Thank you all for your responses, i comment on as many as as i can below...
@ Ishna - apologies for sentence structure, i was using my mobile phone!
No offence taken at the happy monkey reference but points deducted for the wise one liner "it's easier to paddle in the kiddie pool than learn to swim in the ocean"! I think this is an excellent point, you are seeing a very small personal picture of the world, which only concerns you, your feelings, your aspirations, your desires, your world revolves around you
@Lee - "Gurur ji teaches us that all is Gods will, perhaps then you are simply not yet meant to search for God? Or perhaps your karma dictates that you should at this time question your lack of faith?" My dabblings in Buddhism stopped when the concept of Karma came up - I cannot subscribe to any path/religion that states an act of kindness must be done for a better next life because that act then becomes selfish. so it is then better to do bad or indifferent acts, any buddhist worth his salt is probably acutely aware of this, and also the need to do acts with a clean heart, looking at the results of those actions, rather than personal salvation, just because a professional earns well out of his advice does not mean that professional is swayed the earning potential rather than the validity of the advice, although clearly some will, they are not professionals, that is what makes a professional, or even a buddhist
@Harry Haller - you said "The fact that you point out the nicer ones to your wife, intimates to me, that she clearly loves you very much, and is willing to accept you fully, and be secure in your love for her, regardless who you look at. Your wife is clearly a remarkable woman, and she clearly values your happiness and outlook on life. I would ask the question, would you be as happy and contented if it were not for the understanding of your wife?" - I point out the prettier ones because having pointed out (from far away) what i thought was a pretty girl she exclaimed "thats not pretty!". Its a quid pro quo situation as she also points out pretty girls to me! We are as understanding as each other. If it were quid pro quo, would she not be pointing out pretty men instead?, although you could say, well, she does sorry, but in the pablo style of writing, it is first answer only! this to me confirms that your view is possibly the only one that counts
you also said "As you have stated you are a lapsed sikh, rather like I was, I would mention that 99% of everything you think you know about sikhism is probably untrue. There is no concept of sin, there should be no guilt, we do not answer to anyone other than ourselves, rather like you already do, the five K's are there, as far as I am concerned as a statement of joy rather than a prerequisite. So in fact, you are already a sikh, as you are asking questions and pushing forward the boundaries of your thinking".
One problem with this - is it only Sikhs that ask questions and push boundaries? Does asking questions and pushing boundaries have to carry a label? to a certain extent, yes, many religions or ways, have strict rules and understandings that you have to embrace without question, there are not many religions that encourage you not to find heaven, or hell, but find yourself, it is yourself that is the goal, and that can only be done by asking many many questions, and trying to find the answers. Of course in life many people push boundaries in work, or life, but pushing boundaries from a spiritual sense, asking questions is what sikhism is all about. A sikh is not a turbaned fellow with 5 k's per se, a sikh is seeking the big game of hunting, the self, and ultimately the truth
you also said "In life, people get ill, they get tired, they get pregnant, things happen, you have to ask yourself if you lived alone would you be so happy with life?" - well yes i would as a person shouldnt need another person for happiness. If it comes along then its a bonus! Your life and your wife seem to centre around you and your pleasures, you say you are not wanting for anything and all urges are satisfied, if you really feel you would be the same person without your needs being met, I think you are lying to yourself, because that is who you are, you are those pleasures being met, those urges being satisfied, that is who you are, if you are content with that, great, but take those things away and you would be an empty vessel, lost and fearful
@Ambarsaria - you said "I don't know what Sikhism you understood that you seem to have left. We all have different understandings." - I think you have hit the nail on the head with that. I couldnt agree more. How do you know whether the teachings that you believe are the correct versions? What if the originator of the translations of the hymns and guidance that you hold so dear are in fact the wrong understandings? And further more, who says whats right and wrong? My point is no-one will ever know what the Guru's meant apart from themselves. Same with Ghandi and the same with Hitler. No-one will ever know their rationale and motivation apart from them. So isnt it easier just to follow your own moral code which takes a bit from here and a bit from there - without a label based on, if you strip it down - the unknown? I will leave this one for someone wiser than myself
@Sinner - "Does one really leave their faith,or does their faith leave them?" - almost points deducted for a wise one liner but why cant a person have a faith in the most important person there is regarding a mental and emotional state of being, ie themselves. because of the reasons I have outlined above, the faith in yourself is merely a faith in maya, illusion, there is no reason a person cannot have faith in this, but it is fickle, and the moment fades, you have to push the boundaries of pleasure further and further, getting deeper and deeper mired in the quicksand of self pleasure and satisfaction
@Ambarsaria - "So faith is always there whether it s spirituality or day to day living. Those who claim not to have faith in things or concepts till such are proven individually to them are just hallucinating in some inner conceited holiness which is as imaginary as the faith they detest. Just my thoughts not to offend." - Isnt inner holiness what Buddism broadly (very broadly) encouraged? I dont want to get into a debate here but isnt it possible that Guru Nanak maybe took a bit of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism to create Sikhism? I dont want a debate like i all i am asking is, are you all 100% sure he didnt. If you are 99% sure then there is still 1% of you that must agree then that Sikhism may have an element of inner holiness. If you are 100% sure i want your secret as to how you transported back in time to speak to Guruji personally and discuss with him his intentions when creating his version of Sikhism. (i say that as it couldnt be more different to Guru Gobind Singh Ji's version) Oh and putting a smiley face after your thoughts doesnt detract from a fairly insulting bit of text ! If you look at other religions, none of them offer what sikhism offers, on a very personal basis, for instance the islamic idea of heaven is 70 virgins, the hundu idea is nirvana, in sikhism, heaven is a place you create here on earth, it is a code of living, sikhism could not be more different from Islam and Hinduisim if it tried, you are thinking more of the sikhism along the lines of castism, ritualism, etc, in pure sikhism is not a combination of anything, it stands alone, and on its own merits. I am sure 100% that Guru Nanak ji did not just put a load of thoughts in a blender, but that is due to my research into all three religions, once you have carried that out, you will see that you do not need to go back in time, it is like suggesting that the Mitsubishi Shogun must have been based on the Range Rover as they both have 4 wheels and an engine, sure we come to similar conclusions, but the building and design is individual to both cars.
@Sinner - "I remember a story about two children one had 'faith'and used go to a place to light a candle the other was jealous of him and would go there after to put it out .One day it was raining heavily so the 'faithful' one did not go but the other managed to get there despite the awful weather to put it out !I think the story goes that he was deemed the more faithful and given darshan." - Can i just clarify then that stomping on anothers faith in such a blatant way instead of talking to the other child as to why he has the faith results in a prize?! Rituals and lighting of candles is not actively encouraged in sikhism due to its Hinduism links with deity worship, if someone feels that lighting candles will bring understanding anymore than a thread, they are on the wrong path, it is actions and thoughts that bring salvation, not paying lip service, seen in this context, the story takes another meaning
@Harry Haller - "Not all quotes, books and teachings have been warped, Shakespears writings pretty much convey the message of time, without being warped, and he was born in 1564. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji ji was written much more recently, and thankfully, given the way it was written and documented, is a lot more easier to read in its original, than say the Bible"
This ties in very well with my final thought that i have raised above with Ambarsaria. How does anyone know just that any teaching / story / song is what the originator has actually written? What if Shakespeare's plays were written by another and dictated by Shakespear? What if the writer put a spin on what was being said. Minor point but you get the idea. How do you all truly know what you believe in is what was intended by the specific people you worship? My final thought on this? Live and let live and live by your own made up moral code not by someone elses?
