Sikhi Pragmatism And Sikhism

[Harkiran Kaur]

Tejwant Ji, the point is that I would like to see where it is written that Gurbani must be interpreted as physical reality only / states of mind and shunning the metaphysical - approaching it as your like to say in a 'pragmatic' way? (Assuming you are using the word pragmatic to mean disregarding anything which you can't see or experience day to day) By definition the word pragmatism means to approach things sensibly and disregard anything which is considered 'theory'.

So the point was:

1. Where is it written that Gurbani must only be interpreted in this way? (when its obvious that it can be interpreted metaphysically, possibly both mataphysically and physically... but certainly not just physically). As I said I can not find the word 'pragmatism' even once in Gurbani. And I will use the same line you always do... please use only SGGSJ to exaplain.

2. Even IF you take the word 'Pragmatism' at it's dictionary definition, then using subjective evidence of otehrs to explain metaphysical phenomenon / reality still falls within the realm of evidence and hence 'realism' and not simply 'theory'. So taking quantum physics on top of this which corroborates through complex equation AND the results of experiments such as the double slit experiment which can easily be reproduced which suggest that physical reality is the illusion and that reality is nonphysical... or metaphysical - using both subjective evidence combined with the quantum physics experiments, one could easily still be called a 'Pragmatist' as per dictionary defintion of the word - while still interpreting Gurbani in the metaphysical sense... that is to say that reality is essentially NOT matter / physical and that consciousness / awareness exists in a nonlocal state (outside of the physical body) and directly affects matter or rather that they are in fact just different states of the same thing. The fact that Gurbani says the same thing (intrinsic connection between consciousness and matter / nirgun and surgun aspects / creator = creation etc.) can NOT be ignored!!! So to me, taking all the availavble evidence means that it's not just 'theory' - it's real. So I consider myself to a 'pragmatist' in the dictionary defintion of the word when interpreting Gurbani, because I weigh ALL of the actual evidence. And by doing so, I don't have to write Gurbani off as being simply cryptic hard to understand metaphors for psychology, but instead... I can see the underlying metaphysical / spiritual truth. Which is NOT btw ghosts, magic, supernatural, tricks etc. But real demonstrable factors about our universe and existence.

So again 1) where is it written that Gurbani must be approached 'pragmatically' (or more fitting maybe, where is it written that it must be interpreted as only states of mind / psychology as opposed to metaphysical?) and 2) if your emphasis is on being 'pragmatic' as per dictionary defintion of the word, show me how someone who is approaching it with scientific demonstrable and subjective evidence to build a picture of reality, somehow not being 'pragmatic' when interpreting Gurbani?

And please only use SGGSJ to explain. I don't want to see personal interpretation to try and show your thought process, what I want is proof that your thought process when interpreting Gurbani... is the *only* way that we are allowed / told to interpret it.

Sikh Missionary College has a whole section on the correspondence course dedicated to metaphysics... and it's not talking about 'states of mind'. Damdami Taksal - who teaches Gurbani as well, also does not teach that everything is just states of mind. They very much teach the metaphysics of it. So I am just wondering where several of you on here get the impression that it MUST be interpreted as only states of mind / psychology.

 

[Ishna]

Harkiran Ji

I've asked a number of questions in this thread, and most of them were not rhetorical. Do you have a moment to respond to them, please?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but to move the thread in some different directions. Perhaps widening the throught processes will help us all get some different perspectives.

 

[Ishna]

Hang on a minute, is it possible to use subjective evidence as "proof", or the other way around, to prove ones own subjective evidence? Surely that would make it objective.

Subjective evidence refers to evidence that one cannot evaluate. One must simply accept what the person says or reject it.
​

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/subjective-evidence/

This links back to my earlier questions; if we're talking subjective evidence and experience, the whose experience is really real, the Christian who knows Jesus and has conducted exorcisms, or the Sikh who has heard the Naad?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Hang on a minute, is it possible to use subjective evidence as "proof", or the other way around, to prove ones own subjective evidence? Surely that would make it objective.

Subjective evidence refers to evidence that one cannot evaluate. One must simply accept what the person says or reject it.
​

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/subjective-evidence/

This links back to my earlier questions; if we're talking subjective evidence and experience, the whose experience is really real, the Christian who knows Jesus and has conducted exorcisms, or the Sikh who has heard the Naad?

Oddly enough it's very interesting to note that everyone who describes a near death experience, describes the exact same things... Same with out of body experiences. Those who meditate and experience sounds which are not physical... etc. I'm not talking about a 'feeling' like someone is connected to say Jesus etc. (there is a difference between knowing someone and actually meeting them - just an example - so a Christian who says they 'know' jesus is basing that off a feeling - it would be different if they said they had a spiritual experience where they left their physical body and actually met him in person! And even then, who is to say that the persona that we experience as Guru Ji is not also Jesus, and Buddah etc??) So I am speaking of events which people describe as not being just a feeling they had or intuition, but actual events / happenings... and those tend to be VERY similar almost identical no matter what faith the person is!! Even if the person was / is athiest! I had some links to OBE stories which were from people of all different backgrounds and faiths, from ancient Egypt, through history (including Plato) and up to present day encompassing all religions. I will try to find it to show you what I mean... so those subjective experiences from all those different people of different backgrounds suggests SOMETHING is actually happening that suggests there is some sort of experience beyond the physical - and that it's not something mystical or magical, but instead is an intrinsic part of our nature or being...

Besides that, wasn't it Guru Nanak Dev Ji who said that Sikhi did not hold the only truth? That all religions have the key all persons have the ability to find it??

 

[Harry Haller]

Sikh Missionary College does in fact teach equality... Damdami Taksal does teach it... but doesn't practice it fully. They say that because 'no woman gave her head that day' that the five have to represent the original 5 (but it doesn't make sense since they do not discriminate based on the castes which did not 'give their head that day' but I digress) but I put this down to culture influence / prevailing Brahminical mindset which always saw women beneath men.

how can you teach something but not practice it fully? you either embrace it, or not, your stance is therefore anti Sikh, or not, can you expand please? Why are you challenging it? Is your understanding of the SGGS, Sikh history, Sikh values, Sikh way of life better than Damdami Taksal?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Well to DDT their famous line is that it is not inequality to keep women from doing seva as Panj Pyaras... just a different 'role' or that Guru Sahib meant for it to be only males based on the first five as an example.. but that it doesn't mean women are somehow less. That's how they explain it anyway...
I think DDT is influenced by brahamincal mindset and culture and they are just trying to make it fit to Sikhi, they are not basing it on Gurbani at all.... SMC do in fact teach full equality and practice it. As I said the Pang Pyaras the day I took Amrit told us straight out they want to see some of us women in the same position as them some day so they encouraged us to step forward to do all types of seva, be leaders, stand side by side with the singhs.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

DDT used to be a common thing in every Sikh household to kill lice.

 

[Ishna]

There is an argument to be made that the things peo..ple experience through OBEs is due to what happens as the brain is dying. Also they can be replicated by certain drugs, like DMT. But I don't really want to get into that.

By basing your stance on your experiences, is that not a pragmatic approach? By comparing your own experiences to other people's experiences, and reaching a conclusion that makes sense to you, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

So, someone who has had a vision of Jesus (or Mary, she seems to make many more appearances actually), to them Jesus\Mary is very real. They may try to convert you to Christianity, since they have actually seen Jesus. Would you become a Christian? If Jesus is YHWH, surely His rules apply and His creation story is the correct one?

Those who have not had such experiences, it is honest for them to admit it and to base their stance on the experiences they have had, and by assessing information to fill in the gaps in their experiences. As such, I base my stance on what I have learned so far from Gurbani, and the experiences I have had. Because I don't agree with you on some very pedantic points, does that make my stance less valid?

I value my intuition, too, as Gurbani says.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

There is an argument to be made that the things peo..ple experience through OBEs is due to what happens as the brain is dying. Also they can be replicated by certain drugs, like DMT. But I don't really want to get into that.

By basing your stance on your experiences, is that not a pragmatic approach? By comparing your own experiences to other people's experiences, and reaching a conclusion that makes sense to you, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

So, someone who has had a vision of Jesus (or Mary, she seems to make many more appearances actually), to them Jesus\Mary is very real. They may try to convert you to Christianity, since they have actually seen Jesus. Would you become a Christian? If Jesus is YHWH, surely His rules apply and His creation story is the correct one?

Those who have not had such experiences, it is honest for them to admit it and to base their stance on the experiences they have had, and by assessing information to fill in the gaps in their experiences. As such, I base my stance on what I have learned so far from Gurbani, and the experiences I have had. Because I don't agree with you on some very pedantic points, does that make my stance less valid?

I value my intuition, too, as Gurbani says.

Yes that is exactly my point... so why does being 'pragmatic' have to = no God or no existence beyond the physical?? Or that Gurbani must only be speaking of the physical human mind and psychology?

It doesn't make your 'stance' less valid... but it also doesn't mean that these things don't exist (someone who is blind might say the sky isn't there because they can't see it, but does it mean it doesn't exist?) You seeing it is your subjective experience and also many others... but to the blind person you can argue until you are blue in the face and they may never believe you because they can't see it themselves and won't take the subjective experiences of others into account. So for that blind person, they will argue until they are blue in the face that there is no sky at all and present that on forums etc as THE truth about the Universe.

I'm not basing it only on my own experiences, but on ALL of the accounts I have read cumulatively. Additionally I also understand what quantum physics is saying about reality. The two combined tell me that the physical material world is what is a false perception of what reality truly is, which is nonphysical and that our consciousness is part of that nonphysical reality. I think that does make me pragmatic... btw one doesn't have to have experienced such things themselves to acknowledge they exist based on cumulative data from thousands of people's subjective experiences.

Also, as a side note...it is believed that DMT acts as a gateway - a catalyst to flip the breaker holding us to this reality...kind of like sci fi movies in space where the ship has some sort of artificial gravity but when the switch is thrown the artificial gravity stops holding them to the deck, and they float.
Remember if everything is connected, and we are functioning through our physical brain (to tune into this reality) but our consciousness is something more than that, then something must be affecting how we tune into this reality (or detune from it) In reality, DMT, our brain, our physical body and our consciousness are one thing... everything is just energy vibrating at different frequency. The electrons in the DMT are the same as any electron in your brain! When you peer very very very close.. the electrons are not even matter but just energy vortices which are invisible. The energy vortices in the DMT are the same as in your brain, everything on the earth etc. This is actual science, and is it too difficult to see and understand??

Curiously DMT is produced in highest quantities when we are born and just before death. But every night we experience it when we dream. (How can a chemical, cause real tangible and fully immersive dreamworlds??) It must be a catalyst... like a switch. And dreams too are thought to just be another level of reality.... worlds upon worlds... You should watch the movie DMT the spirit molecule... ps it is based on actual research by a doctor who has himself experienced it.

 

[Ishna]

It appears there's actually not too much we are debating.

But just a question; how do you determine what is real and what isn't, when people's subjective experiences differ? How do you discriminate between what is real and what is a product of someone's indigestion?

If Jesus appears to people, then why isn't the Bible your scripture?

Why did Guru Nanak show the Hindus that throwing water to their dead relatives was futile?

Why not do Kundalini Yoga, and surround yourself with crystals (the do vibrate, after all), and practice the occasional seance?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Yes that is exactly my point... so why does being 'pragmatic' have to = no God or no existence beyond the physical?? Or that Gurbani must only be speaking of the physical human mind and psychology?

Harkiran ji,

Guru Fateh

Can you show me who said the above in bold? In many of your previous posts too, it seems you decide what others think rather than asking them if they do that or not? No one is arguing with you about your beliefs but that is not the case with you. Please learn to respect others' beliefs and keep on cultivating yours.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

But just a question; how do you determine what is real and what isn't, when people's subjective experiences differ? How do you discriminate between what is real and what is a product of someone's indigestion?

-- understanding of science... Quantum physics... Observation that even when people interpret similar events as per their own religious upbringing, the base experience seems to still be the same. So for example if I were to see a being of pure light in front of me I might interpret it as Guru Nanak Dev Ji while a Christian might interpret it as Jesus. But what remains is that there is a being of light.... Since all is ONE individual personas we attach to them don't matter. I recognize that it is a spiritual manifestation regardless of what name is put on it. There is only ONE creator after all... Called by some as God others Allah others Budda, and others like us Waheguru or Akal Purakh. But what remains between all of us is that there is a Creator... --

-- I dont follow the bible mainly because of the cultural baggage of gender inequality and Gurbani lays it out straight without it being veiled or hidden in stories. --

Why did Guru Nanak show the Hindus that throwing water to their dead relatives was futile?

-- if there is no death in reality... What good does throwing water on something do??? Even if death were real physical thing, what good would it do? But truth is there is only ONE of us here... And there is no death. --

Why not do Kundalini Yoga, and surround yourself with crystals (the do vibrate, after all), and practice the occasional seance?

-- I'm not actually opposed to kundalini yoga. But it's not a 'necessity' though if it helps some people meditate then why condemn it? Others like music... Myself I like dimmed light when I do simran... point is that none are absolute necessary. --

 

[Harry Haller]

Harkiranji,

As always you have avoided my question

Is your understanding of the SGGS, Sikh history, Sikh values, Sikh way of life better than Damdami Taksal?

its very simple, yes or no, I think you can manage to answer at least one question without filling your post with quantum physics

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

First of all my understanding is based on Sikh Missionary College teaching... so what you are asking is not is MY understanding, it's SMCs (I see what you are doing... trying to get me to say I think I am better then DDT) but I digress:

This is my opinion only...every sect has their strong points...

1. When it comes to their teaching on pronounciation and recitation of Gurbani nobody tops DDT.
2. When it comes to Naam Simran, nobody tops AKJ
3. When it comes to understanding and interpreting metaphysics, I think Missionaries and DDT have it.
4. The only place I see DDT lacking is how they say one thing, and do another (while trying to say that it's not the first thing) only on the issue of gender equality. This is because in their own Gurmat Rehet Maryada, it says that all differences including caste, colour, creed, GENDER, rich/poor etc have been eliminated by the creation of the khalsa. (paraphrased). But then under the marriage section they tell Singhnis to see (and serve) their husband as 'God' while he is told to see her as his faithful
follower. So they teach male superiority and privilege. (You will never know what being on the receiving end of that feels like). I strongly disagree with them on this and very deeply in my core know they are wrong... does that make me think I am better than them? No, but I do think they are misguided by culture and Dhera mentality on that one.

So, no I do not think I am better than DDT. (Or that SMC teaching is better than DDTs) And I am trying to learn some things from all of them... like how AKJ do simran, and DDT even acknowledge this. AKJ acknowledge that DDT are good with pronunciation and recitation of Gurbani. When it comes to WHICH banis to recite, I follow the Sikh Rehet Maryada not DDT's Gurmat Rehet Maryada meaning I do 3 in the morning not 5. Do I think my way is better? It's not 'my' way as I said, but merely the way I am following in the Sikh Rehet Maryada.

 

[Harry Haller]

First of all my understanding is based on Sikh Missionary College teaching... so what you are asking is not is MY understanding, it's SMCs (I see what you are doing... trying to get me to say I think I am better then DDT) but I digress:

I think DDT is influenced by brahamincal mindset and culture and they are just trying to make it fit to Sikhi, they are not basing it on Gurbani at all

May I ask what qualifies you to make the second comment given the statement above?

May I also ask a very frank question, I believe that ultimately pragmatism will guide me to some sort of peace, a state you may have a multitude of names for, do you believe in this as a possibility, given Gurbani, or do you believe your own path is definitive with no other options, or do you believe in both as possibilities?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

I believe focusing on only the physical will only ever get you to the physical. If that makes u happy then all the best to you. I'm not happy with just the physical because I want to find Waheguru Ji. That involves going within, doing simran, in addition to external things like seva.

Pragmatism has led me to spirituality, fulfilling the ultimate goal for which I am here.

And I did say it was my own opinion about why DDT discriminate against Singhnis. My opinion is based on their Rehet Maryada which has wording almost identical to Laws of Manu where it says that wives are to see and serve their husband as God (Parmeshwar). Almost the exact same wording is found in the Laws of Manu. So I'm basing it off that. I'm entitled to my own opinion. And also where Gurbani says that as Gurmukh look upon all with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained. So women seeing men as God over them doesn't make any sense.

 

[Harry Haller]

A straight answer would have been nice, but I did not set my hopes that high, allow me to translate your reply as best I can:-

I believe focusing on only the physical will only ever get you to the physical. If that makes u happy then all the best to you. I'm not happy with just the physical because I want to find Waheguru Ji. That involves going within, doing simran, in addition to external things like seva.

So your belief is that your path is the only path that enables one to find Waheguruji?
Just to clarify therefore, anyone that focuses on the physical will only ever get to the physical, and will not find Waheguruji, unless they go within?

Pragmatism has led me to spirituality, fulfilling the ultimate goal for which I am here.

for which you are here, or for which we are all here?

 

[Ishna]

-- understanding of science... Quantum physics... Observation that even when people interpret similar events as per their own religious upbringing, the base experience seems to still be the same. So for example if I were to see a being of pure light in front of me I might interpret it as Guru Nanak Dev Ji while a Christian might interpret it as Jesus. But what remains is that there is a being of light.... Since all is ONE individual personas we attach to them don't matter. I recognize that it is a spiritual manifestation regardless of what name is put on it. There is only ONE creator after all... Called by some as God others Allah others Budda, and others like us Waheguru or Akal Purakh. But what remains between all of us is that there is a Creator... --

This is an interesting point of view. I spent from the ages of 8 to about 20 stuck in a vicious cycle of OCD. My OCD was primarily based on the superstitions passed to me from my mother. She is a "spiritual Christian" (more spiritual than Christian...) and I was raised with magic, divination, and many superstitious rituals. I believed in ghosts, spirits, energies, heaven, hell, reincarnation, crystals - you name it. I went to sleep at night holding a toothpick between the fingers of my right hand because I thought if I had any bad thoughts of losing my mum, it would cause something bad to happen to her.

Thankfully I was rescued from this mindset by Guruji, who shook off the burden of this unsubstantiated thinking and freed me. Waheguru!

-- I dont follow the bible mainly because of the cultural baggage of gender inequality and Gurbani lays it out straight without it being veiled or hidden in stories. --

Gurbani went a long way to challenge the culture and thinking of Punjab and greater India in its day. If we accept everything 'metaphysical', then I feel we are in danger of opening the door back up to the superstition that prevailed at the time.

-- if there is no death in reality... What good does throwing water on something do??? Even if death were real physical thing, what good would it do? But truth is there is only ONE of us here... And there is no death. --

Yes, this is the ultimate truth to the sakhi. But not to those people, who truly believe and probably have had subjective personal experiences of visits from their ancestors and have full faith that they need to throw the water.

-- I'm not actually opposed to kundalini yoga. But it's not a 'necessity' though if it helps some people meditate then why condemn it? Others like music... Myself I like dimmed light when I do simran... point is that none are absolute necessary. --

I like music, too. And dimmed light for naam japna. The best naam japna experiences I've ever had have been in a group just before and at dawn, when darbar sahib is dark but the sunrise starts to pour through the windows.

Naam japna is a physical/mental meditative practice than can help put you in a state of simran (constant remembrance - holding the kite string) throughout the day. It is pragmatic

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Ishna ji said:

Naam japna is a physical/mental meditative practice than can help put you in a state of simran (constant remembrance - holding the kite string) throughout the day. It is pragmatic

Beautifully explained the life of Miri Piri.