☀️ 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="dalsingh" data-source="post: 45949" data-attributes="member: 2883"><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Ok, I think we can make some headway here. I may recap on some of the points we both made for the sake of clarity.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Your point is that the perceived confusion of the youth is down to what you call a neoSikh interpretation of Sikhi. This is far removed from reality, portraying the Sikh Gurus as liberals in the mould of what would be considered liberal today by a largely white middle class western society. On this point we can agree, I don’t think the values the Gurus promoted were the ones promoted today with its permissiveness. Regarding modern liberal philosophy towards women, from what I can see freedom seems to degenerate into whether they are allowed to dress scantily without comment, allowed to behave laddishly and have career opportunities. A lot of noise is always made regarding the hypocrisy of men who have multiple sexual relationships whilst women who do the same are given a negative reputation. This most definitely was not the cause of the Gurus. So emphatically the Gurus were not liberal in this sense. You seem to suggest in your original post that Sikhs through print and the Internet have been trying to portray Sikhism as espousing these values, I disagree. Although a little overlap may exist between these two ways of thinking I don’t think Sikh writers have in general attempted to portray Sikhism as such. But they have been at pains to point out that some enlightened concepts that are broadly inline with modern thought exists in Sikhism. Note that I use the word some here. If writers en masse are doing what you claim, I’m not aware of it. I’m talking about respectable writers like Ganda Singh, Sangat Singh or Teja Singh or Jagjit Singh.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Ok, now this is where we majorly disagree. From what I’ve read, you have made a massive jump from establishing that the Gurus were not liberal in the sense we discussed, to making the claim that they were conservative. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Firstly lets look at the dictionary definition of “conservative”. According to the Collins edition I have, conservative is defined thus:</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">1.Favouring the preservation of established customs and values, and opposing change.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">2.Moderate or cautious: i.e. a conservative estimate.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">3.Conventional in style: i.e. people in this area are conservative in their tastes.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">4.A conservative person.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Regarding definition 1. In no way can the Gurus be described thus. I think everyone would probably agree. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Definition 2 gives some support to what you say in that the Gurus did not seem to introduce their changes in an ill thought out manner. It was a big aim and they prudently took the steps to make sure the movement would not die an early death. Against this is the fact that Guru Hargobind Ji took up arms, hardly moderate but you can stretch out the cautious element and claim he was being cautious in the face of further attacks I guess. Also the very first Sikh-Mogul clash was (according to tradition), the result of an imperial hawk being captured by Sikhs and the refusal of the Sikh party to return the hawk to the Mogul hunting party and the giving of a beating to them by the Sikhs, hardly cautious or moderate. Add to this the establishment of the Akal Takhat as a rival sovereign entity. It is important to note skeptik, that conservatives do not hold any exclusive claim on being prudent or cautious as you seem to be suggesting, even Bin Laden laid carefully thought out plans for his mission, but this doesn’t make him a conservative, most people would consider him an extremist.</span></span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Def 3: Conventional in style: i.e. people in this area are conservative in their tastes.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I don’t think that the Khalsa is conventional in any sense of the word. The look, symbols, the Amrit ceremony with its military connotations and attack on caste by forcing people to drink together, a new salutation, the list is endless. Some of the ceremony seems specifically designed to strike at conventional behaviour in relation to caste and ahimsa. </span></span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">So I think you’re plainly wrong in assuming that the Gurus were conservative on the basis of them not being liberal by modern standards. But I think we must be careful not to get caught into the trap of semantics and categorisation. Trying to encapsulate Sikhism in one word is a fool’s game to my mind. It is far too complex for that in my opinion. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Some of your other points:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">“Further if you hold that the Sikh gurus believed in equality, you have to deal directly with my objections. My objections are that the gurus did not implement equality in a) choice of guruship, b) selection of bani for Adi Granth, c) choice of panj pyare, and, d) sikh sangat”</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">You talk as if they were making an omelette, like it was a simple affair and they could be free to pick and choose whomever they wanted without regard for practicalities. All movements need a strong base to survive, Panjab was chosen for this (Kartarpur initially). But the fact that non-Panjabis have played a big part in the Sikh movement (i.e. Panj Piaray and Banda Singh) show that leadership was not limited to Panjabis alone or Khatris. Sticking to the hard path adopted by the panth after Guru Arjan’s martyrdom, perhaps meant that the Gurus had to safeguard the movement so that it didn’t lose direction through the toughest times, hence they only chose people they knew inside out from birth to take this responsibility, perhaps this is why they chose family members from then on. And seeing as how Guruship didn’t exactly lead to a life of ease and luxury it is hard to put any other motives to the decision other than noble ones. However I’m not saying that my explanation is exactly what happened because we may never know for certain, but it at least suggests alternative views regarding why the Guruship contained only one race other than anything conservative or a disregard to egalitarian principles.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Regarding women in the original panj piaray, from what I understand the hukums were sent to sangats to come with unshorn hair and armed with 5 weapons. Personally I can’t even imagine many women being at that original Basaikhi if any were at all, at least at the stage when heads were being asked for. But women being appointed in the manji system by Guru Amar Das is common knowledge. The high respect given to Mata Sahib Kaur is well known. They were given the utmost respect and not considered inferior in any way. I’ve never said that the Gurus tried to do the modern “there are no differences between men and women” thing at any time. But you have raised a good point regarding women and the panth that does need further research into this matter by people more knowledgable than I am. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Your other point of </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">“If they believed in equality they would have made sure their successors were taken from as diverse and wide groupings as possible. This would mean having gurus of different races, cultures and gender.”</span></span></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Maanas</span></span></strong><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"> Ki Jaat Sabhai Ekai Pahchaanbo. </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I always thought that a fundamental message of Sikhi was that in Gods eyes we are all equal and have the same potential to reach him/her/it. Besides not having Gurus from all races and creeds does not mean that the Gurus were against egalitarian principles or favoured their own race. Your making a massive jump from one statement to a big assumption again. Finally the devolution of Guruship from Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the panth and granth (as believed by the majority of Sikhs) is EXACTLY what you are referring to. Now the Guru of the Sikhs can contain all genders and races. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Skeptic, you have highighted some other important points in your last post that I think deserve further discussion. I have to go on a training course for two weeks tommorow so I haven’t got the time right now. We can resume this when I get back if this is ok with you.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dalsingh, post: 45949, member: 2883"] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Ok, I think we can make some headway here. I may recap on some of the points we both made for the sake of clarity.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Your point is that the perceived confusion of the youth is down to what you call a neoSikh interpretation of Sikhi. This is far removed from reality, portraying the Sikh Gurus as liberals in the mould of what would be considered liberal today by a largely white middle class western society. On this point we can agree, I don’t think the values the Gurus promoted were the ones promoted today with its permissiveness. Regarding modern liberal philosophy towards women, from what I can see freedom seems to degenerate into whether they are allowed to dress scantily without comment, allowed to behave laddishly and have career opportunities. A lot of noise is always made regarding the hypocrisy of men who have multiple sexual relationships whilst women who do the same are given a negative reputation. This most definitely was not the cause of the Gurus. So emphatically the Gurus were not liberal in this sense. You seem to suggest in your original post that Sikhs through print and the Internet have been trying to portray Sikhism as espousing these values, I disagree. Although a little overlap may exist between these two ways of thinking I don’t think Sikh writers have in general attempted to portray Sikhism as such. But they have been at pains to point out that some enlightened concepts that are broadly inline with modern thought exists in Sikhism. Note that I use the word some here. If writers en masse are doing what you claim, I’m not aware of it. I’m talking about respectable writers like Ganda Singh, Sangat Singh or Teja Singh or Jagjit Singh.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Ok, now this is where we majorly disagree. From what I’ve read, you have made a massive jump from establishing that the Gurus were not liberal in the sense we discussed, to making the claim that they were conservative. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Firstly lets look at the dictionary definition of “conservative”. According to the Collins edition I have, conservative is defined thus:[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]1.Favouring the preservation of established customs and values, and opposing change.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]2.Moderate or cautious: i.e. a conservative estimate.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]3.Conventional in style: i.e. people in this area are conservative in their tastes.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]4.A conservative person.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Regarding definition 1. In no way can the Gurus be described thus. I think everyone would probably agree. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Definition 2 gives some support to what you say in that the Gurus did not seem to introduce their changes in an ill thought out manner. It was a big aim and they prudently took the steps to make sure the movement would not die an early death. Against this is the fact that Guru Hargobind Ji took up arms, hardly moderate but you can stretch out the cautious element and claim he was being cautious in the face of further attacks I guess. Also the very first Sikh-Mogul clash was (according to tradition), the result of an imperial hawk being captured by Sikhs and the refusal of the Sikh party to return the hawk to the Mogul hunting party and the giving of a beating to them by the Sikhs, hardly cautious or moderate. Add to this the establishment of the Akal Takhat as a rival sovereign entity. It is important to note skeptik, that conservatives do not hold any exclusive claim on being prudent or cautious as you seem to be suggesting, even Bin Laden laid carefully thought out plans for his mission, but this doesn’t make him a conservative, most people would consider him an extremist.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Def 3: Conventional in style: i.e. people in this area are conservative in their tastes.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I don’t think that the Khalsa is conventional in any sense of the word. The look, symbols, the Amrit ceremony with its military connotations and attack on caste by forcing people to drink together, a new salutation, the list is endless. Some of the ceremony seems specifically designed to strike at conventional behaviour in relation to caste and ahimsa. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]So I think you’re plainly wrong in assuming that the Gurus were conservative on the basis of them not being liberal by modern standards. But I think we must be careful not to get caught into the trap of semantics and categorisation. Trying to encapsulate Sikhism in one word is a fool’s game to my mind. It is far too complex for that in my opinion. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Some of your other points:[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]“Further if you hold that the Sikh gurus believed in equality, you have to deal directly with my objections. My objections are that the gurus did not implement equality in a) choice of guruship, b) selection of bani for Adi Granth, c) choice of panj pyare, and, d) sikh sangat”[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]You talk as if they were making an omelette, like it was a simple affair and they could be free to pick and choose whomever they wanted without regard for practicalities. All movements need a strong base to survive, Panjab was chosen for this (Kartarpur initially). But the fact that non-Panjabis have played a big part in the Sikh movement (i.e. Panj Piaray and Banda Singh) show that leadership was not limited to Panjabis alone or Khatris. Sticking to the hard path adopted by the panth after Guru Arjan’s martyrdom, perhaps meant that the Gurus had to safeguard the movement so that it didn’t lose direction through the toughest times, hence they only chose people they knew inside out from birth to take this responsibility, perhaps this is why they chose family members from then on. And seeing as how Guruship didn’t exactly lead to a life of ease and luxury it is hard to put any other motives to the decision other than noble ones. However I’m not saying that my explanation is exactly what happened because we may never know for certain, but it at least suggests alternative views regarding why the Guruship contained only one race other than anything conservative or a disregard to egalitarian principles.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Regarding women in the original panj piaray, from what I understand the hukums were sent to sangats to come with unshorn hair and armed with 5 weapons. Personally I can’t even imagine many women being at that original Basaikhi if any were at all, at least at the stage when heads were being asked for. But women being appointed in the manji system by Guru Amar Das is common knowledge. The high respect given to Mata Sahib Kaur is well known. They were given the utmost respect and not considered inferior in any way. I’ve never said that the Gurus tried to do the modern “there are no differences between men and women” thing at any time. But you have raised a good point regarding women and the panth that does need further research into this matter by people more knowledgable than I am. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Your other point of [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]“If they believed in equality they would have made sure their successors were taken from as diverse and wide groupings as possible. This would mean having gurus of different races, cultures and gender.”[/SIZE][/FONT] [B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Maanas[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial] Ki Jaat Sabhai Ekai Pahchaanbo. [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I always thought that a fundamental message of Sikhi was that in Gods eyes we are all equal and have the same potential to reach him/her/it. Besides not having Gurus from all races and creeds does not mean that the Gurus were against egalitarian principles or favoured their own race. Your making a massive jump from one statement to a big assumption again. Finally the devolution of Guruship from Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the panth and granth (as believed by the majority of Sikhs) is EXACTLY what you are referring to. Now the Guru of the Sikhs can contain all genders and races. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Skeptic, you have highighted some other important points in your last post that I think deserve further discussion. I have to go on a training course for two weeks tommorow so I haven’t got the time right now. We can resume this when I get back if this is ok with you.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/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