Hard Talk I'm At The Verge Of Losing My Faith In Sikhi. Maybe Already Have. I Need Advice.

[Tejwant Singh]

One thing important to reflect upon is that if polygamy is not for lechery, then a man would bring home a sister. Polygamy gives the right to a man to have sex with his wives. Hence there is no polygamy sans lechery.

 

[Ishna]

Perhaps it's a cultural thing but I really think that consenting adults can come to mutual agreements with regards to their married lives and we don't need to make a value judgement about other people's choices. If the wives were slaves that would be a issue, but I'm assuming the Gurus wives were not forced into those marriages at kirpan-point (ahaha).

Still, last I checked, Sikhi wasn't about emulating the Gurus lives like Muslims emulate the lives of Muhammad and his family. So... still not really sure what any of this has to do with Sikhi.

Also, I'm perplexed why Sikhs say Gurbani talks about marriage between two people and God. It doesn't. It only talks about marriage between soul brides and God. The Gurbani has been shoehorned into the Anand Karaj ceremony, from my perspective. But that's probably best kept for another topic!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Perhaps it's a cultural thing but I really think that consenting adults can come to mutual agreements with regards to their married lives and we don't need to make a value judgement about other people's choices. If the wives were slaves that would be a issue, but I'm assuming the Gurus wives were not forced into those marriages at kirpan-point (ahaha).

If polygamy were a two-way street where either sex were allowed to have multiple spouses, then one wonders if polygamy would ever exist. Polygamy is there simply to degrade the most vulnerable which happens to be a female. In any sexual relationship, especially when a man has multiple choices, then some lovers become more favourite than the others which is very natural.

Still, last I checked, Sikhi wasn't about emulating the Gurus lives as if they were Muhammad.

But I personally doubt if some Gurus had multiple wives.

Also, I'm perplexed why Sikhs say Gurbani talks about marriage between two people and God. It doesn't. It only talks about marriage between soul brides and God. The Gurbani has been shoehorned into the Anand Karaj ceremony, from my perspective. But that's probably best kept for another topic!

Interestingly, marriage in Gurbani has nothing to do with the societal marriage. It is all about the love affair between the person and The Source. This love affair is gender neutral which can also be transported into today's world.

 

[Harry Haller]

surely the ideal marriage would be a polygamous one with husband wife and god

 

[Ishna]

Polygamy is there simply to degrade the most vulnerable which happens to be a female.

Don't say that too loudly to the women who choose this way of life. You're forcing your negative value judgement upon them.

 

[Harry Haller]

Don't say that too loudly to the women who choose this way of life. You're forcing your negative value judgement upon them.

just out of curiosity, would you enter into such an arrangement? and if so, why? and if not why?

 

[Ishna]

just out of curiosity, would you enter into such an arrangement? and if so, why? and if not why?

That kind of lifestyle doesn't interest me, but a family friend of mine has two wives. I haven't spoken to them, though. But I still don't really see how any of this is relevant to Sikhi. Next thing we'll be talking about whether or not homosexuality is okay??

 

[Harry Haller]

I think the question, should a Sikh man have more than one wife, both morally, and religiously relevant.

Even from a philosophical point of view, its an interesting question.

As you well know sis, the subject of homosexuality has been discussed in some depth on this forum, but even now, it is still a touchy subject within the religion.

 

[Harry Haller]

That kind of lifestyle doesn't interest me,

why not? again just out of curiosity

 

[Ishna]

I appears we'll have to agree to disagree, bro. I don't think God cares about who is doing what in their bedroom with whom when everyone is consenting and no harm is done.

It doesn't interest me because it doesn't interest me. I'm not going to tell people who are interested in it that they're wrong and going against Sikhi. But I suppose I have that luxury here in this modern western world in which I live where we more often than not have complete freedom to choose who and how many people we cohabitate with.

Meanwhile, the SRM does provide the bounds of Sikh sexual relationships and marriages. (Just for the record.)

Edit: Also someone just pointed out to me privately that as much as people can be polygamous, people also also allowed to disagree with that practice of moral grounds. So I'll be quiet about this now since I've said my piece.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Don't say that too loudly to the women who choose this way of life. You're forcing your negative value judgement upon them.

Ishna ji,

I understand your point. My point is that polygamy should be two-sided where both have equal rights as compared to now where only the man has the right to be on the top, pardon the pun.

As it is not a two-sided relationship, the loser ends up being a woman, the vulnerable in this situation who either prays or agrees to a coin toss.

In the end, I would say this is one more advantage towards the macho macho macho man.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Mormonism was founded on polygamy which has opened many cans of worms in the religion till today.

The young girls are groomed to marry their much older counterparts. As a result, the young boys are kicked out of the cult to avoid the competition.

In the two towns where it is practiced, inbreeding diseases are cropping up at the alarming rate because of the dwindling tadpole pool.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

surely the ideal marriage would be a polygamous one with husband wife and god

I want to be the god in this one because god is never wrong.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

That kind of lifestyle doesn't interest me, but a family friend of mine has two wives. I haven't spoken to them, though. But I still don't really see how any of this is relevant to Sikhi. Next thing we'll be talking about whether or not homosexuality is okay??

Ishna ji,
Just out of curiosity, how long the people you know are in this relationship?
Are all 3 happy with this arrangement?

 

[Ishna]

I've said my part and don't haven't anything else to contribute, I'm afraid.

 

[gjsingh]

In my experience, 3HO uncritically transmits all the legendary stuff from the janamsakhis, such as the Gurus being polygamous, the existence of Bhai Bala, et cetera. This is alongside lots of vaguely "Indian" stuff like tantra, yoga, astrology, and vegetarianism; but I would place most of the latter in a wholly different category from the former, in that they contradict Sikhi on their face. But, taken as a whole, it never seemed to fit with the plain meaning nor the spirit of the Message. But we believe as we're told, and to this very day, the idea that the Guru might NOT have practiced polygamy never crossed my mind! For what its worth, 3HO follows the "political expediency" line of reasoning, or at least they did when I was small. But Harry makes a compelling argument against this explanation.

Personally, I am somewhat apathetic about the matrimonial situations of consenting adults not involving yours truly. Also I suspect that I am in the majority when I say that I could never be financially, emotionally, morally and spiritually stout enough to handle a pluralistic marriage myself. Of course, as others indicated, there is the lechery aspect. Most of us men have an unquenchable fire of lust burning within us. Furthermore, advertisers and "culture producers" have no qualms about stoking those fires for their own insidious purposes. You might say that a modern-day man goes about his day doused in moral napalm and holding a lit match, so to speak.

If I have understood the other posts on this matter properly, the disquiet some have expressed with regards to the Guru having more than one wife comes from the seeming contradiction between (1) their status as being as-close-to-perfect-as-possible human beings; and (2) the apparent sanctioning of the aforementioned moral napalm. One feels forced to conclude (3) that either (a) polygamy is morally just or (b) the Guru was not morally perfect. Either way the edifice crumbles. On (a) you have brick that doesn't fit with the rest of the wall, whereas the consequences of (b) need not be stated.

I'm not sure what to think. There may not be a "kosher" answer from the religious standpoint. But the conversation got me thinking about a 20th century Marxist philosopher named Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, who made some interesting claims about the social fabric of the subcontinent. At the risk of falling into trivial stereotypes, in Marxist terms, a society can be pigeon-holed into different "stages", the primitive stage, tribalism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and so on. Each stage has its own morality and norms because, in Marxist terms, how we collectively live determines how we think and not vice-versa. As such, what is wrong in one era may become right in the other. Example: slavery was once tolerated, but now it is a universal taboo. But this kind of moral relativism has always been anathema for religion.

Anyways, Chattopadhyaya said that India was a unique place in the whole world because all these teleological stages co-existed at the same time there! (Whether this invalidates the project of Marxist sociology is not for me to say.) But if you think about about it, there is considerable truth to his observation even today. Setting aside the questionable "socialism" of the Congress party, or even of the West Bengal and Kerala governments, consider the following. Traveling the length of a single country you can go from the Tata cartel in Mumbai and the Bangalorean IT industry (global capitalism), to the bleakest feudalism in the villages, all the way through to the isolated tribals living deep in the forests of Jharkand and elsewhere. To me, this is a remarkable situation compared to say, the United States, which clearly has a unitary social system (scattered polygamist Mormons notwithstanding).

But Marxists like Chattopadhyaya are forced to admit that despite schematics like this, there can be no clean break between one era and the next. On this view, you might say polygamy is a hold-over from earlier, more austerely patriarchal kind of social organization. As others have noted in this thread this institution was even more normalized in the past. So is it sacrilege to suggest that the Gurus were of their time and place, despite the timelessness of their teachings? In an sort of unsatisfying way this solves the problem, in that proposition (2) above turns into a question of historical context. Or to be more precise, it is moral behavior for one time and place but not the other.

Side note, the subcontinent is also home to many of the relatively few instances that anthropologists know of polyandrous (1 wife, multiple husbands) societies. One supposes that this is likewise an even more ancient holdover, since we read about polyandrous marriage in the Mahabharata, which was probably already an ancient story when it was first written down long ago.

 

[chetan sharma]

After getting into Sikhi properly and studying it for almost 2 years, I have reached a point where I’ve noticed things within its theology and history that I simply cannot ignore anymore. For the time being I’m leaving Sikhi as it is, I’d call myself a Sikh but only by its general definition/meaning, since I have not entirely given up on faith and God in general but on the religion itself. I have decided to take a back seat and begin my journey anew by re-looking at Sikhi, Christianity and Islam, amongst other eastern philosophies. My intention with what I say next isn’t intend to offend, but to genuinely enquire, learn and ask others to ask these questions themselves (Points made in no specific order).

· I still highly respect the Gurus, the lives they led, the ideals they fought and sacrificed for, etc. But to what extent have these really survived? Let’s look at the caste system. Recently I learned some villages in India have separate Gurdwaras for those consider to be of the lower-caste. The Gurus themselves I learned were all from the Khatri caste and married within their own caste despite preaching against such barriers. Now I’m not saying that one should marry outside of their caste for the sake of it, but it’s some food for thought.

· How about the succession of the Gurus? How do we go from the 4 first being chosen by merit and from different lineage, then suddenly it turns into a system of monarchy resulting in the succession of Guru Harkrishan Ji at such a young age who also passed away at a young age. The argument I once heard was due to the challenges to Guruship the first Gurus faced. Well, these didn’t exactly stop and was especially notable in the case of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.

· What is it about the Gurus that ensures us of their authenticity? How do we know they were divine or “perfect” as many say. If the message of Sikhi really is the simplest and most practical and the eternal Truth, if the message of Sikhi, the Gurbani, really did come from God as Guru Gobind Singh Ji says near the end of Chaupai Sahib, then why, why is it that its remained confined for the most part to the Punjabi population? Even outside of Punjab, a large chunk of the population is Punjabi and the culture and religion have become intertwined. Now you’d say we haven’t done much parchar properly, maybe because Sikhs don’t preach and proselytize. Or you might say the SGPC is to blame. Okay sure these two factors are to blame. But let’s look back to history. Guru Nanak Dev Ji travelled pretty far and wide, mostly with his sole companion Bhai Mardana and it was to observe the rest of the world and preach the message of Sikhi. Centres were established in these locations, as far as Iran I’ve read. Why didn’t these survive if the message if so supreme? And if I recall correctly it was Guru Har Rai Ji who also travelled throughout the Indian subcontinent to preach. Banda Singh Bahadur himself went around preaching and bringing more to the Sikh fold (stated in The Sikhs by Patwant Singh as I recall).

· If this message came from the Hukam of Akal Purakh then surely it would have resisted decline and only grown in the 500 years since the faith was born? I won’t blame the restriction of the faith to mostly Punjab on this being the age of Kalyug and neither on how maybe I’m looking at this from an Abrahamic lens and not the Dharmic framework – by that reason most of the planet outside the Indian subcontinent is in simple ignorance. If the message of Gurbani isn’t restricted to the Sikh faith and it appears to those of the Bhakti movement mostly then why hasn’t history seen Gurus with a similar message in the West or other corners of the world? At least I’ve never heard of any, if there are any you know of please do mention them. Please don’t say other religions were spread by sword, Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population and known as one where Islam was spread by word and not sword.

· Even during the time of the Sikh empire, which like many I used to consider the Golden Age of Sikhs, after reading its history I realised it was the time when Sikh philosophy was likely diluted the most. The moment Sikhs seemed to have gotten a taste for sovereignty, self control and strictness to the Sikh Rehat seem to have become secondary.

· Following on from this, how do we clearly separate the so called “false gurus” like Ram Rahim from the true ones? If those rape and violence allegations hadn’t been found about him he could be easily looked at as a hero and the saviour of the poor and low castes. I’m not trying to equate the Sikh gurus to this man, they were far different in character from this man. But if the 10 Gurus weren’t the last and only, then why is it when one claims to be one in this day and age they are met with ridicule?


· Now moving onto Gurbani. It is beautiful, the meaning is deep and highly deserving of respect. But is it really divine? This query has been raised before and I will re-iterate it: The verses for the most part are repetitive. It is true this is not the case when they are read in their original form, but the meaning still tends to be repetitive. If I was to open up the SGGS at random pages, I’d almost all basically be reading the same verse but only written in a different way from a different author. I realise that the inclusion of several of authors signifies unity but reading the same over and over again doesn’t appear to me as source of ever increasing wisdom as I progress through the scripture. Comparing this to the Bible and the Quran, neither one of which I’ve yet accepted but it’s undeniable that they themselves have much more in terms of various examples and plenty of wisdom resides in them too. In addition to this, I have always wondered how Baba Fareed would feel about someone worshipping to their poetry/bani? If they were a Muslim, then someone praying to anything other than Allah/God would be the highest of sins.

· Some more matters that shook my faith: Why did some Gurus practice polygamy? There is historical evidence to support they did and those who refute this usually seem to speak from person opinion and emotion. I used to be of the thought if the Guru does something then I accept it since they know better. But come on, shouldn’t they have provided us with better guidelines? Islam and polygamy, something many love to bash – at least it provides strict guidelines for this. Idol worship – this is something Christians (excluding Catholics) and Muslims have a done a much better job at keeping it away. Criticism of Sikhs converting to other faiths such as Christianity – You know what, good for them if this provides them with a more caring community. I disagree with deception being used for such conversions, but otherwise I feel good for them. The fault lies on a lot (not all) of the Punjabi Sikh community itself. Why have Sikhs failed to spread the faith even over the Indian subcontinent itself? Why so much debate over a simple matter of canon scriptures (the Dasam Granth which oddly enough contains 2 of the prayers forming the Nitnem) and a matter of vegetarianism and meat eating? It should have been pretty clear thing laid out by the Gurus. Also this idea of Sikhs being encouraged to be critical thinkers but also not to question the Guru doesn’t quite go too well together.

I apologise for the hefty post, there’s plenty more I’d like to say but at least these things I had to get off my chest. Before this faith crises recently, the past 2-3 months is the most serious I had ever been about Sikhi. I woke up early every morning (even for which there seems to be some uncertainty regarding when exactly counts as amrit vela) and you know what it did make me feel better. Until I later begin to realise that this good feeling is likely something almost anyone turning to a healthy sleep schedule and a habit of meditation could likely acquire. Buddhists who don’t believe in the importance of faith in an eternal creator likely also reap the benefits of meditation.

Bottom point here: the good feeling one gets out of spirituality can be quite subjective. There are plenty of people out there who might follow a very different path and feel something from it and claim that it’s the true path since its working. That in itself is not a good enough reason for why a path is the true one. Truth in its nature is exclusive. The Bible claims authenticity through the fulfilments of prophecies it contains and The Quran through its prophecies and its literary perfection. I have not yet fully read either but intend to in order to see this for myself. I am far from the most intellectual or spiritually developed person, or the most well read in the SGGS or theology in general. But when I started to look at Sikhi a bit more objectively along with spiritually, all these were things I simply I couldn’t ignore. These are some of the issues I believe Sikhs need to deal with. For a faith which is meant to be built on inclusivity, I never even felt fully accepted as a proper Sikh since I am a Sehajdari.

If you took the time to read my post, I’d like to thank you. This challenge to the beliefs I held dear has left my restless and depressed, so if I hurt anyone’s sentiments then for that apologise and also for any incoherency in my writing. I really want to find truth is and have a genuine discussion based on reason and backing up of claims, rather than pure emotion and knowledge gained from word of mouth.

Bhul Chuk Maaf kareo.

Brother you asked too much .. to get all your answers best thing is once read Shri Guru Granth Sahib your all doubts will be clear.. don’t read Shri Guru Granth Sahib as book .. understand each and every word.. it’s a best way..

Second way is discussion it’s little less trusted because this way you will not get pure views of Guru sahibs.. they will mixed with human’s philosophy.. and very difficult to discuss all topics you raise in this forum ..

Let’s start with first one “all casts have different Gurudwara “
No where in Shri Guru Granth Sahib is writing that divide your self in casts.. Shri Guru Granth Sahib says don’t practice caste system..

If some Christian do crime it doesn’t mean all believers stop following Christianity..

Same way if some human don’t follow Guru Sahiba teachings and for power, fame and money dividing Sikhism into casts it’s there mistake abuse them not Sikhism..

One by one you can ask your all questions whenever i see your question and get time I will reply back for sure

 

[ravneet_sb]

After getting into Sikhi properly and studying it for almost 2 years, I have reached a point where I’ve noticed things within its theology and history that I simply cannot ignore anymore. For the time being I’m leaving Sikhi as it is, I’d call myself a Sikh but only by its general definition/meaning, since I have not entirely given up on faith and God in general but on the religion itself. I have decided to take a back seat and begin my journey anew by re-looking at Sikhi, Christianity and Islam, amongst other eastern philosophies. My intention with what I say next isn’t intend to offend, but to genuinely enquire, learn and ask others to ask these questions themselves (Points made in no specific order).

· I still highly respect the Gurus, the lives they led, the ideals they fought and sacrificed for, etc. But to what extent have these really survived? Let’s look at the caste system. Recently I learned some villages in India have separate Gurdwaras for those consider to be of the lower-caste. The Gurus themselves I learned were all from the Khatri caste and married within their own caste despite preaching against such barriers. Now I’m not saying that one should marry outside of their caste for the sake of it, but it’s some food for thought.

· How about the succession of the Gurus? How do we go from the 4 first being chosen by merit and from different lineage, then suddenly it turns into a system of monarchy resulting in the succession of Guru Harkrishan Ji at such a young age who also passed away at a young age. The argument I once heard was due to the challenges to Guruship the first Gurus faced. Well, these didn’t exactly stop and was especially notable in the case of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.

· What is it about the Gurus that ensures us of their authenticity? How do we know they were divine or “perfect” as many say. If the message of Sikhi really is the simplest and most practical and the eternal Truth, if the message of Sikhi, the Gurbani, really did come from God as Guru Gobind Singh Ji says near the end of Chaupai Sahib, then why, why is it that its remained confined for the most part to the Punjabi population? Even outside of Punjab, a large chunk of the population is Punjabi and the culture and religion have become intertwined. Now you’d say we haven’t done much parchar properly, maybe because Sikhs don’t preach and proselytize. Or you might say the SGPC is to blame. Okay sure these two factors are to blame. But let’s look back to history. Guru Nanak Dev Ji travelled pretty far and wide, mostly with his sole companion Bhai Mardana and it was to observe the rest of the world and preach the message of Sikhi. Centres were established in these locations, as far as Iran I’ve read. Why didn’t these survive if the message if so supreme? And if I recall correctly it was Guru Har Rai Ji who also travelled throughout the Indian subcontinent to preach. Banda Singh Bahadur himself went around preaching and bringing more to the Sikh fold (stated in The Sikhs by Patwant Singh as I recall).

· If this message came from the Hukam of Akal Purakh then surely it would have resisted decline and only grown in the 500 years since the faith was born? I won’t blame the restriction of the faith to mostly Punjab on this being the age of Kalyug and neither on how maybe I’m looking at this from an Abrahamic lens and not the Dharmic framework – by that reason most of the planet outside the Indian subcontinent is in simple ignorance. If the message of Gurbani isn’t restricted to the Sikh faith and it appears to those of the Bhakti movement mostly then why hasn’t history seen Gurus with a similar message in the West or other corners of the world? At least I’ve never heard of any, if there are any you know of please do mention them. Please don’t say other religions were spread by sword, Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population and known as one where Islam was spread by word and not sword.

· Even during the time of the Sikh empire, which like many I used to consider the Golden Age of Sikhs, after reading its history I realised it was the time when Sikh philosophy was likely diluted the most. The moment Sikhs seemed to have gotten a taste for sovereignty, self control and strictness to the Sikh Rehat seem to have become secondary.

· Following on from this, how do we clearly separate the so called “false gurus” like Ram Rahim from the true ones? If those rape and violence allegations hadn’t been found about him he could be easily looked at as a hero and the saviour of the poor and low castes. I’m not trying to equate the Sikh gurus to this man, they were far different in character from this man. But if the 10 Gurus weren’t the last and only, then why is it when one claims to be one in this day and age they are met with ridicule?


· Now moving onto Gurbani. It is beautiful, the meaning is deep and highly deserving of respect. But is it really divine? This query has been raised before and I will re-iterate it: The verses for the most part are repetitive. It is true this is not the case when they are read in their original form, but the meaning still tends to be repetitive. If I was to open up the SGGS at random pages, I’d almost all basically be reading the same verse but only written in a different way from a different author. I realise that the inclusion of several of authors signifies unity but reading the same over and over again doesn’t appear to me as source of ever increasing wisdom as I progress through the scripture. Comparing this to the Bible and the Quran, neither one of which I’ve yet accepted but it’s undeniable that they themselves have much more in terms of various examples and plenty of wisdom resides in them too. In addition to this, I have always wondered how Baba Fareed would feel about someone worshipping to their poetry/bani? If they were a Muslim, then someone praying to anything other than Allah/God would be the highest of sins.

· Some more matters that shook my faith: Why did some Gurus practice polygamy? There is historical evidence to support they did and those who refute this usually seem to speak from person opinion and emotion. I used to be of the thought if the Guru does something then I accept it since they know better. But come on, shouldn’t they have provided us with better guidelines? Islam and polygamy, something many love to bash – at least it provides strict guidelines for this. Idol worship – this is something Christians (excluding Catholics) and Muslims have a done a much better job at keeping it away. Criticism of Sikhs converting to other faiths such as Christianity – You know what, good for them if this provides them with a more caring community. I disagree with deception being used for such conversions, but otherwise I feel good for them. The fault lies on a lot (not all) of the Punjabi Sikh community itself. Why have Sikhs failed to spread the faith even over the Indian subcontinent itself? Why so much debate over a simple matter of canon scriptures (the Dasam Granth which oddly enough contains 2 of the prayers forming the Nitnem) and a matter of vegetarianism and meat eating? It should have been pretty clear thing laid out by the Gurus. Also this idea of Sikhs being encouraged to be critical thinkers but also not to question the Guru doesn’t quite go too well together.

I apologise for the hefty post, there’s plenty more I’d like to say but at least these things I had to get off my chest. Before this faith crises recently, the past 2-3 months is the most serious I had ever been about Sikhi. I woke up early every morning (even for which there seems to be some uncertainty regarding when exactly counts as amrit vela) and you know what it did make me feel better. Until I later begin to realise that this good feeling is likely something almost anyone turning to a healthy sleep schedule and a habit of meditation could likely acquire. Buddhists who don’t believe in the importance of faith in an eternal creator likely also reap the benefits of meditation.

Bottom point here: the good feeling one gets out of spirituality can be quite subjective. There are plenty of people out there who might follow a very different path and feel something from it and claim that it’s the true path since its working. That in itself is not a good enough reason for why a path is the true one. Truth in its nature is exclusive. The Bible claims authenticity through the fulfilments of prophecies it contains and The Quran through its prophecies and its literary perfection. I have not yet fully read either but intend to in order to see this for myself. I am far from the most intellectual or spiritually developed person, or the most well read in the SGGS or theology in general. But when I started to look at Sikhi a bit more objectively along with spiritually, all these were things I simply I couldn’t ignore. These are some of the issues I believe Sikhs need to deal with. For a faith which is meant to be built on inclusivity, I never even felt fully accepted as a proper Sikh since I am a Sehajdari.

If you took the time to read my post, I’d like to thank you. This challenge to the beliefs I held dear has left my restless and depressed, so if I hurt anyone’s sentiments then for that apologise and also for any incoherency in my writing. I really want to find truth is and have a genuine discussion based on reason and backing up of claims, rather than pure emotion and knowledge gained from word of mouth.

Bhul Chuk Maaf kareo.

Sat Sri Akaal,

Loosing faith is excellent idea for new researchers who have developed some event beyond existing truth.

but

one shall not loose faith in SELF.

Guru's bani is about SELF understanding of one's own MIND and interaction with Nature and Outer World.

How can one loose faith in SELF understanding

or

one has not understand the subject objectively.

When there are DOUBTS in SELF perception, learning is incomplete, faith comes after CLARITY of doubts.

Doubts
Shall I keep hair or not
Shall I eat flesh or not
Shall I drink alcohal or not
Shall I retain Monogamy or Polygamy are common dubious thoughts of being.
And with DOUBTS on issues one is always collecting information of votes on Pros and Cons to find MY WAY.
With DOUBTS on SELF one is not a learned.
One cannot show way to others.
As one contain. DOUBTS how it can give direction.

If one has to choose path acceptable to all through ages.

Make a choice.

How to choose a PATH

I have made my way.

If my mother/father/wife/son/ daughter follow this way no problem to SELF.

And if none follows still this is MY WAY as this is RIGHT as PATH give by my PREACHER GURU.
and is the righteous path without further dialogues/arguments.


That makes one learned.

POLYGAMY/ Drinking Alcohal/ Shedding Hair/ Flesh Eating
MONOGAMY / Not DRINKING / Keeping Hair/ Non Flesh Eating are PATH to Destination.

Be ONE to SELF which is righteous to SELF and OUTERSELF ones MOTHER FATHER BROTHER SISTER SON DAUGHTER. Be ONE with THEM(OUTER SELF ALSO with RIGHETOUSNESS and ONENESS in MIND.

One can always change the way one thinks and acceptable thoughts are find in other disciplines.

Nature has given abundant space to all thoughts. and all thoughts have physical space.

One can be MUSLIM and polygamist. One can live in those nations and accept them as a whole but not as a part.

Be ONE to get ONE.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

 

[sukhsingh]

Do you have faith in reason?

 

[sukhsingh]

multiple wives would question the very foundation of Sikhism regarding sexual equality, so it cannot be, could you explain it for me?

Does it question the very foundations of sikhi ?