Occultism - Rejection In Sikh Reht Maryada (SRM)

Luckysingh · Oct 16, 2012

Because I believe that we do have to know the criteria and myths behind the mentionings to get a thorough understanding.
I was going to find some material that should prove all the 4 points as wrong.

As this would be talking the matter off-topic even further, then maybe a new thread should be started.
I will let you guys proceed with the decision!mundahug:sippingcoffeemunda:

Harry Haller · Oct 16, 2012

Luckysingh said:
Because I believe that we do have to know the criteria and myths behind the mentionings to get a thorough understanding.
I was going to find some material that should prove all the 4 points as wrong.

As this would be talking the matter off-topic even further, then maybe a new thread should be started.
I will let you guys proceed with the decision!mundahug:sippingcoffeemunda:

I do not believe it would take the matter off-topic, this would strengthen the argument that occultism does exist, I would be interested to read and debate it.

Ambarsaria · Oct 16, 2012

Luckysingh ji I do not agree with the rephrasing of the points I listed. Some comments for your consideration.

Luckysingh said:
1) You don't need to understand the mythological characters mentioned or the brief stories behind them to deeply understand the message in gurbani.
i) [/FONT]First person addressing in such instances is to the people addressed
ii) [/FONT]I do not make any reference to “deeply understand”
iii) [/FONT]This is a way of backdoor to claim that others who don’t will not deeply understand

Luckysingh said:
2) These references are just in there for that audience of that time and can be ignored by the rest.
i) I do not say that
ii) India abounds today with the same people on a comeback trail against all that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji espouses

Luckysingh said:
3) They are included so as to highlight their falsehoods..etc.for those followers.
i) Veer Luckysingh ji fallacies and falsehoods are different things. Fallacies as I referred to are the objectives set against certain beliefs. Like you will find heaven or peace if you did Sharadh for those who passed away. If a Pandit says and makes that association that is a type of fallacy that Guru ji have elicited much in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Luckysingh said:
4) We do NOT need to learn of the stories and myths behind mentioned figures as this may take us further away from gurmat and sikhi as opposed to bringing us closer to the guru's word.
i) Take the stories out of the equation and study the rest of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and see if you have any time left. Guru ji discouraged elitism, the tools are much within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to understand. You don’t need compendiums of Vedas, Yogic writings, and other stuff to understand Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
ii) Guess what techniques were being used who had people in sorry state that Guru ji tried to help. Much the same as such Pandits, Yogis, etc., claimed to have higher knowledge, deeply understood (icecreammunda) and actually even claimed to have found creator/God and were the go between to help facilitate your meeting. Does it remind you of any present day Dehras in Punjab following this tactic let alone the main religions in India.

Luckysingh said:
If I am wrong about these 4 conclusions then I do apologise and will step back from this subject and re-approach it with a fresher mindset.

No need to apologize as no Sikh is a Guru to anyone else inspite of Bhagatsingh ji’s desire to so worship me (lol) by using absurd words like “Guru” close to my name. I should send him my fee/Dakshna structure!

Sat Sri Akal.

Kanwaljit.Singh · Oct 17, 2012

An article with discussion on Bhoot Pret and how they lead to Occultism:
http://www.thelivingtreasure.org/articles/bhoot, pret, jinn, betaal.pdf

findingmyway · Oct 17, 2012

Luckysingh said:
I'm not too sure about points 3 and 4.
As I have come to understand that none of these characters or deities were ever denied by the Guru.
.
Let's think a minute- If that shabad was being explained to my kids, the first thing they will ask is -'' Were these people real ?''
If I say they were not, we don't believe in them as we believe in sikhism, then they will further question
-'' Why does the guru mention them then, if they were fake ?''

This is where, I as an adult have to think of 'what I should say without confusing them ?'

Have you never used examples with witches, fairies, santa claus etc to illustrate a point to a child? Have you ever told a child to eat their spinach so they will grow strong like Popeye? It is easy to use such concepts as it quickly makes a point and allows a whole classful of children to quickly understand you. All are mythical creatures, which children often believ as real. Is you talking about them an endorsement that they are real? Poetry contains metaphors!

Why are we even bickering about MYTHOLOGY? Surely it is the lessons that are important? When we are taught to worship only ikonkaar how can the message being given possibly be to worship any other deity?

Please please can we remember to debate topics and not personalities. Thank you.

Luckysingh · Oct 17, 2012

We are not talking about alternative worship if that's what you feel.

It is simple talk of how important it is to know some background on the mentioned figures in relation to a particular shabad.
No harm done, no alternative worship or praising.
It's a simple matter that can get easily confused.

BhagatSingh · Oct 17, 2012

Harryji,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-...ction-sikh-reht-maryada-srm-2.html#post174295

Firstly, I am neither ridiculing you nor Ambarsaria ji, nor any of your claims. I find them absurd. I am pointing out the way in which your claims are absurd. The absurdity lies in dismissing the need to understand the context of a given piece of work when you do not know about nor belong to that context.

Secondly, I understand you don't have the time to learn each and every detail, which is all the more reason to be more open-minded and respectful towards individuals who claim they know something about the bani, and to individuals who belong to a similar culture of Guru sahibs (I remember Kamala ji and Amarjit Bamrah ji etc, there were many more. They have left due to harshness of the responses they got. Now granted Kamala ji is very young but you get the point. You know very well how you responded to them. It was entirely unnecessary and you missed opportunities to further your understanding... just saying).

Thirdly, I know you aren't going to study Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in depth nor meditate. That's fine by me. I have no issue with your way of life. You said you did seva and daan, that's more than good. In fact, knowing that those things are good, it is your duty to do them. I think it's great that you offer free service and free things to your clients, etc. You are an admirable person, and I have always considered you as a friend ever since our conversations from your first summer in SPN. My issue is simply with the thoughts and ideas that you presented.

If that's clear and we can now stop taking offence where none is intended, let's talk about the ideas.

it is the message that is important

The message of bani is important and is made clearer in the light of the context. Subtle and deep intellectual understanding comes from studying what is stated and the context, you cannot separate what is stated from the context. In fact, they are so entwined, one is deficient when the other is removed.

And not just studying it but studying it properly without presumptions, and shedding presumptions when necessary (differentiating intellectual understanding from the understanding that comes from meditation and practice of the message. Both are types of understandings are equally important. They do overlap quite a bit.). Thus context is important.

Is this because Islam already shared the concept of one God, without form, without birth or death.

Where there is contradiction, I think the bigger hand wins.

This is only part of the theology. There is no winning hand here. All cards are of almost equal importance. God being without form does not mean He is without form. He is unborn or beyond species (ajuni) does not mean he is unborn.

He is with form and without form simultaneously:
ਸਹਸ ਤਵ ਨੈਨ ਨਨ ਨੈਨ ਹਹਿ ਤੋਹਿ ਕਉ ਸਹਸ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਨਨਾ ਏਕ ਤਹੀ ॥
You have thousands of eyes, and yet You have no eyes. You have thousands of forms, and yet You do not have even one. - Page 13

At other times, there is a specific, sacred form:

ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਮਾਲਾ ਤਿਲਕੁ ਬਿਰਾਜਿਤ ਦੇਖਿ ਪ੍ਰਤਾਪੁ ਜਮੁ ਡਰਿਓ ॥
Seeing the Lord sitting with the conch, chakra, garland and tilak, Yama (death) is scared. - Page 1105

He is unborn:
ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਤੇ ਰਹਤ ਨਾਰਾਇਣ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Narayan is free from/beyond birth and death. ||1||Pause|| - Page 1136

He is born:

ਧਨਿ ਧਨਿ ਤੂ ਮਾਤਾ ਦੇਵਕੀ ॥
Blessed, blessed, are you mother Devaki;

ਜਿਹ ਗ੍ਰਿਹ ਰਮਈਆ ਕਵਲਾਪਤੀ ॥੨॥
into your home the Lord was born. ||2|| - Page 988

BTW the various religions of India have had a concept of one God, without form, without birth or death, as well. The difference between Islam and these religions is how they build up on this. Anyways, It's too complex a topic to be fully discussed here.

it is amusing to note that it is this very culture that the Gurujis were trying to get us away from

All the things the Gurus were trying to connect us to also belong to that culture. Hence why it is important to study it.

I am more interested in the wisdom

Well that's also something that gets left out on when we leave out the culture.

Ambarsaria · Oct 18, 2012

Bhagat Singh ji thanks for your post.

BhagatSingh said:
Firstly, I am neither ridiculing you nor Ambarsaria ji, nor any of your claims. I find them absurd.

When you generalize all one says as absurd that is ridiculing. All three of us have pretty thick skin, so no biggie. You have elephant's memory to bring Bamrah ji and Kamla ji into reference. I am sure they can stand on their own. I backed off of Kamala ji when her age was flagged.

On a separate note let me know what the following Shabad from SGGS tells you,
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਗਿਆਨੀ ਸਿਆਣਾ ॥ हिंदू अंन्हा तुरकू काणा ॥ दुहां ते गिआनी सिआणा ॥
Hinḏū anĥā ṯurkū kāṇā. Ḏuhāŉ ṯe gi▫ānī si▫āṇā.
he Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye. The spiritual teacher is wiser than both of them.
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੁਨਾਖਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਇਕ ਅੱਖ ਵਾਲਾ। ਬ੍ਰਹਿਮਵੇਤਾ ਦੋਨਾਂ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਵਧੇਰੇ ਅਕਲਮੰਦ ਹੈ।

ਤੁਰਕੂ = ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ।

ਸੋ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਦੋਵੇਂ ਅੱਖਾਂ ਗਵਾ ਬੈਠਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਦੀ ਇੱਕ ਅੱਖ ਹੀ ਖ਼ਰਾਬ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ; ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦੋਹਾਂ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਸਿਆਣਾ ਉਹ ਬੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ (ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਹਸਤੀ ਦਾ ਸਹੀ) ਗਿਆਨ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ।

Faridkot wala Teeka below:
ਏਕ ਸ੍ਵੈ ਧਰਮ ਏਕ ਗਿਆਨ ਏਹ ਦੋ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ਹੈਂ ਸੋ ਹਿੰਦੂਕੇ ਦੋਨੋਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈਂ ਇਸ ਲੀਏ ਅੰਧਾ ਹੈ ਔ (ਤੁਰਕੂ) ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਏਕ ਦੀਨ ਮੈਂ ਦ੍ਰਿੜਤਾ ਰੂਪ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ਹੋਤਾ ਹੈ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਇਸ ਲੀਏ ਕਾਣਾ ਹੈ ਪ੍ਰੰਤੂ ਜੋ ਇਨਾਂ ਦੁਹਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਗਿਆਨਵਾਨ ਹੈ ਸੋ ਸਿਆਣਾ ਹੈ॥

ਹਿੰਦੂ ਪੂਜੈ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥ ਨਾਮੇ ਸੋਈ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਜਹ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਨ ਮਸੀਤਿ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
हिंदू पूजै देहुरा मुसलमाणु मसीति ॥ नामे सोई सेविआ जह देहुरा न मसीति ॥४॥३॥७॥
Hinḏū pūjai ḏehurā musalmāṇ masīṯ. Nāme so▫ī sevi▫ā jah ḏehurā na masīṯ. ||4||3||7||
The Hindu worships at the temple, the Muslim at the mosque. Naam Dayv serves that Lord, who is not limited to either the temple or the mosque. ||4||3||7||
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੰਦਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਉਪਾਸ਼ਨਾ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਅਤੇ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਮਸਜਿਦ ਵਿੱਚ। ਨਾਮਾ ਉਸ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਦੀ ਘਾਲ ਕਮਾਉਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਕੋਲ ਨਾਂ ਮੰਦਰ ਹੈ ਨਾਂ ਹੀ ਮਸਜਿਦ।

ਜਹ = ਜਿਸ ਦਾ। ਦੇਹੁਰਾ = ਮੰਦਰ ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
(ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨੇ ਇੱਕ ਅੱਖ ਤਾਂ ਤਦੋਂ ਗਵਾਈ ਜਦੋਂ ਉਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਇਸ਼ਟ ਬਾਰੇ ਸ਼ਰਧਾ-ਹੀਣ ਕਹਾਣੀਆਂ ਘੜਨ ਲੱਗ ਪਿਆ, ਤੇ ਦੂਜੀ ਗਵਾਈ, ਜਦੋਂ ਉਹ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਨਿਰਾ ਮੰਦਰ ਵਿਚ ਬੈਠਾ ਸਮਝ ਕੇ) ਮੰਦਰ ਨੂੰ ਪੂਜਣ ਲੱਗ ਪਿਆ, ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ (ਦੀ ਹਜ਼ਰਤ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਿਚ ਪੂਰੀ ਸ਼ਰਧਾ ਹੋਣ ਕਰਕੇ ਇੱਕ ਅੱਖ ਤਾਂ ਸਾਬਤ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਦੂਜੀ ਗਵਾ ਬੈਠਾ ਹੈ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਰੱਬ ਨੂੰ ਨਿਰਾ ਮਸਜਿਦ ਵਿਚ ਜਾਣ ਕੇ) ਮਸਜਿਦ ਨੂੰ ਹੀ ਰੱਬ ਦਾ ਘਰ ਸਮਝ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਮੈਂ ਨਾਮਦੇਵ ਉਸ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਨਾਹ ਕੋਈ ਖ਼ਾਸ ਮੰਦਰ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਨਾ ਮਸਜਿਦ ॥੪॥੩॥੭

Faridkot wala Teeka below:
ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੋ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਪੂਜਤਾ ਹੈ ਔ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ਮਸੀਤ ਕੋ ਪੂਜਤਾ ਹੈ ਔ ਮੈਂ ਨਾਮੇ ਨੇ ਸੋ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਹੈ (ਜਹ) ਜਿਸ ਮੈਂ ਨਾ ਦੇਹੁਰਾ ਹੀ ਪਾਇਆ ਜਾਏ ਔ ਨਾ ਮਸੀਤ ਹੀ ਹੋਇ ਭਾਵ ਸਾਰੇ ਜੋ ਵਿਆਪਕ ਹੈ ਤਿਸ ਕੋ ਸੇਵਿਆ ਹੈ ਇਸ ਸਬਦ ਕਾ ਤਾਤਪਰਜੁ ਗਾਇਤ੍ਰੀ ਆਦਿਕੋਂ ਕੀ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਮੈਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਪਾਂਡੇ ਕੀ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਬਿਆਜ ਨਿਹਚੇ ਰਹਤ ਪੁਰਸੋਂ ਕੀ ਨਿੰਦਾ ਮੈਂਤਾਤਪਰਜੁ ਹੈ॥੪॥੩॥੭॥
http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=875&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=1&fb=0&k=2

I find it is addressing the essence of the prevalent alternative religious doctrines of the times. A point of differentiation for Sikhism if I may say.

Sat Sri Akal.

BhagatSingh · Oct 18, 2012

Ambarsaria,
Apologies, my intention was not to generalize the whole of someone's belief system. I am only referring to a few ideas.

Now onto the shabad. I think that passage is largely misunderstood by Sikhs. It is difficult precisely because the context is so alien to us. There is a time, culture and language barrier here between us and Namdve ji. A spiritual barier is there too, Namdev ji is enlightened we are not.

Few things to consider:
1. Bhagat Namdev ji, the author, was born in 1270 AD. He is the devotee of Bithla (Bithla, ਬੀਠਲੁ).
2. Hindu and Turk, refer to the natives of India and foreigners who through immigration or invasion settled there, respectively.
3. One ought to study the shabads that precede this one, and get a taste of Bhagat Namdev ji's belief system and what he is getting at.

I think the Freedkote Wala teeka nails it, it explains every verse (and even then it is pretty difficult to understand in the first 5 or so readings). The Hindu is neither steady in his religion (the religion and its narratives, ਸ੍ਵੈ ਧਰਮ) nor does he have spiritual gyan. The Turk is steady in his religion (the religion and its narratives, ਸ੍ਵੈ ਧਰਮ) but does not have gyan. Thus the native of India is fully blind and the foreigner is missing an eye. Bhagat Namdev ji is basically telling the native population to strongly uphold their dharmic values.

The spiritual scholar, the gyani, has both eyes since he is following his dharam and has achieved enlightenment. Bhagat Namdev ji says "I can tell you this because I am enlightened, I have seen Bithla."
--------------------------------------------------------

Rewinding a bit back to your reply to Lucky Singh ji. I thought I'd respond to some specific points that I have no addressed anywhere else, as I am already replying to the passage.

Guru ji said it does not matter if they were real or fake.

Where does Guru Sahib say this?

Guru ji tried to cover as many

No this is not what's going on. They are not trying to cover all, only those that are related to one particular religious narrative.

(Dasam Granth on the other hand goes through many other narratives.)

Ambarsaria · Oct 18, 2012

Bhagat Singh ji Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not need your filtering or mine. The Guru ji who who composed, created Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji knew full well the time frames. It was as valid in their times as it was before or after. So Hindu or Turk in Guru ji's times, before there time and after their time did not start taking different meanings. Note also that in Baba Farid ji's saloks Guru ji have interjected to counterpoise some writings. Here if they have not, there must be a reason. Perhaps the reason is there is nothing to dig as it is very clearly stated. All varieties of custodians of Dharmic values have been amply dealt with in much of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. People were not allowed to hold Dharmic values outside of the controllers of said religions. Dharmic was what was practiced and preached. Non-compliance was not an option as we so well know from Sikh history of the past or the present. Revolt against such approach was a key factor in the birth of Sikhism. Guru ji untethered the sheep from mis-leading virtual (concepts) and real (the Brahmin and such hierarchies) shepherds.

The succinctness here in this shabad perhaps is a magnifying glass to see it even better and not get caught up in the weeds for so called "deep understanding", "scholarly study", etc. While reading Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji apply or remember this shabad whenever any aspect or artifacts of a religion are cited in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Be it a pandit, a yogi, and tons of variations that were so prevalent and still are.

Sat Sri Akal.

BhagatSingh · Oct 18, 2012

Guru Arjan Dev ji agrees with Bhagat Namdev ji's shabads. They share the same belief system which they do not share with Sheikh Farid ji. Hence the need to interject in Sheikh Farid ji's bani. They only interject in Farid ji's bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji because he is a Muslim, and the only one to contribute to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Why do they interject in his bani? In a nutshell:

BhagatSingh said:
BTW the various religions of India have had a concept of one God, without form, without birth or death, as well. The difference between Islam and these religions is how they build up on this. Anyways, It's too complex a topic to be fully discussed here.

Ambarsaria said:
Hindu or Turk in Guru ji's times, before there time and after their time did not start taking different meanings.

Oh you would be surprised.

Revolt

There is no revolt going on in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I used to a follower of the revolt theory but nothing could be further from the truth.

Ishna · Oct 20, 2012

I thought Kabir ji was a Mulism?

BhagatSingh · Oct 20, 2012

I used to think that too. The name makes you think he is. But it turns out that he was only by birth. Some historians think he (being orphan) wasn't even raised by Muslims even but instead raised by his guru Ramanand ji. Some say he was never Muslim or an orphan. The dominant view seems that he was very interested in spirituality and thus went under the apprenticeship of Guru/Bhagat Ramanand at a very young age (whose bani is also in Guru Granth Sahib). Accounts of his early life are foggy but either way, he is isn't a Muslim. In fact, Sheikh Farid is the only one.

Ahiyapuri · Oct 20, 2012

Re: OCCULTISM Rejection in Sikh Reht Maryada (SRM)

Sat sri akaal ji
Have you ever visited Gurudwara Panja Sahib. One could see the mark of Guru ji's hand there on the rock. There are countless examples to show the presence of something supernatural power bestowed upon the guru sahibans.
The things that wisdom can not explain is magic/occult/siddhi/supernaturalism.
Gurfateh ji
Nirmal Ahiyapuri

Ahiyapuri · Oct 20, 2012

Sat sri akaal ji
Have you ever visited Gurudwara Panja Sahib. One could see the mark of Guru ji's hand there on the rock. There are countless examples to show the presence of something supernatural power bestowed upon the guru sahibans.
The things that wisdom can not explain is magic/occult/siddhi/supernaturalism.
Gurfateh ji
Nirmal Ahiyapuri

Ambarsaria · Oct 20, 2012

Ahiyapuri ji thanks for your post.

Ahiyapuri said:
Sat sri akaal ji
Have you ever visited Gurudwara Panja Sahib. One could see the mark of Guru ji's hand there on the rock. There are countless examples to show the presence of something supernatural power bestowed upon the guru sahibans.
The things that wisdom can not explain is magic/occult/siddhi/supernaturalism.
Gurfateh jiNirmal Ahiyapuri

Sakhis are way below SGGS in confirming Sikhi teachings. I personally reject the so called miracle of Panja. So it is nothing as a basis to support magic, non-human powers or occultism acceptance in Sikhism and SGGS.

Sat Sri Akal.

Harry Haller · Oct 22, 2012

Bhagat Singhji

Firstly, I am neither ridiculing you nor Ambarsaria ji, nor any of your claims. I find them absurd. I am pointing out the way in which your claims are absurd. The absurdity lies in dismissing the need to understand the context of a given piece of work when you do not know about nor belong to that context.

phew, thanks for putting my mind at rest, as long as I am not being ridiculed, thats ok!

Secondly, I understand you don't have the time to learn each and every detail, which is all the more reason to be more open-minded and respectful towards individuals who claim they know something about the bani, and to individuals who belong to a similar culture of Guru sahibs (I remember Kamala ji and Amarjit Bamrah ji etc, there were many more.

As you may recall, I was not happy about the way I dealt with Amarjitji, however, time is a good teacher, I more concerned with my own understanding at present, rather than others. One can pursue the truth, or one can pursue the truth of another it is up to the individual, and remains a right of the individual, however, such can be an invitation for debate.

All the things the Gurus were trying to connect us to also belong to that culture. Hence why it is important to study it.

I disagree, the Gurus were trying to connect us with the universal truth, the culture, in my view, simply drags you backwards.

BhagatSingh · Oct 23, 2012

Harry ji,

harry haller said:
Bhagat Singhji
phew, thanks for putting my mind at rest, as long as I am not being ridiculed, thats ok!

You see now that looks like sarcasm but the way you reacted before could mean you are serious. And if you are serious then it seems like you just found some buttons you can work on.

As you may recall, I was not happy about the way I dealt with Amarjitji, however, time is a good teacher, I more concerned with my own understanding at present, rather than others. One can pursue the truth, or one can pursue the truth of another it is up to the individual, and remains a right of the individual, however, such can be an invitation for debate.

It turns out humans can communicate and learn off of each other. So someone else's understanding is (read: can be) also your own, and you can play with it, nudge it, hold it, believe it, let it go, change it, reword it, get the essence of it, study it deeply, complicate it, simplify it, apply it, integrate it, forget it, pass it on, the mind is your oyster.

Imagine you are a neuron in a brain...

I disagree, the Gurus were trying to connect us with the universal truth, the culture, in my view, simply drags you backwards.

I can't get offended or get angry at you for disrespecting my culture and my people, so I'm simply going to have to teach you about it whenever the opportunity presents itself in hopes that you get something out of it.

Harry Haller · Oct 24, 2012

I can't get offended or get angry at you for disrespecting my culture and my people, so I'm simply going to have to teach you about it whenever the opportunity presents itself in hopes that you get something out of it.

I have nothing against our culture, I can understand why you see my rejection of it as disrespect, although why that would make someone angry or offended is an interesting concept.

However, I think it is fair to say that most Sikhs are stereotyped with the facets of the worst of Punjabi culture.

Ahiyapuri · Oct 24, 2012

Re: OCCULTISM Rejection in Sikh Reht Maryada (SRM)

I would like to know what is a brahiminised calender and who is using it in Panjab. All my life we followed normal calender and for festivals desi calender. what is the conflict with the dates?

Occultism - Rejection In Sikh Reht Maryada (SRM)

Luckysingh

Harry Haller

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

Kanwaljit.Singh

findingmyway

Luckysingh

BhagatSingh

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

BhagatSingh

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

BhagatSingh

Ishna

BhagatSingh

Ahiyapuri

Ahiyapuri

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaŉkār

Harry Haller

BhagatSingh

Harry Haller

Ahiyapuri

Latest Activity