☀️ 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="skeptik2" data-source="post: 45954" data-attributes="member: 3358"><p>The definitions advanced of a conservative are acceptable. The most important thing to note here is that the Sikh Gurus are not to be judged solely by the conventions of ordinary society - though that is important too, but also in comparison to the many saints and bhagats who preceeded them. The Sikh Gurus did not occur in a vacuum, and must be understood in the appropriate causal context. </p><p></p><p>It's common for Sikhs to abhor Brahmin saints so let us agree now that to speak of a saint in those times and earlier, is not to speak of a holy man who exploits his influence over others to his own non-holy ends, as is commonly thought about Brahmins, but to speak of saints like Kabir and Ramanand, who've always been admired, with great affection, by Sikhs. This is to say, then, that the philosophical outlook of the Sikh Gurus was contemporary to such saints, and a similar explanation can be given to other aspects of sikhi too. For example the Sikh turban was adopted by the Gurus for their sikhs, but the use of such an article has been perfomed many times over in history. Similarly for long hair, and beards, and too the practices and rituals of marriage, for instance. </p><p></p><p>There is a great deal of overlap in the thought of saints and those of the Gurus, as Guru Granth Sahib testifies. The obvious explanation for this is surely that they were dealing with similar problems as they lived in largely similar societies. Then, the particular problems must be understood, as must be any proposed resolutions, if any have been advanced, in full detail of the known facts. </p><p></p><p>Consider that there exists a particular problem in society. For a moral decision is to be taken given the problem, it is not sufficient that the decision be taken only to 'make society better', but whether taking such a decision is justified by the conditions of the time, whether the proposed solution is feasible given available resources, whether the solution will even work, and if it doesnt work, can it make things far worse? There are many considerations underlying such a decision. Supposing though we have good reasons to answer all of these questions positively - then we make a change. Suppose the Gurus were in such a position. Then having made the change, it is misleading and false for neo-sikhs to say simply, of the change, that it was inevitable because the Gurus were revolutionary. It fails to capture the full depth of situation, because it simplifies far too much, and exposes the Guru's decision to the charge of idealism, which can be levelled on such despicable men as Marx and Lenin, to mention only a few. </p><p></p><p>For any good decision, ideology isnt so important for explanation as is factual reality. A rational explanation for a decision is infinitely more valuable and useful than a passionate ideological one. Furthermore a decision that is made only on the grounds of passionate ideology has almost no logical merit whatsover, compared to one made only on rational thought. It is true that a decision might have both logical and emotional appeal, but it is clear that a good one must always have the logical, and can do without the emotional.</p><p></p><p>By giving the above description, I am detailing the conservative method, which is not explicit in the definition alone. It is true that the conservative opposes change, but this is simply because he recognises that ones actions can have unforseen unintended consequences. Everyone knows the saying that, 'the path to heaven is paved with good intentions', and knows this personally, because they've seen it proved many times over. The great carnage of the 20th century holds ample proof for this, if anyone chose to ignore it. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, these men were driven by a positive desire to change society towards their ideals. They wanted to make society better - they had good intentions, and thus gave us such enormous destruction, that we cannot easily forget it. Yet we do, for one easily forgets that communism had in its ideals a vision of equality of property, where no one was richer than another. </p><p></p><p>Furthermore while it is always easy to explain a decision that has already been taken, on ideological grounds, it is not sufficient in capturing the true essense of the decision. For we demand not only that a decision was taken to 'make things better', 'to fix society', but what were the pressing reasons for doing so, what were the alternatives to the decision, and what was the factual justification for taking the decision. This is what one demands from a rational being, but neo-sikhs do not require it. They are content simply with ideological explanations which are scarcely explanations at all, because they are too simplistic, and as we have seen from neo-sikhs, can be conjured up at will, in accordance to ones favorite fashionable ideology of the time. It is easy to offer such an ideological re-description of a historical decision, and many play this game, including neo-sikhs, and the Muslim who wrote the pamplet proving that Islam believes in Equality of men and women. </p><p></p><p>Conservatives take decisions to make changes to society too. The sikh gurus did this, but in each case their decisions were out of the sensible wish to perform negative changes. They never acted solely towards utopian ends, but were characterised by allocating their precious resources on pressing problems, that could admit reasonable resolution. It is a fact that until Guru Hargobind, the sikh gurus waited patiently for the State to perform its rightful role, and welcomed this when it occured. If one reads history according to neo-sikhs, then one has to wonder why it took so long for the Sikh Gurus to adopt and cultivate physical force in their sikhs, if theirs was a revolutionary movement. But tell me this much, if Guru Hargobind refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state, in what world would he then subject himself to its rule, and be martyed by it. He accepted the rule of the land, or law, or whatever you wish to call it. Why would a revolutionary righteous man voluntarily do that? The answer to me is obvious. While he believed the state had authority over all its subjects, all of them subject to the law of the land, he thought those running the state were unjust and evil. Nevertheless, he didnt fight to remove the evil, ultimately, because he placed himself at the state's mercy and succumbed to it. This is rightfully to be seen as politically protest, but it nevertheless shows that Guru Hargobind, quite conservatively, believed in the legitimacy of state rule, though the particular rulers were tyranical.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="skeptik2, post: 45954, member: 3358"] The definitions advanced of a conservative are acceptable. The most important thing to note here is that the Sikh Gurus are not to be judged solely by the conventions of ordinary society - though that is important too, but also in comparison to the many saints and bhagats who preceeded them. The Sikh Gurus did not occur in a vacuum, and must be understood in the appropriate causal context. It's common for Sikhs to abhor Brahmin saints so let us agree now that to speak of a saint in those times and earlier, is not to speak of a holy man who exploits his influence over others to his own non-holy ends, as is commonly thought about Brahmins, but to speak of saints like Kabir and Ramanand, who've always been admired, with great affection, by Sikhs. This is to say, then, that the philosophical outlook of the Sikh Gurus was contemporary to such saints, and a similar explanation can be given to other aspects of sikhi too. For example the Sikh turban was adopted by the Gurus for their sikhs, but the use of such an article has been perfomed many times over in history. Similarly for long hair, and beards, and too the practices and rituals of marriage, for instance. There is a great deal of overlap in the thought of saints and those of the Gurus, as Guru Granth Sahib testifies. The obvious explanation for this is surely that they were dealing with similar problems as they lived in largely similar societies. Then, the particular problems must be understood, as must be any proposed resolutions, if any have been advanced, in full detail of the known facts. Consider that there exists a particular problem in society. For a moral decision is to be taken given the problem, it is not sufficient that the decision be taken only to 'make society better', but whether taking such a decision is justified by the conditions of the time, whether the proposed solution is feasible given available resources, whether the solution will even work, and if it doesnt work, can it make things far worse? There are many considerations underlying such a decision. Supposing though we have good reasons to answer all of these questions positively - then we make a change. Suppose the Gurus were in such a position. Then having made the change, it is misleading and false for neo-sikhs to say simply, of the change, that it was inevitable because the Gurus were revolutionary. It fails to capture the full depth of situation, because it simplifies far too much, and exposes the Guru's decision to the charge of idealism, which can be levelled on such despicable men as Marx and Lenin, to mention only a few. For any good decision, ideology isnt so important for explanation as is factual reality. A rational explanation for a decision is infinitely more valuable and useful than a passionate ideological one. Furthermore a decision that is made only on the grounds of passionate ideology has almost no logical merit whatsover, compared to one made only on rational thought. It is true that a decision might have both logical and emotional appeal, but it is clear that a good one must always have the logical, and can do without the emotional. By giving the above description, I am detailing the conservative method, which is not explicit in the definition alone. It is true that the conservative opposes change, but this is simply because he recognises that ones actions can have unforseen unintended consequences. Everyone knows the saying that, 'the path to heaven is paved with good intentions', and knows this personally, because they've seen it proved many times over. The great carnage of the 20th century holds ample proof for this, if anyone chose to ignore it. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, these men were driven by a positive desire to change society towards their ideals. They wanted to make society better - they had good intentions, and thus gave us such enormous destruction, that we cannot easily forget it. Yet we do, for one easily forgets that communism had in its ideals a vision of equality of property, where no one was richer than another. Furthermore while it is always easy to explain a decision that has already been taken, on ideological grounds, it is not sufficient in capturing the true essense of the decision. For we demand not only that a decision was taken to 'make things better', 'to fix society', but what were the pressing reasons for doing so, what were the alternatives to the decision, and what was the factual justification for taking the decision. This is what one demands from a rational being, but neo-sikhs do not require it. They are content simply with ideological explanations which are scarcely explanations at all, because they are too simplistic, and as we have seen from neo-sikhs, can be conjured up at will, in accordance to ones favorite fashionable ideology of the time. It is easy to offer such an ideological re-description of a historical decision, and many play this game, including neo-sikhs, and the Muslim who wrote the pamplet proving that Islam believes in Equality of men and women. Conservatives take decisions to make changes to society too. The sikh gurus did this, but in each case their decisions were out of the sensible wish to perform negative changes. They never acted solely towards utopian ends, but were characterised by allocating their precious resources on pressing problems, that could admit reasonable resolution. It is a fact that until Guru Hargobind, the sikh gurus waited patiently for the State to perform its rightful role, and welcomed this when it occured. If one reads history according to neo-sikhs, then one has to wonder why it took so long for the Sikh Gurus to adopt and cultivate physical force in their sikhs, if theirs was a revolutionary movement. But tell me this much, if Guru Hargobind refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the state, in what world would he then subject himself to its rule, and be martyed by it. He accepted the rule of the land, or law, or whatever you wish to call it. Why would a revolutionary righteous man voluntarily do that? The answer to me is obvious. While he believed the state had authority over all its subjects, all of them subject to the law of the land, he thought those running the state were unjust and evil. Nevertheless, he didnt fight to remove the evil, ultimately, because he placed himself at the state's mercy and succumbed to it. This is rightfully to be seen as politically protest, but it nevertheless shows that Guru Hargobind, quite conservatively, believed in the legitimacy of state rule, though the particular rulers were tyranical. [/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