Mere Sikhi
- Thread starter Mai Harinder Kaur
- Start date
- Replies 86
- Reads 19K
-
- Tags
- mere sikh essentials sikhi sikhism
Dear Kulbirs,
Thank you for the support. In my understanding Nanakwent to Macca to know more about the Islam. He did not go there to teach and liberate Muslim. When Nanak grew up there were Muslim in ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>. The Muslim does not believe in rebirth. Hindus and other religion that were from Hindus did believe it. He was curious about it so that’s why he went to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Mecca</st1:city>. When he went there he found that they also are caught up the surreptitious rituals as the Hindus were. There no mention of Jews Christians in his bani. He may not have encountered any Christians in <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>. There have been Christians in India since the 1rst century CE, and Jews before that.
So he had no idea about the Christians and Jews. There was no need to go to <st1lace w:st="on">Europe. He did not go there for site seeing.
It is a rule in this forum that Gurbani is not on discussion table here. But how can we know what is correct or wrong? As I was growing up the moolmanter was read as
This is not true. Gurbani is discussed every day throughout this forum. Narayanjot Kaur
Ek omkar. It has been changed few times since then. Now it is read as ak ong kar. Which one is right? Were the bhai ji of the 40’s to 70 were wrong? Or because the <st1lace w:st="on">Om is Hindu word and it should not be read as om?
The other is: soche soche na hoi, je soche lakh bar. As we all understood then that even u think of some thing lakh bar it is no use till you do it. Now I hear that It is soch as sucha=clean? Sat Sing Maskeen was the first that I heard to say that. Which one is correct? Maskeen also claim that Kirpan is not a sword but is kirpa that guru did on us? For 300 years we been carrying sword for nothing? That’s why I said in my last post that there should be one body that control what is being preached.
Here I am not criticizing gubani I just want to know which one is correct. As far as the 10<sup>th</sup> granth does not look like any of the bani is written by Gobind Singh. As all of you can see in the adi Granth the ending of a salok shabd is with the name of Nanak. There is not a single shabad, sloke end with Nanak’s name. Guru Tegbhader ji’s bani also ended with Nanak’s name. Why then Gobind Singh’s bani don’t end with Nanak’s name? As it is stated that all the bani was lost in the sarsa nadi when they left Anadpur.
The big fuss in <st1lace w:st="on">Punjab about Darshan Singh is that he is insulting the Bani and insulting Guru Gobind Singh. Are all those SGPC and Dall are blind or they cant read what is written in the 10<sup>th</sup> granth? The peson who compiled it did he not read what is written and he is copping it?
Some one more knowledge can put more light on it.
By asking God of any name to give is the wisdom to understand. I think it is not the right-way to go. God have nothing to do with it. We created the problem and we should solve it
Seeker3k
Most of this is not on the subject of the thread. The thread has been wandering now for a day. Please return to Mere Sikhi.
Thank you for the support. In my understanding Nanakwent to Macca to know more about the Islam. He did not go there to teach and liberate Muslim. When Nanak grew up there were Muslim in ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
lace w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>. The Muslim does not believe in rebirth. Hindus and other religion that were from Hindus did believe it. He was curious about it so that’s why he went to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Mecca</st1:city>. When he went there he found that they also are caught up the surreptitious rituals as the Hindus were. There no mention of Jews Christians in his bani. He may not have encountered any Christians in <st1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>. There have been Christians in India since the 1rst century CE, and Jews before that. So he had no idea about the Christians and Jews. There was no need to go to <st1
lace w:st="on">Europe. He did not go there for site seeing. It is a rule in this forum that Gurbani is not on discussion table here. But how can we know what is correct or wrong? As I was growing up the moolmanter was read as
This is not true. Gurbani is discussed every day throughout this forum. Narayanjot Kaur
Ek omkar. It has been changed few times since then. Now it is read as ak ong kar. Which one is right? Were the bhai ji of the 40’s to 70 were wrong? Or because the <st1
lace w:st="on">Om is Hindu word and it should not be read as om?The other is: soche soche na hoi, je soche lakh bar. As we all understood then that even u think of some thing lakh bar it is no use till you do it. Now I hear that It is soch as sucha=clean? Sat Sing Maskeen was the first that I heard to say that. Which one is correct? Maskeen also claim that Kirpan is not a sword but is kirpa that guru did on us? For 300 years we been carrying sword for nothing? That’s why I said in my last post that there should be one body that control what is being preached.
Here I am not criticizing gubani I just want to know which one is correct. As far as the 10<sup>th</sup> granth does not look like any of the bani is written by Gobind Singh. As all of you can see in the adi Granth the ending of a salok shabd is with the name of Nanak. There is not a single shabad, sloke end with Nanak’s name. Guru Tegbhader ji’s bani also ended with Nanak’s name. Why then Gobind Singh’s bani don’t end with Nanak’s name? As it is stated that all the bani was lost in the sarsa nadi when they left Anadpur.
The big fuss in <st1
lace w:st="on">Punjab about Darshan Singh is that he is insulting the Bani and insulting Guru Gobind Singh. Are all those SGPC and Dall are blind or they cant read what is written in the 10<sup>th</sup> granth? The peson who compiled it did he not read what is written and he is copping it?Some one more knowledge can put more light on it.
By asking God of any name to give is the wisdom to understand. I think it is not the right-way to go. God have nothing to do with it. We created the problem and we should solve it
Seeker3k
Most of this is not on the subject of the thread. The thread has been wandering now for a day. Please return to Mere Sikhi.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSA,
Unless a full and frank discussion is allowed, we may never come any way near an accurate answer.
R we going to pussyfoot arround, make up rules to avoid arguments, (upsetting people), or r we going to search 4 the truth?
Accuracy is of paramount importance, it leads to the truth, and the truth my friend, shall set u (n possibly everyone) Free!!!
Would be Much obliged if if this question is allowed room to expand n explore this theme fully.
Thanks very much in advance.
Last edited by a moderator:
sphuling ji
I am not sure which rules your perceive are "made up" in order "to avoid arguments."
We need to abide by Forum rules and staying on topic is one of them. :blinkingkaur:
Definitely, these are important topics and we need to explore their themes "fully." So we should do that in separate threads to keep this discussion on track.
:happykaur:
I will assist in that regard. Your perceptions are very relevant..
Dear Kulbirs,
Ek omkar. It has been changed few times since then. Now it is read as ak ong kar. Which one is right? Were the bhai ji of the 40’s to 70 were wrong? Or because the <st1
The other is: soche soche na hoi, je soche lakh bar. As we all understood then that even u think of some thing lakh bar it is no use till you do it. Now I hear that It is soch as sucha=clean? Sat Sing Maskeen was the first that I heard to say that. Which one is correct? Maskeen also claim that Kirpan is not a sword but is kirpa that guru did on us? For 300 years we been carrying sword for nothing? That’s why I said in my last post that there should be one body that control what is being preached.
Here I am not criticizing gubani I just want to know which one is correct. As far as the 10<sup>th</sup> granth does not look like any of the bani is written by Gobind Singh. As all of you can see in the adi Granth the ending of a salok shabd is with the name of Nanak. There is not a single shabad, sloke end with Nanak’s name. Guru Tegbhader ji’s bani also ended with Nanak’s name. Why then Gobind Singh’s bani don’t end with Nanak’s name? As it is stated that all the bani was lost in the sarsa nadi when they left Anadpur.
The big fuss in <st1
Some one more knowledge can put more light on it.
By asking God of any name to give is the wisdom to understand. I think it is not the right-way to go. God have nothing to do with it. We created the problem and we should solve it
Seeker3k
Seekr3k and sphuling ji
Here is how we can break down Seeker3k's suggestions so that we can see how many new threads to start and what they might be about.
Ek omkar. It has been changed few times since then. Now it is read as ak ong kar. Which one is right? Were the bhai ji of the 40’s to 70 were wrong? Or because the <st1
lace w:st="on">Om is Hindu word and it should not be read as om?1. Why are there different readings of the mool mantar?
The other is: soche soche na hoi, je soche lakh bar. As we all understood then that even u think of some thing lakh bar it is no use till you do it. Now I hear that It is soch as sucha=clean? Sat Sing Maskeen was the first that I heard to say that. Which one is correct?
2. What is Gyani Maskeen ji's vichaar of soche soche na hoi, je osche lakh bar? How does he explain his views?
Maskeen also claim that Kirpan is not a sword but is kirpa that guru did on us? For 300 years we been carrying sword for nothing?
3. Can we discuss Gyani Makeen ji's understanding of "kirpan?"
That’s why I said in my last post that there should be one body that control what is being preached.
4. Should Sikhism have one body or panel that controls what is preached regarding the basic beliefs of Sikhism?
As far as the 10<sup>th</sup> granth does not look like any of the bani is written by Gobind Singh. As all of you can see in the adi Granth the ending of a salok shabd is with the name of Nanak. There is not a single shabad, sloke end with Nanak’s name. Guru Tegbhader ji’s bani also ended with Nanak’s name. Why then Gobind Singh’s bani don’t end with Nanak’s name?
5. Why do none of the hymns within the "Dasam" Granth end with Nanak's name, as do the shabads and salokas of Sri Guru Granth Sahib? Is this further evidence of inconsistencies between these granths?
The big fuss in <st1
lace w:st="on">Punjab about Darshan Singh is that he is insulting the Bani and insulting Guru Gobind Singh. Are all those SGPC and Dall are blind or they cant read what is written in the 10<sup>th</sup> granth? The peson who compiled it did he not read what is written and he is copping it?6. What yardstick or measure was used by the SGPC and Akaal Takht and the Dal's to judge what is written in the "10th" Granth? Did Darshan Singh really insult Guru Gobind Singh?
By asking God of any name to give is the wisdom to understand. I think it is not the right-way to go. God have nothing to do with it. We created the problem and we should solve it
Should we, Sikhs, ask God for the wisdom to understand our problems? Or, should be accept responsibility for problems we have created, and solve them on our own?
If there are any more digressions, these new threads will be started and comments will be moved accordingly. And irrelevant comments past, present and future will be either deleted or moved.
Last edited by a moderator:
My humble oppinion is, it will expand, digress, definitions given, exchanged, then at some point it will start to contract, and we will start to get near 'Mere Sikhy'.
Different threads will make that process much mor difficult.
So Please, Please let it run as is.
Thanks very much in advance.
Different threads will make that process much mor difficult.
So Please, Please let it run as is.
Thanks very much in advance.
Yes that sounds ggod, if all are aggreeable, lets do it this way.We can name titles of the thread like "Mere Sikhi - Question One 1 and so on...", how about that? and we can post a link to the original topic (this one) at the top of the first post of each sub-threads.
Thanks for listening.
WKWF:
You all are correct that we should stick to Mere Sikhi thread, Mr. Seeker3K is going out of track, as he has no knowledge of Guru Nanak travels. There were plenty of hindus in punjab, then why Guru Nanak went to important religious places of Hindus. The semitic religions - Islam, Christians, and Jews they all refer their holy book as book - Kateb as said by Guru Nanak, Guru Nanak dev ji bani when refers 'kateb', it means religious text of semitic religions.
Similary, 'Simritis' refer to scriptures of Buddhism and Jains.
Guru Nanak needs no sight seeing either to Europe or else where, he was messenger of Almighty, for him, nothing was impossible. Wisdom is a boon only given to few by HIM, and one should ask from HIM to guide, even if you say it was our mistake not Gods. Kindly correct your understanding of religion and langauge. My Almighty give you wisdom!
MIND YOUR LANGUAGE WHEN YOU REFER TO GURUS...........................
And STICK TO THE THREAD Mr. Seeker3k.
No more discussion except MERE SIKHI. If you have stuff for Mere Sikhi speak, or search some other forum.
GUR FATEH.
You all are correct that we should stick to Mere Sikhi thread, Mr. Seeker3K is going out of track, as he has no knowledge of Guru Nanak travels. There were plenty of hindus in punjab, then why Guru Nanak went to important religious places of Hindus. The semitic religions - Islam, Christians, and Jews they all refer their holy book as book - Kateb as said by Guru Nanak, Guru Nanak dev ji bani when refers 'kateb', it means religious text of semitic religions.
Similary, 'Simritis' refer to scriptures of Buddhism and Jains.
Guru Nanak needs no sight seeing either to Europe or else where, he was messenger of Almighty, for him, nothing was impossible. Wisdom is a boon only given to few by HIM, and one should ask from HIM to guide, even if you say it was our mistake not Gods. Kindly correct your understanding of religion and langauge. My Almighty give you wisdom!
MIND YOUR LANGUAGE WHEN YOU REFER TO GURUS...........................And STICK TO THE THREAD Mr. Seeker3k.
No more discussion except MERE SIKHI. If you have stuff for Mere Sikhi speak, or search some other forum.
GUR FATEH.
Harry Rakhraj
SPNer
- Jan 16, 2010
- 36
- 69
I am gratified that people like Kulbirs also write on this Forum. These are the kind of people who go beyond the ' matha tek', 'try to listen to gurbani recital' and bring a new approach to understanding the ethos of Sikhi.
Thank you Kulbirs ji, just for being you.
Thank you Kulbirs ji, just for being you.
Vaheguru ji ka khalsa! Vaheguru ji ki fateh!!
[Kulbirs ji,
Although you were not addressing me, you are, of course correct. I have amended this post to bwgin with a proper greeting.]
How do we, as Sikhs, perceive The Eternal? Certainly, this would be a part of "mere Sikhi." "The Eternal" is the phrase I usually use when writing as the English term "God" might conjure up the abrahamic image of the nasty old man with the long white beard pointing out all our shortcomings. Certainly not a part of Sikhi, mere or otherwise.
I am wondering if, perhaps, we need to be careful when referring to the Eternal. As The Eternal is genderless, I have experimented with pronouns. For one year, I used "he," the next year "she," and the next "it." Although both he and she are inaccurate, a case could be made for using "he," as The Eternal is referred to as our bridegroom. A problem with the use of the masculine pronoun is that is reinforces the patriarchal aspect of culture, notably Punjabi culture, that we, as Sikhs, are trying to overcome (aren't we?). I believe, however, that the only way that is not misleading is to use the neutral pronoun "It." I am pretty consistent in my usage. I believe "It" fits the Mool Mantar and the spirit of Shri Guru Granth Sahib ji.
ikonkaar
[Kulbirs ji,
Although you were not addressing me, you are, of course correct. I have amended this post to bwgin with a proper greeting.]
How do we, as Sikhs, perceive The Eternal? Certainly, this would be a part of "mere Sikhi." "The Eternal" is the phrase I usually use when writing as the English term "God" might conjure up the abrahamic image of the nasty old man with the long white beard pointing out all our shortcomings. Certainly not a part of Sikhi, mere or otherwise.
I am wondering if, perhaps, we need to be careful when referring to the Eternal. As The Eternal is genderless, I have experimented with pronouns. For one year, I used "he," the next year "she," and the next "it." Although both he and she are inaccurate, a case could be made for using "he," as The Eternal is referred to as our bridegroom. A problem with the use of the masculine pronoun is that is reinforces the patriarchal aspect of culture, notably Punjabi culture, that we, as Sikhs, are trying to overcome (aren't we?). I believe, however, that the only way that is not misleading is to use the neutral pronoun "It." I am pretty consistent in my usage. I believe "It" fits the Mool Mantar and the spirit of Shri Guru Granth Sahib ji.
ikonkaar
Last edited:
Dear Harry:
SSA
Listening to Gurbani is one part, reading it, understanding it and imbibing it is most important to be a Gursikh. When you hear recital of Gurbani, you hear what is being recorded or being sung by a ragi who may choose a shabad for an occasion or his liking. But when you read, you read anything and everything in Guru Granth Sahib. Mata-Tek is showing your respect, but imbibing is more important.
If people like you also write on this kind of forum without even starting with SSA or WKWF, Almighty save this coming new generation, who lives in a modern and western world, forgetting that there are hundreds and thousands of Sikhs in India who even do not know whom we Sikhs worship. Be practical and rational when you type something.
May Almighty give you wisdom. kindly stick to the Theme - MERE SIKHI.
Gur Fateh.
SSA
Listening to Gurbani is one part, reading it, understanding it and imbibing it is most important to be a Gursikh. When you hear recital of Gurbani, you hear what is being recorded or being sung by a ragi who may choose a shabad for an occasion or his liking. But when you read, you read anything and everything in Guru Granth Sahib. Mata-Tek is showing your respect, but imbibing is more important.
If people like you also write on this kind of forum without even starting with SSA or WKWF, Almighty save this coming new generation, who lives in a modern and western world, forgetting that there are hundreds and thousands of Sikhs in India who even do not know whom we Sikhs worship. Be practical and rational when you type something.
May Almighty give you wisdom. kindly stick to the Theme - MERE SIKHI.
Gur Fateh.
WKWF:
You all are correct that we should stick to Mere Sikhi thread, Mr. Seeker3K is going out of track, as he has no knowledge of Guru Nanak travels. There were plenty of hindus in punjab, then why Guru Nanak went to important religious places of Hindus. The semitic religions - Islam, Christians, and Jews they all refer their holy book as book - Kateb as said by Guru Nanak, Guru Nanak dev ji bani when refers 'kateb', it means religious text of semitic religions.
Similary, 'Simritis' refer to scriptures of Buddhism and Jains.
Guru Nanak needs no sight seeing either to Europe or else where, he was messenger of Almighty, for him, nothing was impossible. Wisdom is a boon only given to few by HIM, and one should ask from HIM to guide, even if you say it was our mistake not Gods. Kindly correct your understanding of religion and langauge. My Almighty give you wisdom!
And STICK TO THE THREAD Mr. Seeker3k.
No more discussion except MERE SIKHI. If you have stuff for Mere Sikhi speak, or search some other forum.
GUR FATEH.
You have spoken very wisely spoken. <?"urn:
fficeffice" /><o
> </o>TRUTH ALWAYS HURT.
<o
> </o>Has any Hindus complain when you refer just ram Krishan gita ?
If we are stuck in the names then who is going to help us?
Last edited by a moderator:
Waheguru Ji Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.
Dear Mai Harinder Kaur ji.
Though I am aware of the Almighty's genderlessness, my apologies for referring IT as HIM or HER. I will be careful in future about this.
I am working on 'Mere Sikhi', as you have started an excellent discussion, and I want to be one of the contributory to it.
Thank you.
Gur Fateh.
Dear Mai Harinder Kaur ji.
Though I am aware of the Almighty's genderlessness, my apologies for referring IT as HIM or HER. I will be careful in future about this.
I am working on 'Mere Sikhi', as you have started an excellent discussion, and I want to be one of the contributory to it.
Thank you.
Gur Fateh.
As I keep thinking about this topic, it seems to me that any distillation of Sikhi to its essence would have to start with Naam. Certainly Naam distinguishes Sikhi from all other religions. There are other religions/philosophy that have great similarities to Sikhi. I think immediately of the Tao Te Ching of Taoism.
What is lacking, making the whole system incomplete and not very useful is Naam. That looks simple enough at first glance, but in fact, it opens another can of worms. What is Naam? I think that must be question must be answered in some way before we can go much farther, at least before I can go much farther.
(I think we need a smiling questioning smiley, too.)
What is lacking, making the whole system incomplete and not very useful is Naam. That looks simple enough at first glance, but in fact, it opens another can of worms. What is Naam? I think that must be question must be answered in some way before we can go much farther, at least before I can go much farther.
(I think we need a smiling questioning smiley, too.)
Harry Rakhraj
SPNer
- Jan 16, 2010
- 36
- 69
I appreciate Mai Harinder Kaur ji's latest post on ' mere Sikhi '. It brings a totally new dynamic to the subject: Naam.
I am totally wowed by her perceptiveness!
I only wish I had thought of this myself.
Gurfateh.
I am totally wowed by her perceptiveness!
I only wish I had thought of this myself.
Gurfateh.
Last edited:
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
