ranjit Singh's reign, you still had great Sikhs like Kahn Singh Nabha rise up and lead the charge of the Singh Sabha movement, a movement which cemented Sikh identity in the SRM. Even during the era of when the masands barred Guru Teg Bahadur Ji from Sri Harmandir Sahib, we are provided with some of the greatest GurSikhs to have ever existed, people who chose to accompany the Guru to Delhi and be tortured to death by the Mughals rather than give up their Sikhi.

What, then, does this tell us? That good and bad always go together. Even during the worst of times there have always been and always will be great individuals who will rise up and open the floodgates of change. Banda Singh Bahadur did that right after Guru Gobind Singh ji. And even during the best of times there will always be individuals in the community who are apathetic towards the greater teachings and are happy with being tied to the Path on a nominal level. This applies not just to Sikhi, but to all religions.

Correct. It also tells us that religion is subject to societal pressure and interference. It tells us that over time, religion changes. It tells us that people will be people (the good and the bad), regardless of religion.

As a result, if "not interested in the religion as commonly seen today", then at what point in history would the interest have been there?

I don't know - I can only work with what I see before me now.

Furthermore I would argue that this is a great time to be a Sikh. Sikh history has been overwhelmingly married with holocaust, genocide and violence. The last 20-25 years have represented some of the most peaceful and stable times the Sikh community has ever experienced, perhaps the single most peaceful and stable time of all history. Same goes for practicing the religion, because as Sikhs have branched out all over the world it seems to me like the community has started moving closer and closer to Sikh teachings, not further away from them. This has particularly been the case in the last 5-10 years.

It's a great time to be a Sikh due to all the information and networking opportunities. I'm not sure too much else has really changed. There are still fights at Harmandir Sahib, it is still run by a bunch of interesting people (I'll leave it there), there are still denominations proclaiming IRL and online how theirs is the true path.

In addition to what I mentioned above about being careful about glorifying Sikh past or being overly condemning of the present community, doesn't this really depend on the fundamental nature of Sikhi? I mean if we take the SGGS to be completely subjective because "it is poetry and interpreted differently by different people" as many say today, then what gives any of us the right to say that our interpretation of Gurbani is the correct one and as a result be able to say the "Sikh religion [today]" is not consistent with Gurbani?

To be able to make those claims, doesn't it require the existence of certain objective truths to be present in Gurbani, certain statements that are actually meant to be taken 100% literally and not be subjective? Without this objectivity, how can any of us say our interpretation of Gurbani is the correct one or that what we believe to be true is actually true at all? Without some degree of objectivity, how do we know we are actually understanding Gurbani in the way the Gurus intended us to?

And therein lies the problem of all organised religion.

I agree there is much parallel between Sikhi and philosophical curiosity. But if "the Guru is the great philosopher", why should I follow the Guru over Socrates, Plato or Aristotle? They too were great philosophers and dealt with some of the most fundamental questions concerning "the nature of reality" and "How should I live life in the best way?" And many of their conclusions were at odds with what the Gurus said. So on which basis am I to trust the Guru's conclusions over those of the Greek powerhouses, three of the greatest philosophers if not the greatest philosophers to have ever walked the earth?

Why choose Sikh religion over any of the others? It could be said that Jesus is possibly the greatest prophet to have ever (potentially) walked the earth, so why not be a Christian?

You and I can probably agree it is because we perceive some kind of truth within Sikhi (however we connect with it).

Perhaps not to the same degree as a religion like Islam, and that is because Gurbani recognizes that change must come on the inside before it can translate to true virtue on the outside. But it does tell us to do certain actions which help bring about that change. One of those is to meditate/contemplate/absorb ourselves in the Naam when we awaken. Others include trying to make our speech sweet and singing kirtan in Sangat. It tells us to not speak harshly and to not associate with certain groups of people, among others. So to a degree Gurbani does tell us to "do this, don't do that".

See, I could start disagreeing with you right here about what Gurbani actually says. But I won't.

Sure, Gurbani does tell us some "do this, don't do that" instructions. But those instructions aren't 'Never wash your hair on Friday' or 'Chant So Dar over 40 days to make your man love you more" or even "Keep your hair long and wear a turban". As you said, it is about causing change within, and the spirit with which to live.

This is interesting because in many places Gurbani stresses the folly of simply following our own minds. No doubt it asks us to think, to be aware and to question, but someone who relies entirely on their own mind is arguably the dictionary definition of a manmukh- someone who faces towards their own mind. On the other hand, as you pointed out, Gurbani tries to get is to act in the way of Gurmukh- someone who has positioned themselves to face in the direction of the Guru's hukam.

And this goes right back to what I was saying before... what is the Guru's hukam, and how do we know our interpretation of it is correct? And if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers to have walked the Earth across history? What authority did the Gurus have to tell us "the best way to live life?"

I don't think it's possible to have an interpretation of hukam. Hukam cannot be described, so how can it be interpreted? It just is.

Manmukh is someone who can't see past the veil of illusion and is convinced that they are separate from the Ik Onkar.

Gurmukh is someone who learns spiritual wisdom from the Guru and recognises the Oneness of everything.

And in answer to your "if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers [] ?" question, well, why follow Sikhism the religion instead of any of the other religions? If someone believes the Gurus were mystical prophets delivering some kind of revelation spoken from God's mouth, then why believe them and not Jesus?

 

[chazSingh]

Thank you for your reply. Please take what I say with a grain of salt, I am no university graduate.



What I mean to say is that many elements of the religion seem to be at odds with the message found in Gurbani. Most likely I am just not understanding it all correctly. When I read Gurbani, I see it saying that it doesn't matter if you are shaved bald or have matted hair, it's your thoughts and conduct that matter most, yet the Sikhs I meet either emphasize the 5Ks, or are content to be mona Sehajdharis believing they'll be more devout in their next life, or put more emphasis on the thought process and meaning behind outward appearance and get labeled as shaktas.

I see it with three prayers purposefully set aside in its first 13 pages, yet a requirement to be a 'devout religious Sikh' is to add in all these other poems from another book, as if the Guru Granth Sahib Ji isn't enough.

I see a universal message talking about Reality, but so many Sikh denominations (and plenty of Sikhs denying the denominations even exist).

I see a stand-alone philosophy that endows a human with a compass to guide them in life, and not instructions on how to get married, how to get your daughter married, what gifts the groom should receive from the parents. These are specific to Punjabi culture, and I understand why they are in the SRM, but it is not from Gurbani, it is one society's attempt to bring their society as a whole closer to the ideal taught by the Guru. It is not relevant in all places or at all times.



Correct. It also tells us that religion is subject to societal pressure and interference. It tells us that over time, religion changes. It tells us that people will be people (the good and the bad), regardless of religion.



I don't know - I can only work with what I see before me now.



It's a great time to be a Sikh due to all the information and networking opportunities. I'm not sure too much else has really changed. There are still fights at Harmandir Sahib, it is still run by a bunch of interesting people (I'll leave it there), there are still denominations proclaiming IRL and online how theirs is the true path.



And therein lies the problem of all organised religion.



Why choose Sikh religion over any of the others? It could be said that Jesus is possibly the greatest prophet to have ever (potentially) walked the earth, so why not be a Christian?

You and I can probably agree it is because we perceive some kind of truth within Sikhi (however we connect with it).



See, I could start disagreeing with you right here about what Gurbani actually says. But I won't.

Sure, Gurbani does tell us some "do this, don't do that" instructions. But those instructions aren't 'Never wash your hair on Friday' or 'Chant So Dar over 40 days to make your man love you more" or even "Keep your hair long and wear a turban". As you said, it is about causing change within, and the spirit with which to live.



I don't think it's possible to have an interpretation of hukam. Hukam cannot be described, so how can it be interpreted? It just is.

Manmukh is someone who can't see past the veil of illusion and is convinced that they are separate from the Ik Onkar.

Gurmukh is someone who learns spiritual wisdom from the Guru and recognises the Oneness of everything.

And in answer to your "if the Guru's were philosophers, why should I listen to them over any of the other great philosophers [] ?" question, well, why follow Sikhism the religion instead of any of the other religions? If someone believes the Gurus were mystical prophets delivering some kind of revelation spoken from God's mouth, then why believe them and not Jesus?

I would think belief is just the beginning. If you want to believe Jesus. ..then see what you can find from his teachings that highlights ways to experience God in the 'now'... then put into practice and see what happens..

I know many people are content with finding out the truth when they die...or in a next life...but what do you want...do you want it now?

Then study one or more paths if you want to...but separate them by what you can find that seems to give you things to put into practice today...then enjoy the experimenting...

You see..I.m a firm believer in...when you take one step towards god...he takes 100 towards you...so if he sees that you are 'genuinely' interested in the truth...he's already on his way (the gender less reality)

 

[Original]

Dear All

Research in developmental psychology, cognitive anthropology and the cognitive science of religion has shown that religion comes as naturally to humans as language; vast majority of humans are "born believers". Besides, it being a human condition, it also serves a very useful function in the afterlife factor of providing some sort of synthesis in dealing with the prospect of dying, which arguably epitomises humankind's attempts to assuage the fear of finitude. Taken together with the pre-loaded condition of the mind's intrinsic engagement in trying to solve the riddle of the what, where, why, who, when and how, makes religion more of an evolutionary niche than Chaz's spiritual excursion to the promised land. Thus, the Durkheimian theory of religion suggests that religion, in one form or another, is a necessary and essential feature of society. How true, and indeed, it has been a vital and pervasive feature of human life, mechanics of which, especially in the contemporary world, deem its understanding indispensable, particularly within the "meaning of life" maxim as seen from perspectives often very different from our own. It is not something that can be seen from the outside without understanding the inner life of those who adhere to its fundamental principles and practices.

Religion bestows meaning and significance on human existence. It defines what is true, virtuous, absolute and how it can be realised. Moreover, it exerts an influence on national life and does more than merely give a flavour, or tone, to society. It determines and shapes the pattern of society, that is to say, politics, education, science, art, poetry, music, social class and culture. Even disbelievers cannot shake off its influence. Discussions about defining it gives the subject matter its vitality with which most academics n scholars, largely because of the cross currents are appreciative and concurring.

Philosophy, generally regarded as perhaps the most abstruse and abstract of all disciplines, far removed from the affairs of ordinary life, is in many ways connected to human endeavours. It's an intrinsic part of human nature. Nearly all of us have some sort of philosophical inclinations, being aware of them or not is neither here nor there. The word philosophy is derived from the Greek expression, meaning, love of wisdom; but in current popular usage, many different ideas are involved in the way we employ the term. Sometime we mean by philosophy an attitude towards certain activities or systems adopted or preferred over others in the execution of our day-to-day affairs. By definition, philosophy is, the evaluation through which careful critical examination of the information and the systems of beliefs we have of ourselves, of the universe and its relation to the world of human affairs are investigated. It addresses certain concepts and fundamental ideas in certain ways to ascertain what they mean, how knowledge is their base, what standards, methodology are employed in arriving at sound judgments. Although, it penetrates deep down metaphysical pastures to afford rational explanations, it cannot by Jove, offer solace to the many human miseries and inequalities inherent within both the social and religious domain of the provident world.

Whilst all this is well n good, philosophers have long concluded that they cannot adjudicate over the existence of God because reason and empirical observation fall short of its objective testing. Given the only toolkit available is the scientific method, deemed imperative by convention for it to be the only proper basis of evaluation of such a phenomena to the exclusion of all else, cannot for reasons detailed below provide absolute objectivity of the existence of God. Argued from an ontological perspective,Ikonkar being in existence [eternal] must within the grammatical expressions of the word Ikonkar be a predicate in order to qualify as such. Bhagat Kabir for this very reason removed the grammatical expression altogether [page 340 SGGSJ]. In order to be a predicate is to ascribe to something a quality or a property. Nanak's Ikonkar [nirgun] is attributive-less, therefore, falls outside the ambit of a predicate by definition, but not per se. Describing something as having an existence does not automatically ascribe to it a quality or a property, for some things, such as the one in question, are not to be considered as property of things, but rather, as a numerical concept. For example, comparing humans and angels [with wings] brings one to the point where one concludes there are many humans, but no angels, meaning, existence is not a quality or a property that angels lack. It follows therefore, that existence is not a predicate. One can describe something perfectly [Eternal] and then add that it exists. It is not a quality in a list of qualities. Describing someone as handsome adds to our understanding of that person - it ascribes a quality to them, describing someone as existing does not. Technical obscurities of this kind have driven philosophers to render it a matter of religious experience in relation to existence, left to the faith of the individual. It is this faith that constitutes belief , which in turn is classified as religion. Quite rightly, Philosophers have removed the notion of belief from their radar, notwithstanding the fact that they can promise a safe passage up to the door [so dar, composed by Nanak to illustrate the depth of human conceptualisation] of Ikonkar, but cannot objectively and satisfactorily adjudicate over its ontological [reality] definitions. [Edit: this paragraph is written in a roundabout way for Ishna Ji re "What is the nature of reality?". I'd like at some point to illustrate the relative position between "reality" [anhad shabd] and "truth" [satnam]. That will help pave way to understand the wisdom of SGGSJ - our only Guru, as Veer Tejwant would say. Ishna Ji's second observation ["How should I live life in the best way?"] is an ethical proposition, the answer of which Guru Nanak Dev Ji gave as a tasty piece-meal, KK, VS and Nam Jap].

In conclusion, the subject you and the object God concept seems relevant here to home in on the importance of being connected to the "word" [shabd, at SPN], which overrides all else. Whether you're a believer or a non-believer, you'd still fall under one of the categories of a "being" [ontologically speaking], from a perspective say, creationists, evolutionists, scientologists and existentialists. The human condition is such that those who've resolved the riddle of the self before us, have as a result, proclaimed and laid-bare for humankind the form and the substance of their experience of the unseen. That experience is crucial for preservation and continuity of a system of belief. It is to be revered as divine, sacred and believed [Sikh] unconditionally, ensuring allowances are made for revelation or mystical messages to be tested subjectively by the adept and not simply refuted on the basis, it is illogical and unreal.

To nit-pick religion on account it being too ritualistic, outdated and inconsistent with religious text is more a view of one's personal lifestyle choices and current disposition, rather than, it being an ideological radicalisation, corruption or mutation by evolution or an agency to render it as such. This in a way is seen as a form of self-alienation on part the dissident resulting from lack rather than want of conformance. Indeed, it is not only proper and permissible but suggestive an enterprise from a religious point of view because it procures and modifies future evolutionary anomalies, giving it an edge over competing systems of belief. Point to be noted is that evolution will only advance what it favours to be a need rather than a want. Reformation perhaps would be something young Sikh scholars want to entertain against encroaching evolutionary demands of the cosmopolitan society.

 

[Ishna]

Very awesome post, Original Ji. It is a privilege that you share your level of knowledge and insight here. Thank you.