• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Are The Important Scriptures Of World Religions, Simply Opinions?

findingmyway

Writer
SPNer
Aug 17, 2010
1,665
3,778
World citizen!
Himmat Ji,
You need to go back over all the posts and read them to get your answers. Only Guru Granth Sahib Ji is truth as it was written by the enlightened Guru's not by their second-guessing followers. Also by discouraging blind faith, the Guru Granth Sahib Ji establishes it is truth as the Guru's know they can stand up to any form of scrutiny, which they have done by several scholarly and atheist groups that have had the aim of discrediting the writings but they couldn't. If everyone can twist the writings according to their own agenda, the words become mere tools rather than wisdom and the chaos that will unfold will be devastating. When you accept that the Guru's had higher knowledge or wisdom than you, it is very egotistical to say your views will be equally valid to their knowledge. That is like saying my views about colour vision are equal to my professor's knowledge on the subject when he has been studying it for 40 years to my 10! Knowledge and views are different yet you seem to use the words interchangeably.
 

sunmukh

(Previously Himmat Singh)
SPNer
Feb 19, 2010
108
136
UK
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Confused said:
It appears that you are involved in discussions with quite a few people and so your hands may be full. You can choose therefore to stop this one with me, or put it on hold for later...?

Gurfateh

Confused ji

I think I have learned a lot from the interchange with all the members who have kindly expressed their thoughts here.
I am definitely struggling to keep up with posts, and this is made worse as I find it difficult to deal with formatting of copied gurbani quotes to support, and highlighting quotes etc. Then I also get timed out. :(

I would be interested in members open statements, one way or another, as to whether they feel scriptures are mere opinions or not, even if the authors had higher levels of knowledge or wisdom than our own. I can and admit I believe in blind faith, but am not getting such an open response from others, and instead the original topic has digressed into other areas (mainly through my own comments).

If it is felt by members that scriptures are opinions of authors, ie are not based on ultimate reality, then my, yours or others opinions are potentially as valuable as the next, and impacts upon the concept of gurmat vs manmat.

If it is felt by members that they are not just personal opinions of authors/subsequent scribes, but are instead based on ultimate reality, then I would like to know if members also distinguish between scriptures - ie do they see SGGS as based on ultimate truth, whilst others are not?
If so, then just why do they perceive such a difference when they themselves do not behold such ultimate truth?
Either way, if members feel Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is an expression of ultimate truth, then I am left wondering why members are also claiming that Sikhi does not rely on blind faith, unless they feel they know the ultimate truth as well, so are able to make a true comparison.

Thank you for you interesting replies anyway, and I will continue, if you are also able to, but please give me a few days.

Thanks and Kind Regards

Sat Sri Akal

PS I made a similar reply this morning but it seems to have been lost somewhere on the internet . I apologise if it reappears and this post is duplicated, in effect (the words may be slightly different)
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
sunmukh ji

Your earlier comment had been placed under moderation, waiting for approval by a forum administrator. Now that you have reposted, the choice is either to moderate or not. I am going to let it stand. And I am asking you to wait for a response to your questions, in stead of repeating yourself in reply to Jasleen Kaur ji.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Himmat Singh ji,

Guru fateh.

Let me ask you a question and I hope to get an honest reply about it before I respond to your post below.

Do you belong to some Sikh Group/sect/ dera that thinks and propagate the same what you do and have been doing here with your posts?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


Tejwant Singh ji, I thank you for this continued opportunity to disuss these several dimensions that have flowed from the intial post.

My prime agenda is to learn more about the aspect of Sikhi that interests me, which is the meaning of all shabds in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and also to assist others to a more pragmatic approach to Sikhi, with less intra-sikh tensions (ie including sikhs who are now in limbo), and less intra-faith tensions.

If as a result of my posts, there is one more person who can see it is not good to inflame others or to treat others differently over appearance, even if it is 5ks (usually only kesh) then I will have achieved something positive in my life. All Sikhs who keep rehat will by support 5ks as they must, but the majority of sikhs are not such Sikhs, and do not deserve to be treated as second rate citizens.

I am not averse to those who keep 5ks but am averse to those who keep 5ks and treat others almost with contempt, and rank their opinions as worthless. This is a form of categorisation which does not equate with holding all as equals.

Secondary aspect of my "agenda":
There is also some degree of anger and hatred built up in some Sikhs towards those who committed heinous crimes in late 1970s and early 80s. I can and do accept these are tragic and unjustified events, but of the opinion that history cannot be changed and it is not wise to hold up people who were also politically motivated as sants. If it is not good to put pictures/paintings of sikh gurus in homes/gurdwaras, then the same holds true of those engaged in actions in 70s and 80s.

One way to reduce anger, is by dwelling on the shabd and accepting the Lords' Hukam. If I can go over this again and again in interaction with Sikhs, maybe, just maybe, anger may subside in just one person. That is good enough for me.

With these two aspects in mind, and making posts, I may used Gurbani to make a change in someone's life, and whilst doing so will also have contempated the shabd, and with satguru's grace will have progressed spiritually as well.

Sat Sri Akal
 

sunmukh

(Previously Himmat Singh)
SPNer
Feb 19, 2010
108
136
UK
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Tejwant Singh said:
Himmat Singh ji,

Guru fateh.

Let me ask you a question and I hope to get an honest reply about it before I respond to your post below.

Do you belong to some Sikh Group/sect/ dera that thinks and propagate the same what you do and have been doing here with your posts?

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


Gurfateh ji

I am surprised I have been asked a question along this line a number of times now, in a short time on this forum.

There seems to be an inherent lack of trust and/or a degree of paranoia.

Please may I sincerely state, hopefully for the last time:

a) I believe in One God - Ek On Kaar
b) I turn to one Guru alone, when in need of spiritual guidance. That Guru ji is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji
c) I do not keep 4 of 5ks. I wear only a kara, (of 5 ks). At the moment I keep kesh, but I do not know what I will do next month with the kesh, or the month after. At present I am okay with it.
d) I don't have any association with any sect or dera whatsover, and never have. On one single morning occasion earlier last year I attended a RSSB (Radha Swami)session with some family members who shifted to it about 15 years ago. I wasn't interested in it any further. I am still a member a Sikh gurdwara in Leicester UK but rarely attend now. In the past, when at school I went into churches, but that was part of school functions. I am happy to take part in Christmas events. I go on Nagar Kirtans. I haven't any more to declare, or any skeletons in the cupboard.
e) I do not feel there is any tolerant basis of "gurmat", a formula engineered by modern day Sikhs, which simply divides an otherwise united sikh community. It is being used to spilt sikhs from Sikhs. It is backed as if a sikh is not for rehat or hukamnamas issued by managers, then the sikh is not Sikh, and is against Sikhs. That is simply not the case. The formula is opinion. I cannot for one moment think any single Sikh Guru would warrant disengagement of any sikhs (which I am) seeking their wisdom and shelter from Sikhs (which I am not) on the basis of a rehat. The whole point of seeing all as part of One is to remove duality and to remove judgemental attitudes.

I am interested in the basis of some not so pragmatic aspects of Sikhi, along with the main two points mentioned to you in the "agenda" and maybe my delving into what im my opinion are more impractical aspects of Sikhi is troubling you.

I didn't think there was anything to comment upon in the post you referred to. You asked me to give you an honest statement of my "agenda" and I gave you that.
However I am now interested to read what may be raising your concern.

Even if I was a complete non-sikh I see no harm in communicating openly with you or anybody else.

Kind Regards :)


Himmat

Sat Sri Akal
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Himmat ji,

I’ve written the below mostly muddle headedly and not certain whether it will end up being posted. So please excuse any incoherence of thought.

You wrote:
I would be interested in members open statements, one way or another, as to whether they feel scriptures are mere opinions or not, even if the authors had higher levels of knowledge or wisdom than our own. I can and admit I believe in blind faith, but am not getting such an open response from others, and instead the original topic has digressed into other areas (mainly through my own comments).

C: I haven’t read all the responses and I must admit that I can’t really make out who said what. However the general impression is that people have responded to your enquiry in their own way and I don’t think that you should insist on open statements. None of us are ever clear as to what we believe in and even on issues long time pondered upon, we are continually revising our positions. I’m quite sure that this applies to you with regard to your position about ‘religious scriptures being opinion’ as well.
Besides, it may be that your particular idea is not something people have had the opportunity to think about before, although I must say that a similar line of thought crossed my own mind many years ago.

Faith and blind faith has been brought up quite a bit and so I’d like to make a point based on this concept.
In the tradition where I come from, faith or confidence is a mental factor which arises only with good states of mind. Blind faith in my opinion, is thinking a particular way about some concept conditioned by ignorance and attachment if not also wrong understanding. The following has been said about Faith:

Quote:
“... It has purifying or aspiring as its characteristic. As the water-purifying gem of the universal monarch thrown into water causes solids, alluvia, waterweeds and mud to subside and makes the water clear, transparent and undisturbed, so faith arising discards the hindrances, causes the corruptions to subside, purifies the mind and makes it undisturbed: the mind being purified, the aspirant gives gifts, observes the precepts, and engages in mental development. Thus faith should be known to hove purifying as its characteristic...”

So faith is faith in the good, and it is not like we just talk about it. As I said, it arises with good states and this would be, moments of giving, morality, kindness, compassion, truthfulness, respect, renunciation, wisdom etc. So when we say that we have faith in some concept, we need to determine at that very moment what the state of mind is. Wisdom is the cause for all the other good states being developed and as this happens, faith increases. This is why faith is also identified as ‘confidence’. The more the understanding, the more is there confidence in the power of goodness, more so in wisdom itself. Although there can be a strong inclination to good deeds without the support of wisdom, in this case the accompanying faith would still perform its function of purifying the mind. However there is no place for blind faith around here.

Now the following is speculation on my part, but I’d just like to make a point:

I believe that most people who are inclined to religion, what mainly attracts them are those parts which talk about the value of goodness and the harm of evil. This imo reflects a degree of faith on their part; since it is something they can relate to and observe to some extent. What happens subsequently is that things get muddled up when it comes to those parts in the particular teachings, which begin to talk about things unrelated to their lives, and they are faced with the question whether or not to believe in those things. I sometimes try to draw people’s attention to the one and discourage them from thinking too much about the other.

I come from an understanding where the concept of a creator God has absolutely no place, nor do such ideas as the ‘oneness with all that is’. But I do not want to argue about this with anyone, but instead like to encourage everyone to develop the good and understand the harm of the evil. Of course it may be that people can’t avoid making the particular association, especially when discussing and talking with others about such things. In a day when interacting with people around us however, such association is seldom made. At those times, being reminded about the value of good and kind acts, and the harm of evil, can on its own condition good deeds.

The point I’m trying to get across to you is that, instead of talking about things which apparently has no practical value, why not talk about those things which will arouse “faith” in the good? Unlike me, you know the Sikh scriptures quite well, so why don’t draw their attention to those parts which are helpful to this end?

I realize that you mean well and I’m sure you have no intention to disturb the waters. But no one is going to be convinced by philosophical arguments, given especially the perception of having gained so much from their own experience with regard the teachings to date.

=============
Himmat:
If it is felt by members that scriptures are opinions of authors, ie are not based on ultimate reality, then my, yours or others opinions are potentially as valuable as the next, and impacts upon the concept of gurmat vs manmat.

C: If I’m not wrong, your basic premise is that knowledge about God is impossible since each individual can only speak from his limited perceptions. Yet, being part of this whole, each is playing its part and therefore whatever the perceptions are, these contribute to the whole and are in this regard valuable.
The above idea is something I would not wish to entertain and I hope that I’m wrong in thinking that you think this way. But I’d guess that a possible argument by someone who agrees with the particular concept of God and believes in the enlightenment of say, Guru Nanak, is that this is a matter of penetrating the nature of one representative part, which means that one needn’t have had a knowledge about all the different parts.
But what kind of knowledge is each part supposed to give anyway? What is it that you could say to someone else about your own experience which would result in his further knowledge about God? Or would you say that such a thing couldn’t happen since each is limited by that much ability to comprehend God?
I’ll just leave this here and won’t discuss any further. Since I think I’ve gone way out of bounds into a territory where I don’t have even a basic knowledge of.
 

sunmukh

(Previously Himmat Singh)
SPNer
Feb 19, 2010
108
136
UK
Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

Confused ji, I am very impressed by your very objective statements and advice. It would be a shame if you were unable to continue to contribute on this forum ( not necessarily on this thread).

Objectively examining matters that one is not attached to, is the only way available to most humans to learn more about physical, mental or emotional matters. Faith alone will not yield much at all, and thought, analysis and use of intellect is required. However when it comes to spiritual matters, a creator, or God, then there is no choice. There can only be faith, or complete trust, in either one's own wisdom or in somebody else's. In this case I do rely upon SGGS ji, and in trust alone.

Himmat:
If it is felt by members that scriptures are opinions of authors, ie are not based on ultimate reality, then my, yours or others opinions are potentially as valuable as the next, and impacts upon the concept of gurmat vs manmat.

C: If I’m not wrong, your basic premise is that knowledge about God is impossible since each individual can only speak from his limited perceptions. Yet, being part of this whole, each is playing its part and therefore whatever the perceptions are, these contribute to the whole and are in this regard valuable.
The above idea is something I would not wish to entertain and I hope that I’m wrong in thinking that you think this way. But I’d guess that a possible argument by someone who agrees with the particular concept of God and believes in the enlightenment of say, Guru Nanak, is that this is a matter of penetrating the nature of one representative part, which means that one needn’t have had a knowledge about all the different parts.
But what kind of knowledge is each part supposed to give anyway? What is it that you could say to someone else about your own experience which would result in his further knowledge about God? Or would you say that such a thing couldn’t happen since each is limited by that much ability to comprehend God?

I do not imagine I can shed any new knowledge on God, or a Creator. I would not wish to try. I believe in what SGGS is stating, that such knowledge is not there and is speculation, on the part of those who profess such knowledge, with each who does so believing themselves to be wiser than the last person who tried.

As to whether I should lay off now, and not continue to push the matter, I will follow your suggestion, and this will be my last post on this thread.

I do however believe it is not out of order to try to understand SGGS more than I do so. If I then post on a forum, after reading for myself and then having formed some perception, I may make some posts that run against commonly held perceptions. This is likely to happen when many get involved in discussion. As I read others' posts, I learn, and I hope others will also read with a view to improving understanding, and so will not mind any radical views, even if they do not share them. If they feel they can objectively explain why I may be incorrect then I would be obliged to them, as I am to you.

Thanks for your time

Kind Regards

Sat Sri Akal
 

findingmyway

Writer
SPNer
Aug 17, 2010
1,665
3,778
World citizen!
ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥ ਹੈ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹੋਸੀ ਭੀ ਸਚੁ ॥੧॥

Ik Oankar was true from the beginning, will be true in the future, is true now. Nanak says, Ik Oankar will always be true (whether anyone believes or not is irrelevant as the truth does not change).

I do not see gravity or electricity but see the effects of them constantly. Likewise I can see the results of Ik Oankar constantly around me
 
Last edited:
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:

Latest Activity

Top