Is Sikh Philosophy Only For Sikhs?

[Harjas Kaur Khalsa]

the focus is on one GOD not on the people what they beileve or preach.

But a forum is about many people with many ideas, some of them opposed, some even anti-Panthic, some deliberately distorting mainstream Sikhi, and some with missionary agenda.

Yes, you are correct Sikh philosophy is for everyone. But the debates result from the above differences in approach. I was countering about fanatics, since very often Sikhs themselves are criticized as fanatics for trying to define carefully and not get swept away by contrary agendas.

Just an opinion. I am not saying you are wrong.

 

[kaur-1]

aad0002 writes: "I haven't found either Kaur1 or Surinder Kaur Cheema to be disinterested in other points of view. Both have engaged me."

I wish I could say the same. Please look at the previous threads and you will see that they appear quite content to muffle proper discussion through the inveterate use of ad hominem arguments. They seem to be less interested in what you say than in who you are, which is very unfortunate.

Nadeem,
I joined this forum site as it stated under the banner " Sikhism Philosophy Network" "Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve" and I assumed it meant to "Think Discuss Share Learn Evolve" Gur Sikhi and to discuss in a sensible manner inter faith dialogue.

Yes SPN is for all but all I could see from your post's (which I many say have been deleted along with other members to control the 'situation' that you instigated here)
- is NO sign of learning or asking question in relation to learning about Gur Sikhi.

- I do know that you are engaged to a Sikh girl and therefore in your own strange way has made an attempt in at least posting in a Sikh forum. BUT as I can see NO ATTEMPT has been made to learn about Gurbani.

- All I can decipher from your long winded essay type post on this thread is a CRY BABY attitude.

And like a CRY BABY you have picked my name and Surinder bhenji's to exclude as you are "upset" like a cry baby with us and picked 2 names and underlined them to praise.

A Sikh doesnt want or need praises from anyone except Akal Purakh. A Sikh especially one on the path to Gursikhi is also not a coward or is afraid of anyone. The only being he/she is afraid of is Akal Purkh ji.

I am posting my feedback here as this thread is a sticky and has my name on it.

Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru ji Ki Fateh

 

[kds1980]

I do know that you are engaged to a Sikh girl and therefore in your own strange way has made an attempt in at least posting in a Sikh forum. BUT as I can see NO ATTEMPT has been made to learn about Gurbani.

kaur-1 ji did he told you that he is engaged to a sikh girl?because as far as i know he never said it on spn that he is engaged to a sikh girl.

 

[Arvind]

"Sikh Philosophy Network" and Sikhi is for ALL whoever wants to walk on this panoramic path.

I went through the complete thread and this made a nice reading with lot of food for thoughts.

Regards, Arvind.

 

[kaur-1]

kaur-1 ji did he told you that he is engaged to a sikh girl?because as far as i know he never said it on spn that he is engaged to a sikh girl.

Someone else informed me when I inquired about him. Only women can spot cry babies a mile away. he he.

 

[kds1980]

Someone else informed me when I inquired about him. Only women can spot cry babies a mile away. he he.

if this is true then all the nadeem's preaching of tolerance is hypocracy.muslims like makkanz and nadeem are on sikh sites preaching sikh's about tolerance just because they have sikh girlfriends.on the other hand their own people are highly intolerant.they should
first visit muslim sites and see the amount of tolerance muslims have.sometimes back i posted a link of ummah.com about a muslim girl wants to marry a sikh guy.the muslim administraters don't even allow any type of advice apart from converting sikh guy to islam
or leaving him.all the other type of advice is deleted by moderators.this type of tolerance their co-religionists have.

If i am living in joint family of 20 people where 16 out 20 persons pick up useless fights with neighbours and in retaliation some neighbours also hate me for belonging to that family.In that case i don't have any right to preach tolerance to my neighbours instead i should told my family members not to engage in useless fights.this is the right way to preach tolerance.

 

[spnadmin]

Kaur-1

What you report below happens too often and you are completely justified in your reaction -- not that you need me to say this.

... you have picked my name and Surinder bhenji's to exclude as you are "upset" like a cry baby with us and picked 2 names and underlined them to praise.

More than once I have observed this pattern. One or two people get singled out as the villains. One or two people get singled out as angels. In any other discussion (at the dinner table, at a meeting at work) this would be viewed as an obvious attempt to divide and manipulate in order keep bad blood flowing. To give the person who is doing this divisive thing momentary control of the conversation. WHAT IS GAINED BY THAT?

On a larger scale, this is how political and religious and cultural animosity escalate into catastrophes on the world stage. On our smaller stage we can be bigger people.

And a final word regarding Surinder and Kaur-1. Let us ask ourselves in complete candor-- Do you want someone/anyone to tell you what you want to hear, or someone to make you think?

 

[Nadeem]

kaur-1 claims that upon reading my various postings "there is NO sign of learning or asking question in relation to learning about Gur Sikhi". I am wondering if Kaur-ji really believes this statement or if she actually thinks a non-Sikh can really attempt to understand Sikhism while they are being called names like "cry baby" and "is engaged to a Sikh girl"? If I intend to understand Gur Sikhi at least I now know where NOT to go. Many Thanks Kaur-ji and a few sympathizers.


At least I know I cannot get side-tracked by some of the poseur postings in this thread; as a non-Sikh interested in Sikh philosophy I need not pretend that the formula: Ik ōaṅkār sat nām kartā purkh nirbha'u nirvair akāl mūrat ajūnī saibhaṃ gur prasād encompasses anything sectarian as oddly suggested by a very small minority in this thread. The words 'Niravairu' (without hate) are basic requirements and yet for some minds exceedingly difficult to obtain. However, this point cannot be properly understood without the requisite mental attitude which, unfortunately, remains solely the responsibility of their owners and is not a reflection of Sikhism under the pristine Guidance of the Guru!

 

[kaur-1]

Dear Nadeem ji,
There are plenty of non-Sikhs and new to GurSikhi members here genuinely trying to learn Gur Sikhi. You are most welcome here.

There are plenty of links here for all of us to discuss and learn from. Life is too short so stop winning and start learning.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Is Sikh Philosophy Only for Sikhs?

Interesting topic. Captivating discussion. Some with the benefit of the doubt. Some with the grain of salt. Some listen. Some talk. Some loving. Some caustic. Some understanding. Some condescending. Some with a chip on the shoulder. Some with the ears and eyes wide open. Some disdainful. Some drenched with passion. Some non- chalant. Some totally focused. Some peeking out from the dogmatic walls. Some trying to get a glance inside the compounds surrounded by those same walls. Some into religions. Some into a way of life. Some fearful of death. Some welcome it with open arms. Some ready to savour life. Some too scared to come out of the fetal position. Some wait for miracles. Some make miracles by using goodness as the only ingredient. Some in cages. Some soaring like free birds.Some ready to embrace. Some quick to discard.

Ah! the facets of a Sikh, who is the amalgam of all the above. Afterall a student, a learner, a seeker- a Sikh, is always open to learning. That’s his/her duty- Dharam.

Is Sikh a Philosophy?

Yes. It is. A philosophy constructed without dogmatic walls. A philosophy where Spiritual and Temporal are like Ying & Yang. One can not exist without the other but rather compliment each other. A philosophy based on Objective reality. Not on Subjective Truths.

Is it only for the Sikhs?


According to Sikhi, All of those who are ready to learn are Sikhs. That’s why one is not born a Sikh but becomes one.

And how do we do that?

Gurbani says:

Gaviei, sunihiei man rakheei bhao, Dukh bhar ghar sukh ghar lei jaie.(SGGS Page2)

By singing together, listening to each other and contemplating on what is being said so that the message can be put into practice. Only by doing this we shed ignorance and overcome the sufferings in order to become the Peace Warriors- Sant Sipahis.
The duty for every Sikh is to convert this beautiful poetry into prose and enjoy the metamorphosis- the journey of a Sikh.

Sikhi is not a relgion but a way of life. A way of life needs no dogmas but a willingness to learn.

For a Sikh, All are children of ONE SOURCE- IK ONG KAAR. None is of a lesser god.

My 2 cents.
Tejwant

 

[spnadmin]

VaheguruSeekr,

Once again on the verge of tears (so far only Surinder has been able to move me to tears) your essay is poetry -- especially moving is the idea of turning poetry into the prose of everyday life.

Thanks from us.

 

[roopsidhu]

Dear Aman ji,
All the wise heads should respect to the views expressed by you. Really the way you think, shall surely take the message of our beloved Gurus to the masses. Keep it up Aman ji. Perfect philosophies should not shy away from debates or discussion. Narrow mindedness is the product of the fear and the open mindedness is a proof of our trust in our philosophy. A soft touch of a key is always the better option than a blow of a hammer to open a closed lock.
Roop Sidhu

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant,

Interesting, but perhaps you could also post my brief 2 cents worth. I
feel compelled to raise two matters -- very briefly:

First is the statement that Sikhism is not a religion but a way of
life. I have heard this before not only pertaining o Sikhi but also in
defining Hindui tradition. I would thing that every philosophhy, when it
becomes a guiding way for its followers, becomes a way of life. If a
religion talks about how it expects its followers to behave and cnduct
their lives, then is it not a way of life? Or am I missing something
here?

the second matter stems from the title of the thread: Is Sikh
philosophy only for Sikhs? Once again, if I beleive the captalist or
socialist philosophy, I would cast my lifestyle and mold my life according to
that philosophy, and that woulkd make me a capitalist or a socialist
etc. True that I may see my lifestyle not entirely capitalist or
socialist and may see large chinks between what I believe and what I practice.
Nevertheless the label -- capitalist or socialist -- would still
apply to me.

I see similar logic in the religious lable trhat we wear.

So a Sikh is one who hears and believes the Sikh philosophy, and tries
to mold hhis lifestyle according to Sikh philosophy. Any one who then
adopts the sikh philosophy is no longer a non-Sikh.

I think this should provoke some discussion.

All the best
Inder
I.J. Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Vaheguru ji,

These are some very interesting statements you have made. I wanted to react to them.

"If a religion talks about how it expects its followers to behave and cnduct their lives, then is it not a way of life? Or am I missing something
here?" You are not missing anything. All religions impose a moral imperative on their followers. Religions may do this more or less. But is there any religion that does not also lay out a moral course of action? A moral imperative causes us to think about our accountability, to what and to whom. The journey of the Soul, particularly in Sikhism, does not absolve anyone, even a sadhu, from considering personal moral obligations in a serious way. To value seva, as an example, is to value one important path to serve and realize God -- so Sikhs do seva.

S. Ragjbir Singh even argued that Sikhs court martyrdom. He was not suggesting that Sikhs run like a horde of lemmings over the edge of a cliff without concern for their material well-being. He was arguing that in living the life of a Sikh there will be times when one must take a stand even when it is very likely that the result will be uncomfortable or dangerous or even deadly. And one must encourage others to do likewise.

"Once again, if I beleive the captalist or
socialist philosophy, I would cast my lifestyle and mold my life according to
that philosophy, and that woulkd make me a capitalist or a socialist
etc. " Not only does this statement make sense, this is what happens when we think about the decisions we make and values we espouse-- assuming that we spend some time reflecting about this. For example, a person might ask, "Why is it that I object to having my taxes spent on services for schools and colleges with religious affiliations?" (This is true in the US, perhaps not elsewhere). The fact someone asks this question is a reflection of his/her political values. So if I don't ask, "Well where do I stand on social or moral issues related to the values of Sikhism?" I may be living with a label but not living in an identity. Kind of a hollow life-style. Suggests that I may not have made a conscious decision about my values or my choices in life. And moral choices are necessarily conscious choices-- if they are not conscious and deliberate, then they are just habits. And we don't deserve any special credit for our habits here on earth or after death.

Thanks for a chance to chime in. Hoping that this discussion moves onward.

 

[gsang]

NO! sikh Philosophy is for all people.