☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Sikh Youth
Confused Youth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="skeptik" data-source="post: 45907" data-attributes="member: 3353"><p>All sikhs agree that sikh gurus opposed the descrimination stopping lower classes from participating in religious activities. They allowed lower classes into their sangat. This is true and uncontested. I've said so all along, even in my first post. The sikh gurus made religious faith, teaching and community accessible to lower classes. Naturally this includes military training and membership. But equally true is that the Sikh gurus allowed wealthy and powerful men into their company. They enjoyed the company of kings and nobles too. You see they werent opposed to inequality itself. They were opposed only to injustice - and sometimes injustice occurs with inequality and it is in those very specific cases that the Sikh gurus targeted their changes. Prima facie the sikh gurus accepted inequality in society as natural. </p><p></p><p>The sikh gurus did not oppose inequality itself. This needs to be stressed. Guru Nanak writes in Japji Sahib that 'Some men are born high and some low', he recognises fundamentally that there exists inequality in society. If he was against it, then he would have challenged it, as he challenged other social wrongs he came across. Following Babar's invasion, Guru Nanak writes poignantly about the brutality of the invader, and he speaks of the suffering of not just the poor and low, but even higher classes. Were he an equalitarian he would have welcomed the invasion because it reduced inequality, as Babar sacked Panjab, leaving the richer much poorer. Ofcourse Guru Nanak did no such thing because equality was never an ideal for him, and it was injustice which he opposed not inequality. </p><p></p><p>Elsewhere Guru Nanak writes "Kings are butchers, Cruelty their knife, and sense of duty and responsibility have taken wings and vanished", the first part is his explicit condemnation of evil, the second part just as important - for he demands a sense of duty and responsiblity from Kings. In what sense could Guru Nanak consider legitimate the rule of Kings over their subjects, if he was an egalitarian. To an egalitarian, above all, the autonomy of the individual is most important. Furthermore what legitimacy could have the authority of a Guru over his Sikhs if autonomy was central to his teachings. Would that not make the Sikh gurus hypocritical when they commanded power over sikhs? Put simply, if gurus believed in equality of all, then how could they honestly assert any influence and power over ordinary sikhs? If all are equal then a sikh could easily tell the Guru what to do, and what to believe, because this is only in line with the idea that sikhism promotes equality, and if in a sikh society all are equal, and thus so are guru and sikh. This absurdity arises only because of a false assumption not found in sikhi.</p><p></p><p>In fact Guru Nanak was a perfectly sane man. He was untroubled by modern day delusions of equality, and to him it was obvious that a society created in view of maximising autonomy and equality would be riddled with evil. Evil already reigned, and was prominent throughout the land. Equality as a principle would treat all equally, including evil-doers, and give them the same rights and respect as any other decent law abiding man. Guru Nanak saw the need for opposition to tyranny and evil, and to do this requires curtailing the capabilities and rights of evil-doers. Babar if left unopposed, would not suddenly decide to commit less evil, he would probably commit more and more. And others too would do the same if left unopposed- the result would be greater chaos and a blood bath. In any society there will be evil, and in any society evil must be curtailed, and this necessarily means treating the criminals unequally to non-criminals. Thus equalitarianism would be a prescription for increasing evil in society, and not decreasing it, as Guru Nanak intended. To do otherwise is to give incentive to evil-doers to commit more evil, and so the conclusion is, an egalitarian society necessarily has greater evil than a normal one.</p><p></p><p>All you can muster is a half hearted response that 'social-change takes time, its hard etc', excuses that most of us have heard a million times, and probably repeated ourselves just as much. These excuses are wearing thin. Firstly it reduces our Gurus because it says while they wanted these things (equality, etc) that they didnt acheive them or try to achieve them, or articulate their intentions clearly enough or etc., but nevermind that. Why dont we take a look at what we have achieved instead? Sikhs all over the world are prosperous and successful, they are marked by their work ethic and their fairness. They are known for their physical prowess ansd straightforwardness. Sikhs are recognised by their history of opposing injustice. These are successes that loudly sweep away any liberal exuses. Liberals instead mischaracterise our gurus, misconstrue our philosophy and hijack our youth with unfounded lies and exggarations. When engaged in debate, the reformists appeal to emotional arguments about revolution but conveniently forget the examples where social change has gone terrible wrong - one need only remind them of Adolf Hitler, of Mao and Pol Pot and ofcourse Lenin and Stalin, who were just as passionate in changing society in a big way towards some great ideal of theirs. The challenge of justifying egalitarianism in sikhism remains unmet.</p><p></p><p>Social change by the Gurus was always deliberate, thoughtful and carefully considered. It was never to make a utopia out of nothing. Or a heaven on earth or anything like that. They accepted some realities of life as basic in all civilization throughout time. They didnt break apart society and build up a new super great one. They took existing society, and what a society it was too - with muslims and hindus and all their various cultures coexisting more or less together and accepted it mostly as it were, but with a few important changes. These changes were purposeful and understandable because in each instance they involved injustice. But if neo-sikhs today are going to hold that sikh society is a wholly different beast to what it was, they need to demonstrate it with fact and evidence. If they hold change is basic to sikh society then they must back up why sikhism is a religion of revolution - and they must do this not by conveniently ignoring reality and history, but by relating it directly. They must not make extraneous assumptions about the Gurus intentions when the gurus never so much as articulated these, leave alone acted in accordance to them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="skeptik, post: 45907, member: 3353"] All sikhs agree that sikh gurus opposed the descrimination stopping lower classes from participating in religious activities. They allowed lower classes into their sangat. This is true and uncontested. I've said so all along, even in my first post. The sikh gurus made religious faith, teaching and community accessible to lower classes. Naturally this includes military training and membership. But equally true is that the Sikh gurus allowed wealthy and powerful men into their company. They enjoyed the company of kings and nobles too. You see they werent opposed to inequality itself. They were opposed only to injustice - and sometimes injustice occurs with inequality and it is in those very specific cases that the Sikh gurus targeted their changes. Prima facie the sikh gurus accepted inequality in society as natural. The sikh gurus did not oppose inequality itself. This needs to be stressed. Guru Nanak writes in Japji Sahib that 'Some men are born high and some low', he recognises fundamentally that there exists inequality in society. If he was against it, then he would have challenged it, as he challenged other social wrongs he came across. Following Babar's invasion, Guru Nanak writes poignantly about the brutality of the invader, and he speaks of the suffering of not just the poor and low, but even higher classes. Were he an equalitarian he would have welcomed the invasion because it reduced inequality, as Babar sacked Panjab, leaving the richer much poorer. Ofcourse Guru Nanak did no such thing because equality was never an ideal for him, and it was injustice which he opposed not inequality. Elsewhere Guru Nanak writes "Kings are butchers, Cruelty their knife, and sense of duty and responsibility have taken wings and vanished", the first part is his explicit condemnation of evil, the second part just as important - for he demands a sense of duty and responsiblity from Kings. In what sense could Guru Nanak consider legitimate the rule of Kings over their subjects, if he was an egalitarian. To an egalitarian, above all, the autonomy of the individual is most important. Furthermore what legitimacy could have the authority of a Guru over his Sikhs if autonomy was central to his teachings. Would that not make the Sikh gurus hypocritical when they commanded power over sikhs? Put simply, if gurus believed in equality of all, then how could they honestly assert any influence and power over ordinary sikhs? If all are equal then a sikh could easily tell the Guru what to do, and what to believe, because this is only in line with the idea that sikhism promotes equality, and if in a sikh society all are equal, and thus so are guru and sikh. This absurdity arises only because of a false assumption not found in sikhi. In fact Guru Nanak was a perfectly sane man. He was untroubled by modern day delusions of equality, and to him it was obvious that a society created in view of maximising autonomy and equality would be riddled with evil. Evil already reigned, and was prominent throughout the land. Equality as a principle would treat all equally, including evil-doers, and give them the same rights and respect as any other decent law abiding man. Guru Nanak saw the need for opposition to tyranny and evil, and to do this requires curtailing the capabilities and rights of evil-doers. Babar if left unopposed, would not suddenly decide to commit less evil, he would probably commit more and more. And others too would do the same if left unopposed- the result would be greater chaos and a blood bath. In any society there will be evil, and in any society evil must be curtailed, and this necessarily means treating the criminals unequally to non-criminals. Thus equalitarianism would be a prescription for increasing evil in society, and not decreasing it, as Guru Nanak intended. To do otherwise is to give incentive to evil-doers to commit more evil, and so the conclusion is, an egalitarian society necessarily has greater evil than a normal one. All you can muster is a half hearted response that 'social-change takes time, its hard etc', excuses that most of us have heard a million times, and probably repeated ourselves just as much. These excuses are wearing thin. Firstly it reduces our Gurus because it says while they wanted these things (equality, etc) that they didnt acheive them or try to achieve them, or articulate their intentions clearly enough or etc., but nevermind that. Why dont we take a look at what we have achieved instead? Sikhs all over the world are prosperous and successful, they are marked by their work ethic and their fairness. They are known for their physical prowess ansd straightforwardness. Sikhs are recognised by their history of opposing injustice. These are successes that loudly sweep away any liberal exuses. Liberals instead mischaracterise our gurus, misconstrue our philosophy and hijack our youth with unfounded lies and exggarations. When engaged in debate, the reformists appeal to emotional arguments about revolution but conveniently forget the examples where social change has gone terrible wrong - one need only remind them of Adolf Hitler, of Mao and Pol Pot and ofcourse Lenin and Stalin, who were just as passionate in changing society in a big way towards some great ideal of theirs. The challenge of justifying egalitarianism in sikhism remains unmet. Social change by the Gurus was always deliberate, thoughtful and carefully considered. It was never to make a utopia out of nothing. Or a heaven on earth or anything like that. They accepted some realities of life as basic in all civilization throughout time. They didnt break apart society and build up a new super great one. They took existing society, and what a society it was too - with muslims and hindus and all their various cultures coexisting more or less together and accepted it mostly as it were, but with a few important changes. These changes were purposeful and understandable because in each instance they involved injustice. But if neo-sikhs today are going to hold that sikh society is a wholly different beast to what it was, they need to demonstrate it with fact and evidence. If they hold change is basic to sikh society then they must back up why sikhism is a religion of revolution - and they must do this not by conveniently ignoring reality and history, but by relating it directly. They must not make extraneous assumptions about the Gurus intentions when the gurus never so much as articulated these, leave alone acted in accordance to them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Sikh Sikhi Sikhism
Sikh Youth
Confused Youth?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top