Harjas Kaur ji,
Again it is with respect that I say perhaps you have mistaken my words.
People are also the jyote of Waheguru. To be insulted is not some unspiritual reaction. Spirituality is not some pacifistic exercise of having no responses. While it is true, a highly developed spiritual person does not disturb their consciousness, we all still have to live in a real world.
We certianly do, but as Sikhs isn't it our job to shake off the 5 thieves? Would you not eqaute hatred, and anger with maya? I did not suggest that the show of hatred I read about was wrong, nor did I say that it was unhuman, what I did ask was why, and isn't it un-Sikh like behavour.
Guru has initiated the Panth and bestowed on it Guruship as a Panthic organization, and also in the Panj Piare. So realistically, the Panth, and the Akal Takht are the sargun saroop of Guruji. So your concept of God being some indifferent abstraction does not fit. The spiritual authority for the Sikh Panth has taken action to defend the sentiments and rights of the Panth.
My concept of God is not as you suggest, as to Panth I am a Sikh, I certianly did not feel insulted by this tatoo and so as a member of the Sikh panth, can I truely say that my sentiments were defended? Although if you re-read my posts on this matter you will see that I called into question only the hatred, burning, and calls for punishment I have seen from ordinary Sikhs, I did not mention of Akal Takht, nor did I question any ruling that come from there.
Why is this unwise? Why is allowing gross abuses and defamation of a religious faith, which often is prelude to abuses of people who practice those faiths, an unspiritual thing?
This is the heart of the matter. What gross abuse are we talking about? why exactly do some find this tatoo to be insulting? Does God find it insulting? Does Guru ji find it insulting? Or is manmukh mankind that see's an insult here?
Now if some individuals were burning effigies, obviously they felt insulted. But the Akal Takht was not burning effigies. She was summoned to explain her actions. To the best of my understanding, she was born a Sikh, and thus bears some responsibility to the seat of spiritual authority for that faith.
Indeed you are right.
Veerji, if I spit on your wife, I am responsible for my insult. The responsibility and blame don't shift to your wife whether she should feel insulted or not. I bear responsibility for my actions. If Hitler massacred Jews, is the power of offense solely on those who choose to be offended, or can we realistically say certain behaviors cause offense?
If you spit on my wife, then yes you are responsible for trying to cause my wife insult, it is also clear that your intent is to cause my wife insult.
If my wife wipes the spittle from her face, and blesses you, if she sees God in you shining through, if she bows her head to your feet and chooses not to be insulted, then you have not caused insult, even though that be your intent.
Religion as an abstract concept is lifeless. But the expression of religion in the human beings who practice it is alive and well. Sikhi isn't something in a textbook about world religions. ALL the Sikh Panth are what Sikhi is....disciples of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Sangat, as a body of human beings speaks for Sikhism, because we have a voice to speak for themselves. In this case, the body of the Khalsa Panth has spoken. People were highly offended, and she was educated to remove the insult and be more sensitive to the community of Sikhs in the future. Why should millions bear insult to protect the rights of one immature and thoughtless person to be rude and disgraceful?
Religion though is absract, religion is an idea. God is Iknokar, God is Sat Naam. Religion is no more than a word we use to describe the idea of 'reaching' God.
So someone can spit on us, insult and degrade us, and we can't react for fear that would be unspiritual, for fear that would mean our consciousness is disturbed by maya (even though we live in maya world) and for fear we would offend the sentiments of the one who insults us by JUDGING them by their actions? So it is our total blame and guilt for the bad behavior of another?
Again I did not say this, I questioned whether such shows of hatred over this woman and her tatoo are Sikh like. To act in fear, or react in fear is still acting under the influence of the 5 thieves, I say nothing more than are we not as Sikhs supposed to try not to do that? Insults? What are they? What real damage can a hurtfull word do us? Or a woman with a tatoo of a symbol, what actual harm can that do?
Nonsense. Lets look at the semantics for a moment. We judge whether the traffic is safe to cross. We judge if the person beside us makes us uncomfortable, and might be a danger. We judge if a partner has flaws that make him unsuitable. We judge based on our understanding, our instincts, and by the behaviors of others which are the truest expression of their intent.
Yes we do, we do all of this, because we are as you say liveing in a maya world, we do all of this because we are not perfect, yet we are Sikhs because we want out of maya, becuase we want God, because we wish to stop being as we are.
otherwise should we be so guileless in a world of serpents that we fail to have any survival mechanism at all? Even Buddha killed the pirate to prevent him harming all the innocent people. To do that he had to TRUST his JUDGEMENT of the pirate.
Yes you are correct, but I talk of insult taken, and hatred show, over a tatoo, not a snake, not an evil come to harm us all, one woman and a tatoo. I judge that harsh, and un-Sikh. Again I ask, as a member of the Sikh panth, why?
In this instance, you or I have not been the judge. In fact, apart from now, I've never said a word about this case. but I accept that the Jathedar of Akal Takht has convened the Panj, taken Guruji's hukam and made a judgement which he is authorized to make, on behalf of Sikhs in general, and on behalf of this actress. Guruji is like a father. Definitely, you will be disciplined if you do something wrong. Guruji left us his sargun saroop as guidance. We are not like teenagers running amok behaving badly who can do whatever, and blame the religious people for being uptight and deciding to be enflamed and engrossed in maya by being offended. (How sinful of them!)
And again, I do not speak against Akal Takht, but only ask the questions why, and is the burning of effigies proper Sikh behaviour, and again considering what we are talking about is a tatoo.
We don't choose to take insult, anymore than an assault victim chooses to be assaulted.
I'm sorry Harjas Kaur ji, but I belive you are wrong. Do you suggest that our minds are not our own, that we have no control over our selves, that we have no free will, and cannot choose if we will it to 'turn the other cheek'?
We don't live in a world of solely mental processes. We live and interact in a physical reality. We are ALL living in maya-world, and this is the ground where Guru has us ACT. It is more spiritual to ACT than not to act. It is more spiritual to be a protector than to shirk responsibility and let problems just escalate.
This is very true, you are what you do, not what you say nor what you think.
For one thing, if you were Jathedar, and you saw how enflamed people were getting towards this girl, burning effigies. Maybe you would feel afraid for her safety. And by summoning her to repent of her misdeed, and offering FORGIVING on behalf of the Panth....just maybe you would be saving her life from the less mature people.
That is a very good point.
Is it the Sikh way? Well yes, the Jathedar of Akal Takht has rendered a JUDGEMENT on the case which is his authority and role to do. He has authority over Sikhs worldwide. FOR A REASON...imagine living in a world where there were no police, no authority, no teachers. Well Guruji didn't leave us orphans, we have the sargun saroop in Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaaj, in the Panj Piare, and in the Akal Takht.
Please understand that I made no referance to Akal Takht, or question wether or not we should take judgements from there, I question the behavour of the Sikhs who shout, and burn, and I ask why?
Attempting to see God in all? So if someone is mutilating my child, I'm going to sit back like some new-age space cadet, meditate on how my own mind is being disturbed because I'm personally flawed. and choose to have the "unspiritual" failing of REACTING. Then I can blame myself for not having great empathy for the God presence in the mutilator due to being enflamed?
That is your call, and I would not envy anybody in that possition. Indeed I would react in the most violent of ways myself to that sort of situation. Yet Guru ji has showed us that one can give up his children to suffering, if that is Gods will.
You yourself are making a judgement that the Sikh authority here is even enflamed. Just because Joe Blow Singh in Amritsar got mad and burned an effigy in protest, doesn't mean the Akal Takht acted with these same sentiments. How do you know what their motivation ot hukam was? Who are you to judge all of us and pardon the one causing offense?
You might be correct, I may have judged, but I assure you my intent was to question. And again I made no referance to Akal Takht, nor did I question the authority.
If Waheguru gives me the power to protect my child from harm, and I fail to do so for fear of becoming enflamed and engrossed in maya (major sin I suppose), if I fail to act in the real world because Im so engrossed in the spiritual one, and I allow harm while meditating on the great jyot of Waheguru in my child's tormentor....
then there's something really the matter with me since I have an obligation to my protect my child.
You are tacking on all sorts of imagined threats, and litraly putting words that I did not say into my mouth. I aksed why do some Sikhs find this tatooed woman insulting, and I asked is the hatred, and burning, and calls for punishment over it Sikh like behaviour?
The Jathedar of Akal Takht acted in the best interests of the Khalsa Panth, with full authority and obligation to do so. If you have a problem with his decision, why don't you ask him why he made it. But it seems fairly evident to most people that this girl's anti-Sikh behaviors were getting way out of hand and needed to be corrected....for HER best spiritual interests.
Again, I have no problem with Akaal Takht, I do though fail to see that this girls behviour was anti Sikh, or fairly evident that it was so?
I will reiterate the basic premise of my post for you.
Why is this girls tatoo insulting to Sikhs, or sikhi?
Is it Sikh like behvoiur to call for punishment, and burn effigies of this women?
Other than saying I understand that Ikonkar is important to us, and also alluding to the fact that maybe we are guilty of placeing a symbol on a high pedistal, and posting a link to a video that I found uplifting, that is all I said