Does the Darbar Sahib, Amritsar Architecture reflect the Sikhi of Guru Nanak? | Page 2 | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Does the Darbar Sahib, Amritsar Architecture reflect the Sikhi of Guru Nanak?

Loveisthereason

Writer
SPNer
Apr 7, 2019
58
3
40
Christian apologetics are responsible for the need for a religion and it's scriptures to be logical, rational and reasoned. Partly in due to the enlightenment period and it's implications on theology, this is how they protected themselves. However your arguments are shrivel and weak in the face of the extent of their defense on the same subjects.

My argument is not very convincing - that is okay, if I follow your logic my argument is convincing because many people take a dip in the sarovar. So if I were now to behave as an apologetic I could say that you are guilty of the logical fallacy of Ad Populom - argument by appeal to the majority, if you then say I have done that too then you cut the branch your sitting on because your saying your own calculation is wrong because I am your opponent.

Gurbani has no contradiction in it - not true there are many inconsistencies and contradictions in gurbani and there have been many people who have tried to defend against this, the gurbani framework that you are using is just one attempt at doing this, again this framework was never intended just adopted by those that need logic to believe.

Your understanding and translation of my quote was very bad not much more to be said about that, as was your thinking that the quotes you provided contradicted mine.

W. H Heisenberg defied the law of non-contradiction a very long time ago but the uneducated amongst us are still beating the logic drum. He discovered that microphysical particles did 2 things, firstly they refused to behave and give there exact coordinates at any given time, secondly they existed in 2 different forms at any given time both wave and particle. This discovery heralded the end of the claim that we lived in an age of reason. I guess some Sikhs never got the memo.
 

A_seeker

Writer
SPNer
Jun 6, 2018
137
39
35
However your arguments are shrivel and weak in the face of the extent of their defense on the same subjects.
Regarding miricales of sarovar That's not my arguments .I have been quoting what SGGS is pointing to abt it's fruitlessness.

W. H Heisenberg defied the law of non-contradiction a very long time ago but the uneducated amongst us are still beating the logic drum. He discovered that microphysical particles did 2 things, firstly they refused to behave and give there exact coordinates at any given time, secondly they existed in 2 different forms at any given time both wave and particle. This discovery heralded the end of the claim that we lived in an age of reason. I guess some Sikhs never got the memo
Using loaded words to add non existent meaning.

This is why Little knowledge is dangerous.The person reads or listens about a complex QM idea from someone and then try to put in their own philosophy and try to prove their point .
In this case:

Evidence for Illogicality = Double slit experiment .


Maybe 'Common Sense is not common'
 
Last edited:

Loveisthereason

Writer
SPNer
Apr 7, 2019
58
3
40
I'm not advocating the negation of reason I'm talking about going beyond it to the realm of spirit which is what SIKHI does. The uncertainty principle or principle of indeterminacy is the impasse beyond which reason could not go in its understanding of reality. Will my comments here which are not loaded make any difference to your personal beliefs? I seriously doubt it, and by this you make my point valid that we have always and probably always will be living in an age of belief. Little knowledge isn't dangerous my ancestors say that death is the only truth, they are right and uneducated.
 

A_seeker

Writer
SPNer
Jun 6, 2018
137
39
35
The uncertainty principle or principle of indeterminacy is the impasse beyond which reason could not go in its understanding of reality.
Uncertainty principle also says that what actually happening depends on where you are looking from and it doesn't say their is actual final frame or order .

Let say , I am looking at a chair from one side of the room and you looking at it from other side, two different observers but its there at one spot.

So ,at the Macro level all the different possibilities averages out so that the physical property of large objects have some kind of sensible explanation that basically isn't so much dependent on what happens at micro level.

So your using this principle for explaining at physical observable world seems fussy .

Little knowledge isn't dangerous my ancestors say that death is the only truth, they are right and uneducated.
You have to read it in context ....
Will my comments here which are not loaded make any difference to your personal beliefs? I seriously doubt it, and by this you make my point valid that we have always and probably always will be living in an age of belief.
Its always wise to understand and accept a phenomenon which are based on logic and evidence like shown in this Gurbani verse below which is not based on a belief , but believing that through some mantra i can delay the sun rise or magical healing of sarovar based on bad evidence is a ridiculous argument.

Sochey Soch Na Hovayee Jey Sochee Lakh Vaar II
He cannot be realized within me through ritualistic cleansing/ bathing/ purification at (places of
pilgrimages) even if I cleanse myself a hundred thousand times

Jal Kai Majan Jae Gath Hovai Nith Nith Maenadduk Naavehi ||
If salvation can be obtained by bathing in water, then what about the frog, which is always bathing in water?
 
Last edited:

Loveisthereason

Writer
SPNer
Apr 7, 2019
58
3
40
Your sidelining the central point of the discussion, you have said bad evidence in support of an argument is ridiculous, I agree but the problem is 2 things. I have not provided bad evidence in fact I am saying you can't prove either way. This leads on to second argument that logic and reason etc has failed where it was originally intended in the scientific worldview, it was only incorporated into religion because stupid things were written in the bible and semitic texts, sikhs never had a basis upon which to distort their teachings to fit the scientific worldview, stupid sikhs put that noose around their own necks willingly. In fact most modern Western schisms are creeping into traditions where there was no fallout. You can practice SIKHI without trying to understand scripture through any framework or lens.
 

Loveisthereason

Writer
SPNer
Apr 7, 2019
58
3
40
Until someone experiences divinity themselves there will never be an end to these discussions, that is the only evidence for truth.
 

A_seeker

Writer
SPNer
Jun 6, 2018
137
39
35
Until someone experiences divinity themselves there will never be an end to these discussions, that is the only evidence for truth.
Our Gurus have researched it ,experienced it and gave us the evidence in the following verse:

Sochey Soch Na Hovayee Jey Sochee Lakh Vaar II
Translation: He cannot be realized within me through ritualistic cleansing/ bathing/ purification at (places of
pilgrimages) even if I cleanse myself a hundred thousand times

Chupey Chup Na Hovayee Jey Laye Rhaan Liv Taar II
Translation: He cannot be realized within through ritualistic practice of remaining physically silent even if I
single mindedly focus on outer silence (outer silence does not equate to inner silence)

Bhukiya Bhukh Na Utree Jey Banna Pureeah Bhaar II
Translation: He cannot be realized within through ritualistic practice of eliminating desire even if I am able to
fulfill my past, present, and future desires

Sehes Sianpa Lakh Hohe Ta Ek Na Chale Naal II
Translation: He cannot be realized within through religious knowledge- no matter of how high the order or
multitude; such knowledge would not support the spiritual journey of inner liberation

Kiv Sachiara Hoyey Kiv Kooray Tootey Paal II
Translation: How then can I become a God-Realized Being within; how can I remove the obstacle of my
non-realized state (my inner ignorance of Creator)

Hukam Rajayee Chalnaa Nanak Likhiya Naal II 1 II
Translation: The way to Realize the Creator within is to remain within the confines and abide in Sehej
(acceptance) of his Hukam, as contained within us
 

Loveisthereason

Writer
SPNer
Apr 7, 2019
58
3
40
Our Gurus have researched it ,experienced it and gave us the evidence in the following verse:

Sochey Soch Na Hovayee Jey Sochee Lakh Vaar II
Translation: He cannot be realized within me through ritualistic cleansing/ bathing/ purification at (places of
pilgrimages) even if I cleanse myself a hundred thousand times

Chupey Chup Na Hovayee Jey Laye Rhaan Liv Taar II
Translation: He cannot be realized within through ritualistic practice of remaining physically silent even if I
single mindedly focus on outer silence (outer silence does not equate to inner silence)

Bhukiya Bhukh Na Utree Jey Banna Pureeah Bhaar II
Translation: He cannot be realized within through ritualistic practice of eliminating desire even if I am able to
fulfill my past, present, and future desires

Sehes Sianpa Lakh Hohe Ta Ek Na Chale Naal II
Translation: He cannot be realized within through religious knowledge- no matter of how high the order or
multitude; such knowledge would not support the spiritual journey of inner liberation

Kiv Sachiara Hoyey Kiv Kooray Tootey Paal II
Translation: How then can I become a God-Realized Being within; how can I remove the obstacle of my
non-realized state (my inner ignorance of Creator)

Hukam Rajayee Chalnaa Nanak Likhiya Naal II 1 II
Translation: The way to Realize the Creator within is to remain within the confines and abide in Sehej
(acceptance) of his Hukam, as contained within us

This translation is wrong the first line does not mention ritualistic bathing etc, sochay soch means thinking, meaning you can not get to me through thoughts. I am disturbed where you are getting your translation from.

Regarding the individual who asked "says who" and that maybe you have to accept you will not experience divinity. Firstly how does a person who has experienced divinity convince a person who hasn't of their experience. The simple answer is that they can't. I don't like to discuss my own experiences of divinity because of this very reason, people say things like maybe you are hallucinating or you are making things up. So like I said before the only evidence of truth is experiencing the divine, that's not a belief for me.

God or the Gurus grace is a hard thing to explain it leaves you dumbstruck and wonderstruck, all the stories people have described about that experience don't match with what happens when it occurs. You have no frame of reference so you go quiet for a while and humbled because you thought you knew, you had expectations, you also secretly believed that it was never going to happen,especially to you. You can't believe that it has happened to you because you never did all the things that a gursikh is supposed to do.

Alot of people don't like sakhis here, I am going to mention one here because it's relevant and important. When the first Guru was in Baghdad he met Qazi Rukuddin, they had a discussion about the other worlds God has created and because the Qazi was frail, the Guru took his son to show these worlds to, the Guru brought back an offering. The importance of this sakhi is not that the Guru proved the existence of other world's but that he showed that seeking out God's grace is the imperitive of all God's creations, not just the human. This is why the mool mantar ends with Gurprasad.

This is what I have learned.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,627
5,210
SPN

Loveisthereason

Writer
SPNer
Apr 7, 2019
58
3
40
Hi Aman,

I watched the video as far as I could digest then stopped. I am aware of the khoj of this individual for a long time, I refrain from partaking of his lectures and articles.

I am going to start of being respectful as I can as I don't want to get personal with this particular "scholar" or any for that matter.

Firstly my source is my brain I translate sochay as thinking. I never understood the verse to say sochiya whenever I have read it, in my punjabi sochay alone without the iya is still thinking. Secondly you can think of thoughts numerically be it in the 100s or 1000s,i have never come across this argument that when one thinks of thoughts it is universally understood to be in the capacity of infinity. The problem here is that these arguments make fools of us by asking us to accept them as a general consensus which they are not.

The gurbani framework is not my approach, I am content with my brain.

This is where I now become blunt. There used to be an apologist on this forum I will initial them as J. S, for polite purposes. I clashed with this individual as I saw apologetics as a psychosis.

Well, I see the same problem here. I know I will be unliked for this but I was brought up to speak my mind. At no point in Sikh history and tradition were we asked to haggle our verses. The scripture here is being seived in terms of its vocabulary with the premise that all words could only be used for the same purpose. This is neither a fact nor true. However it does not end there, in each instance where a word has been made to fit the general consensus asked of us, it can mean the "mistaken" interpretation if we only let go of the general consensus asked of us.

Complicated? I'm not surprised that's why I call this too a psychosis.

I'm sorry I don't mean to cause any offence but I find myself laughing when I listen to the Justifications and then angry with those who fall for it. If this is the Sikh hermeneutics then the "scholar" was a miraculous find 5 centuries later.

Listen, there is a lot of good in reinterpretation and some interesting takes in this guys works I do not rule out that there is truth in some of his works. I have a big problem with the list of "go by's" before he delves into the rest of the SGGS to support his interpretation, they do not rest on a secure or sound logic.

Think about it, he is saying Guru Nanak couldn't have referred to thought's through calculation because today we all view thoughts in terms of infinity (first lie), and to accept that the Guru would think of thoughts as calculable would mean the Guru was therefore irrational (second lie) and we can't have that because we want to show the world we're a logical religion. This is not even a scientific approach or method. This is manipulation for good intentions.

Good night.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,627
5,210
SPN
There used to be an apologist on this forum I will initial them as J. S, for polite purposes. I clashed with this individual as I saw apologetics as a psychosis.
Can you disclose your previous avatar here at SPN? So that we can know from where are you coming from! In plain English, I would call it dishonesty.

Complicated? I'm not surprised that's why I call this too a psychosis.
Looks like you are in the same boat! Stop judging people and focus on the discussion.

Listen, there is a lot of good in reinterpretation and some interesting takes in this guys works I do not rule out that there is truth in some of his works. I have a big problem with the list of "go by's" before he delves into the rest of the SGGS to support his interpretation, they do not rest on a secure or sound logic.
Why? A same word, having different meanings, just to serve our own concoctions, does not makes for a sound logic. This self inflicted ambiguity opens avenues for extrapolation of meanings, just like in your Sochey interpretations.
 

Loveisthereason

Writer
SPNer
Apr 7, 2019
58
3
40
The last time I used my real name people kept sending me messages that I should give lectures or write a book, I'm not going down that route again I enjoy my anonymity.

I say this with the utmost respect, my analysis of this material took alot of focus.

The SGGS is a unique scripture in that it will never have one interpretation or meaning. What's concocted is admitted openly, the gurbani framework is the concoction as is the need for some that Gurbani fits a particular scheme of hermeneutics. Gurbani is considered a gem because it has many layers and meanings it is the deepest in its uncovering. Whether one word, a sentence or a verse, the meaning changes. It can only be understood properly in gurmukhi.

This assault on gurbani is correctly dismissed by Sikh institutions in India and elsewhere. We will never allow our religion to adopt a totalitarian structure, the understanding gained between a Sikh and his guru is a unique aspect of sikhism, any study of scripture is merely the point of view of the individual carrying out the study.

When a leading Islamic scholar was asked what would happen if Muslims did not pray in the direction of mecca during their prayers, he replied it would lead to chaos and disruption in the ummah. Nothing of the sort will happen, and the same is true of interpretation in sikhism. If the individual concerned allows for free thinking then he should not give his interpretation with a nod to the mistakes of previous generations. It is he who judges.

I will only respond further if a valid counter argument is presented, or if someone is unsure and needs my support.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,627
5,210
SPN
The last time I used my real name people kept sending me messages that I should give lectures or write a book, I'm not going down that route again I enjoy my anonymity.
Come on ISD (for the sake anonymity!), a person can hide his identity but not his traits...

This assault on gurbani is correctly dismissed by Sikh institutions in India and elsewhere.
For the sake of clarity, which so called Sikh institutions?
 

A_seeker

Writer
SPNer
Jun 6, 2018
137
39
35
Firstly my source is my brain I translate sochay as thinking. I never understood the verse to say sochiya whenever I have read it, in my punjabi sochay alone without the iya is still thinking.
The speaker in the video has also used his brain to describe what sochay/scoch means using logic and gurbani framework .

Can you describe how did you came to the conclusion using your brain that it means thinking . Because when the source is the brain you must have used the logic to come up with that conclusion.
 
Last edited:

sukhsingh

Writer
SPNer
Aug 14, 2012
740
214
44
UK
The Guru built the SAROVAR mainly to provide water to the new dwellers settling in the new city.Later the brahimns concocted the stories related to this sarovar.

My understanding is Guru RAM DAS planned this model city and invited experts and professional of every field to settle in this new city. He arranged all facilites like water for drinking and bathing ,Hostels(Deras),Saran .He created many institutes which would carry out missionary activities linking Gurus messages with sikhs .

So the the whole city became a cultural and educational centre and not the crammped temple at the centre of a sarovar alone as a place of gathering.
We don't know that..

Water has always played a very important symbolic role.. As well as the functional role
 

A_seeker

Writer
SPNer
Jun 6, 2018
137
39
35
I disagree and gurbani clearly states exactly in words what I was saying :

"Ramdas Sarovar Naate, Sab uttre paap kamate"
This is the right opportunity for those who believe in literal translations of above(in quotation) that by bathing at SAROVAR indeed CORONAVIRUS can be cured .:giggle::giggle::giggle:
 

Logical Sikh

Writer
SPNer
Sep 22, 2018
185
44
22
The_Golden_temple_map.jpg


Last month I visited Darbar Sahib and waiting in the line for two hours to get inside main Darbar (point 11) just made me wonder, did our Guru really built it in this way.

Just go through the map look at the construction Santum (Darbar) marked as 11 built at the center of sarovar which hardly can accommodate 20-30 devotees.

Now look at the sarvoar marked as 12 which is made for 1000 devotees for Holy dip.

Isn't it indicating that Sikhi practiced is Ritualistic(Holy dips, Parikarma ,Matha Tekna to trees, etc) rather than reflection of Nanak Enlightened Philosophy .

I looked for "Sikhi Sikhya Gur Vichar"- (Sikhi is the Learning and reflection of Enlightened Philosophy) but what i found was mystical, esoteric, ritualistic practices.

SATNAM
about the Sarovar for 1000 people,
Dr. Harjinder singh dilgeer writes that it was made for people to bath before entering the Sanctum because back in 16th century Amritsar was surrounded with jungles and people would get really dusty coming through all the KACHHA paths... so there was a need for them to wash themselves before entering the Sanctum Sectorum to keep it clean...
Which seems to me Faar more logical and realistic approach towards the Sarovar than some explanation given by "Sant samaaj".
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

This is one of my favourite shabads. Very simple but truly packs a punch with its message. Unfortunately it is not widely known. As previously English literal meanings first, Rawel Singh's...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top