What Responsibility Do We Have To Keep Sikhi As Guruji Intended, And Who Can Definitively Say What T

[Harry Haller]

It depends how you look at it, form and formless can be the same in a certain way AND not the same in another way.

Lets say a man goes salmon fishing (very popular here in Vancouver). Let's just consider a single fish, that swims around freely, living with the constant need for water.

When the man catches it, the fish still has this need for water. But, due to the consequences of the man's actions keeping it out of the water, the fish struggles,flapping away,distraught, as it has this urgent need for water.
Soon, it's life is over and it is dead.

Now, the man takes it home, washes it, then cuts it up carefully into small pieces ready to cook.
The fish is now formless as it is dead and cut up into dozens of pieces.
It is cooked and served on a plate for his evening meal.

He consumes it all and enjoys the meal. As he goes fishing and eats fish often, he knows what will happen in the night during sleep.

He will be woken up thirsty with a need for water........ Even though the fish was all cut up, still in its formless state inside the man, it still urges the NEED for WATER!!

Form and formless can be seen as the same in this sense.



Waheguru

Luckyji

The fish may be lifeless, but it is certainly not formless, I am not sure how someone as intelligent as your good self has got this confused.

The fish is dead, it has no urge for water, this is more a Vedic philosophy, there is no grounding in Sikhi for this concept of dead fish needing water

Sikhi advocates intelligence, discretion, logic, and a respect for the laws of Creation, I find none of this in the above post, please explain so I may understand your reasoning brother

 

[BaljinderS]

Interesting and some what puzzling posts?!?

My question is, why do we have so many different view points? What are we missing here? Siri Guru Granth Sahib is our Guru? Anything outside of this, is not for Sikhs to focus or worry about. Anything we say should be backed with reference to gurbani. We are nothing without Gurbani.

 

[Ambarsaria]

Lets say a man goes salmon fishing (very popular here in Vancouver). Let's just consider a single fish, that swims around freely, living with the constant need for water.

When the man catches it, the fish still has this need for water. But, due to the consequences of the man's actions keeping it out of the water, the fish struggles,flapping away,distraught, as it has this urgent need for water.
Soon, it's life is over and it is dead.

Now, the man takes it home, washes it, then cuts it up carefully into small pieces ready to cook.
The fish is now formless as it is dead and cut up into dozens of pieces.
It is cooked and served on a plate for his evening meal.

He consumes it all and enjoys the meal. As he goes fishing and eats fish often, he knows what will happen in the night during sleep.

He will be woken up thirsty with a need for water........ Even though the fish was all cut up, still in its formless state inside the man, it still urges the NEED for WATER!!

Luckysingh ji you have great imagination.

If you are the man in the story I would love to try the fish you cook. The spices you use must be very good as these will force me to get up at night feeling thirsty. lol Actually if you had alcohol with the fish, very common then you must also realize that Alcohol is a diuretic. Implying it dehydrates hence the extra desire for water. If you had too much beer, then the extra desire to wake up and relieve!lol

Now you tell me brother what this has to do with the "form formless" of our veer Bhagat Singh ji!

Life is short let us guide as much as we can with wisdom and the teacher that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is. Let us not allow all these tangents to justify behaviors versus thought per Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Ambarsaria]

The fish is dead, it has no urge for water, this is more a Vedic philosophy, there is no grounding in Sikhi for this concept of dead fish needing water

Sikhi advocates intelligence, discretion, logic, and a respect for the laws of Creation, I find none of this in the above post, please explain so I may understand your reasoning brother

harry haller ji do you realize brother the vastness that is impinging on Sikh adherents to take them away from the beauty of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and lead into such theories, cults, practices.

Now funny thing is Lucky Singh, Bhagat Singh, Amarjit Singh Bamrah, etc., carry a pretty sharp intellect on their shoulders. Imagine people who are less so inclined! Can you see Radhaswami, Nirankari, Sacha Sauda and like Dehras filling up for the early morning dissemination of concepts anti-Sikh and anti Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji without people even recognizing it to be so. I do.

To sustain true values of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is an uphill and sideways battle and it is not a given all Sikhs realize what this battle is and why! Many will profess that there is no issue! welcomemunda

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Seeker9]

Interesting and some what puzzling posts?!?

My question is, why do we have so many different view points? What are we missing here? Siri Guru Granth Sahib is our Guru? Anything outside of this, is not for Sikhs to focus or worry about. Anything we say should be backed with reference to gurbani. We are nothing without Gurbani.

Very well said
I too am confused by some of the creative viewpoints that have been expressed

 

[Awakeand Singh]

Very well said
I too am confused by some of the creative viewpoints that have been expressed

So am I. Is there anyone who speaks with real authority for principles of Sikhi? Or, has anti-hierarchy completely dissolved into anarchy?
Nothing, other than the Guru Granth seems to be sacrosanct ... and I doubt that you'll find any two Sikhs who would agree on just what its message is.

 

[Harry Haller]

So am I. Is there anyone who speaks with real authority for principles of Sikhi? Or, has anti-hierarchy completely dissolved into anarchy?
Nothing, other than the Guru Granth seems to be sacrosanct ... and I doubt that you'll find any two Sikhs who would agree on just what its message is.

Oh this is just play, for example, I hold Bhagatsinghji in the most highest esteem, and Luckyji is a most enlightened soul, however my views can be a million miles from theirs, but always on the most pointless and amusing topics.

If you believe in one Creator without birth and death who is formless, ie, not a deity, not a living person, if you wish to be fearless, if you wish to progress as a person, you are a Sikh, and I will embrace you all day as a Sikh, everything else is just nitty gritty, just pointless debate to hone our senses, get the juices running, we could debate all day and get nowhere, but as long as we all agree on the foundations, we are all brothers and sisters on the same side

 

[Awakeand Singh]

Oh this is just play, for example, I hold Bhagatsinghji in the most highest esteem, and Luckyji is a most enlightened soul, however my views can be a million miles from theirs, but always on the most pointless and amusing topics.

If you believe in one Creator without birth and death who is formless, ie, not a deity, not a living person, if you wish to be fearless, if you wish to progress as a person, you are a Sikh, and I will embrace you all day as a Sikh, everything else is just nitty gritty, just pointless debate to hone our senses, get the juices running, we could debate all day and get nowhere, but as long as we all agree on the foundations, we are all brothers and sisters on the same side

That definition is also the starting point for being a Jew or a Muslim ...

 

[Harry Haller]

but unfortunately not Hindus, the irony being it is the Vedicism that is constantly trying to assimilate Sikhism, rather than Muslims and Jews, ironic because I don't feel any issue with Islamic/Sikh, or Judaism/Sikh, as we all pretty much believe in one Creator, formless, without birth or death, its an important foundation, the only foundation, we all know whose house is probably going to get blown down, uhm actually that probably is not the best fairy story to quote for obvious reasons, but its the brick one,

 

[Ambarsaria]

That definition is also the starting point for being a Jew or a Muslim ...

Awakeand Singh ji thanks for your post. I don't know the reference off hand.

It goes like that Sikhism believes Islam to be blind in one eye.

• The non-blind eye represents the one creator part without deities, stones, statues, etc.
  
• The blindness is the son/messenger of or sent by God and a person different than others.

Also that Hinduism is blind in both eyes as,

• One blind eye represents the non-belief in one God/creator
  
• The second blind eye represents the channels to their God through Hierarchy of Brahmins, deities, junior Gods and Senior Gods, and so on and God as a person different than others including all intermediaries (so called Board of Directors or Management team).

Now Sikhs in numbers started out of Hinduism So imagine the task to operate on two eyes and getting such to see light and wisdom. This has been a challenge in history of Sikhism as people squint, wink, and blink at the right moment so as to conveniently ignore the Sikhism total and do partial acceptance.

Hope above provides some clarity for dialog.

Sat Sri Akal/Shalom mundahug

 

[Randip Singh]

My behaviour over the last few weeks is vexing me, it is causing me concern.

I did not join this forum to correct others, or impose my view of Sikhism on another, I did not join to discover answers to my own questions and then force others to accept my answers, yet I increasingly find my posts becoming quite forceful, sarcastic, to those whose views I do not agree with. In particular I am finding myself more and more frustrated by the growing Hinduism within Sikhism, and I find myself getting quite irritated by views that I feel are misplaced and misguided, I am getting to the point where I just want to get along with everyone and respect the individuality of all, and the views of all, but how can I do this when such views, I feel are tainting the opinions of people coming into Sikhi, looking for answers, and who am I to set a standard, or even uphold a standard, when there is so much difference of opinion.

Is it Sikh like to defend what I feel is right, even though they remain my own personal opinions, or is it Sikh like to police opinion so that it is in line with what I believe in

Thoughts please

Don't ask me I'm still learning.....................but then again I suppose sikh means to learn

 

[Awakeand Singh]

Awakeand Singh ji thanks for your post. I don't know the reference off hand.

It goes like that Sikhism believes Islam to be blind in one eye.

• The non-blind eye represents the one creator part without deities, stones, statues, etc.
  
• The blindness is the son/messenger of or sent by God and a person different than others.
  
  Ah, Ambarsaria Ji ... we meet in cyberspace. A pleasure.
  
  If that's the case, I would have to say that the first (open) eye applies to Judaism as well, as the "Mool Mantra", if you will, of Judaism declares,
  "Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God; the Lord is One"
  It's the first part of the phrase where Sikhi would take issue, I agree. But as to whether the second eye is blind ... well, you tell me what you think.
  
  Judaism is unique in that its Holy Book depicts the only recorded case in the history of the Creation where some three and a half million souls met personally with the Creator of the Universe and established with the Creator a mutually binding covenant. They would follow His commandments and He would be their God. They would be an eternal people under His direct or indirect protection. According to the account, they experienced miracles on a daily basis over a period of more than forty years traveling through the desert. The first and second temples in Jerusalem were also the scene of continual miracles - things quite beyond the laws of nature. The Torah quotes the Creator again and again as saying, "You have seen these things with your own eyes".
  It's quite possible for a single messenger to have been mistaken or misinterpreted.
  But, an entire people??
  
  This people still exists today as a separate, distinct nation - just as God promised it would - having been tested under conditions that would have obliterated anyone else ten times over - with its entire history (past and future) laid out in the Torah, before it had even lived one day of this history.
  
  Understand that, for the sake of brevity I am speaking here in extremely general terms, and haven't begun to so much as scratch the reflection of the surface.
  
  Let me ask forgiveness at the outset if I don't respond immediately to your post and those of others. Of necessity, I'm doing all this when no one else is around.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Lucky Singh ji,
I have no idea what you are talking about with that "fish needs water" thing. I am not sure if that's a good example of what I'm talking about.

Harry ji,

To say Creator has form, is to say that essence of Creator has form, is to say that you can get an idea of what exists in the Oceans, the fish, the sharks, the life, the whales, from one tiny drop in a test tube

No
Let us understand what Form and Formless are first.

Sangat ji,
Form is everything you see, smell, touch, hear, taste and think. Form is physical objects, as well as conceptual ones in the form of thought or information. To know form, you need to go out in the world and look at things, smell them, feel their texture and temperature, taste them and contemplate them.

Formless is that one who is aware of seeing, smelling, touching, tasting and thinking. Form has all qualities while the Formless has none. To know formless is to ask yourself at any given time e.g. in you happen to be discussing with yourself "Who is aware of these internal discussions I am having? Who is listening to my internal discursive dialogue?"

So you the Observer is Formless (Shiv) and what you observe is Form (Shakti). Makes sense? If this is not clear simply do this experiment until it is clear that two such things exist. Grab an object, any object, and look at it, feel it, etc. Notice that there is an object and there is someone observing the object. There is someone aware of the object.
If you find yourself thinking about it. Notice how there is a thought and there is someone who is aware of that thought, who hears it or sees images. Get familiarized with Form and Formless through such means. Get to know both of them separately.

The more you do that experiment the better. Even if you already get it, do the experiment anyway.

Let's not even talk about the creator until we have understood these things in ourselves first. Why pose the bigger problem first? Let's understand Form and Formless first. It is not hard. You need first-hand experience of Form and Formless if you are going to get any closer to understanding the Creator (this cannot be stressed enough). So do this now and share your experiences.

 

[Harry Haller]

BhagatSinghji,

A bit round the houses for a concept so simple, I understand completely, however I do not think you have understood what I said so completely.

You say tomato............

 

[BhagatSingh]

Avoid looking for understanding, avoid attempts to understand, just do it. You know spirituality is all about actions, so do the experiment. And do it as often as you can. The more you do it the more you will understand Form and Formless and how they operate. The more you do look at them the more you will understand about their nature.

 

[Harry Haller]

Ok Veerji, I have an open mind, and my wife has an even more open mind, We will do it together after dinner, although it was more tempting to write something funny, I will update you after pudding!peacesignkaur

 

[BhagatSingh]

Hahah :grinningsingh:

 

[Seeker9]

Avoid looking for understanding, avoid attempts to understand, just do it. You know spirituality is all about actions, so do the experiment. And do it as often as you can. The more you do it the more you will understand Form and Formless and how they operate. The more you do look at them the more you will understand about their nature.

Dear Bhagat Singh Ji

I appreciate you are trying to convey your understanding

Form, formless, tangible, intangible, Sargun, Nirgun all aspects of Ik Onkar

Infinite is another aspect of Ik Onkar

In terms of the earlier discussion around intellectual comprehension of that infinite nature, I'm afraid I don't see how your point relates to that

Re the observer who is observing, there is a physical act of observation and a mental act of observation. We could then go down the road of discussing the Soul, sentience, the human psyche, separating the dancer from the dance etc but I feel it would be off track

Apologies if I have picked you up wrong

 

[Harry Haller]

Hahah :grinningsingh:

haha yourself, ok, very funny, ok, we tried it, perhaps you have another trial for us to carry out, maybe we should smear dogpoo under our noses to prove it smells, or maybe holding our breath to prove we need air

Next on mastermind, Bhagatji, specialist subject, the bleeding obvious,

ok first question, what colour is red?

 

[Luckysingh]

Sat sri akal

It's amusing how we have all caused each other further confusion, causing each other to scratch our heads on something that we have to understand ourselves.

I know why my fish story started to make everything look more than fishy!
The message I was trying to give was that form and formless can be the same.
You may see this if you imagine the story as a little movie, with the light and focus being on the fish. So everything happening is to and around the fish.
After it is chopped up etc,,, and you could say it's formless, although it still demands water!!

I know this is a cartoon angle to look at. But, it came to me as I had used this cartoon theory to explain to my young kids! They had questioned after a fish meal, why their mother told them to take bottled water to their bedrooms. I wasn't going to explain the absorption of water in the small intestine stimulated by certain food/drink to a 7yr old.
But with kids, its easier to give them a simplified explanation that makes sense!!!

This is why and how I thought I'd mention it in terms of form and formless.

Sorry for cracking at your brain cells with cartoon theories.

This is exactly what happens when we all go off in tangents trying to solve or explain something. **It's still good, in a sense**

BUT, at times like this we should just revert back to the gurbani and basics. This is something we know we can ALL do, as this is what makes us Sikhs.
So, focus on the real elements.
Ek onkar, satnaam.


Lucky Singh