General Sikhi Path

[muddymick]

Sat Sri Akal, I am an Irish (catholic by birth) Buddhist by inclination man of 46 years. I am neither the brightest nor the most disciplined individual you are likely to meet. I am however no fool nor new to spiritual/theological discipline. I would be most grateful if you could give me a spiritual discipline within the Sikh path that will have (what you consider) be the most impact. I do though request that you explain it fully with reference to the Guru's teachings. I will follow such a path and post regarding my insights. I thank you in advance and assure you I am no spiritual tourist!

Kindest regards
Mick

 

[Ishna]

Sat Sri Akaal Ji

This is a challenging question to answer because it's very personal. Sikhi is a complete way of life, meant to be lived in entirety, rather than enjoyed piecemeal. The aim is to become a complete Sikh in every moment, not just for 30 minutes a day while engaging in such and such behaviour.

Having said that, I'm sure we all have our own leanings towards aspects of the lifestyle that have 'most impact' for us individually. Chazji for instance draws connection from early morning amrit vela meditation. Harryji reinforces his Sikhi with seva - helping others. The likes of Findingmywayji and myself seek inspiration and guidance from Gurbani vichar - study and contemplation of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji. All the while we have to remember than any one of these by themselves is just a slice of the way of life of Sikhi, and needs to be eaten along with the other components to form a balanced meal (experience).

I'm not sure I have an answer for you.

The most obvious "disciplines" within Sikhi are early morning meditation, daily nitnem, simran (I don't mean chanting word/s, I mean constant awareness and rememberance of Naam with your heart) and community service.

But without the framework of Sikhi I'm not sure that any one taken in isolation with have much if any "impact".

Others might have different ideas though.

For me personally, whenever I'm lost and disconnected from Sikhi, reading and contemplating Gurbani (pick a page, any page) never fails to bring my awareness back to the Sat Naam. But then, the foundation within me (I hope) is already there, I have a trust even if I don't have all the understanding and tend to 'feel my way' though the Gurbani even if I can't understand it all intellectually. You might not receive the same impact. You can try. www.srigranth.org and pick a page, start reading for a while (I usually manage about 4 or 5 pages) and just go with it, see if it stirs your soul. The English translation is not so accurate but the general idea is still somewhat detectable.

But then, helping someone (or something) in need, with your hands, has a pretty high impact too.

 

[muddymick]

Sat Sri Akaal Ji, and may I thank you for your response.
What you say makes total sense. I also like/resonate with the way that Sikhi approaches the whole person. Again there are striking parallels with Buddhism the meditative aspect balanced by the intellectual aspect of deepening ones understanding with the Sutras/scripture. The use of words to bring about an awareness of the non-dual unity of the creative principle and of course both good conduct/morality and service/compassion to all beings.
I sense that your post has highlighted something for me (thank you) That is if I am to apply myself more fully to my existing discipline and study. Any other distinct Sikhi disciplines, contemplation or meditation can only be a good thing.
I hope that this does not offend anyone and I most sincerely hope that no one feels that I am compromising the Sikhi path in this?

With kind regards.

 

[Rory]

Hi Mick! Día duit agus tá fáilte roimh anseo ar SPN
You're from a similar background to myself, being Irish and born into a Catholic family. It's interesting how Sikhi draws interest from non-Indians everywhere, even as far ashore as here.

Ishna-ji's answer is essentially what I would've said to you, just to add my two cents to hers. Sikhi is a complete religion whose practices are practically interdependent on eachother. A very basic example would be that simran (meditation) on the name Waheguru would mean nothing without at least some reading of Shri Guru Granth Saheb; it's through Shri Guru Granth Saheb that Sikhs are told about the nature of Waheguru. Without knowing what Waheguru is, how can you meditate on it? That would be just a basic example of how each practice within Sikhi is only a cog without the rest of the machine.

I don't have much to add but wanted to say welcome to SPN, nice to meet another Irishman here and I hope you stay a while to learn

 

[muddymick]

Dia is Muire dhuit agus Go raibh maith agat Rory,

I suppose I may have to contextualise my response above. I was not suggesting that I would take any singular practise out of it's wider context. So in relation to Simran on The Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I am already (beginning to read) and believe I receive some small benefit from complimentary texts I have also studied (that are also non-dual) and in fact my previous experience of meditation.
As for knowing what Waheguru is.........I am a little lost here. I could try and explain my experience of Waheguru, I could probably even attempt a philosophical treatise on Waheguru's nature. I suspect (know) they would be fingers pointing inexpertly at the moon!

Thank you and I also hope I stay and learn......I have much to learn.

 

[sikh15]

Muddymick, I don't mean any offense here, but are you trying to combine Sikhi with Buddhism? You should know that Sikhi is a complete religion unto itself and isn't compatible with other religions, especially atheistic ones like Buddhism or Jainism. Also, you have to learn how to drop the Buddhist concepts and approach Sikhi on its own terms. I don't know what your goal is with all of this, so could you please explain further?

 

[muddymick]

Sikh15 Ji, no offence taken.

"are you trying to combine Sikhi with Buddhism? No.

"You should know that Sikhi is a complete religion unto itself and isn't compatible with other religions, especially atheistic ones like Buddhism or Jainism"

Could you explain to me how Sikhi is incompatible with Buddhism?

Could you also explain what you mean by Atheistic?

"Also, you have to learn how to drop the Buddhist concepts"
Which Buddhist concepts have I promulgated?
I f you could be good enough to quote I will give reference to the same In Gurbani.

"approach Sikhi on its own terms"
This is a little difficult until knows Sikhi wouldn't you agree?
Just like learning a new language one can not expect not to use ones existing language until one is more fluent.

"I don't know what your goal is with all of this, so could you please explain further?
Of course gladly, I am here to learn about Sikhi!

With respect :redturban:

 

[spnadmin]

Sikh15 Ji, no offence taken.

"approach Sikhi on its own terms"
This is a little difficult until knows Sikhi wouldn't you agree?
Just like learning a new language one can not expect not to use ones existing language until one is more fluent.

With respect :redturban:

Maybe this story will help. Maybe it will create more irritation and less sense. I don't know.

They were 3 young men, A Hindu, a Buddhish and a Sikh. All three were drafted to the Indian Army, just out of basic training, and on their first helicopter mission, to rescue victims of the raging torrents of the floods of Utaaraakhand. They were the first in line to jump. They looked at one another and recognized what each was thinking. Their first jump, water raging below, life hanging on couple of nylon threads. How would they find support and courage from their own path?

The Hindu said, "It is all an illusion. The water is an illusion, you are an illusion, death is an illusion." He jumped. btw... All worked out fine and he saved many people.

The Buddhist said, "Be the water!" He jumped. btw. He did just fine. His excellent skills as a swimmer allowed him to pull an entire family of 8 who were hanging on to some wreckage out of a rough pass.

The Sikh said, "bẖā▫īho sabẖnā ehu pa▫i▫āṇā!" Brother, there is work to do! Just do it! "We all have to pass this way sometime" - flood, fire, war, pestilence, a jealous brother-in-law! btw ..He also did just fine. Every one standing with him jumped.

Many were rescued that day.

The difference stands with the jumping-off point for each path. Sure, each one knows that to live in ego is false and that everyone who comes to this earth must leave. Each path speaks of moksha, compassion, false ego, attachment, maya. But it speaks in its own way and with its own voice. Sometimes the definitions of these concepts are as different as the sense one makes of them, and how one weaves these concepts into one's life.

Forgive me if I have offended anyone.

 

[sikh15]

Muddymick ji,

This is going to look rough as I am not skilled at replying to messages that contain quotes.

1. First, if you want to be a Sikh, and maybe you don't, I don't know, you must not belong to another religion at the same time. This is straight from the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Code of Conduct). I know that a lot of Sikhs import Hindu rituals and whatnot into their Sikhi (from what I've read on here), but this isn't what's supposed to be done. From my end, it seems to me that one cannot have, say, the Buddha as a teacher (which I think is how Buddhists view him) and also the Sikh Gurus, including the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

2. What I mean by 'atheistic' is the lack of a belief in a creator god. Buddhism, at best, ignores this concept while Jainism flat out denies it. I know you didn't mention Jainism, I'm just using it as an example of another religion that denies the existence of a creator god. Jainism has its own idea of what God is, which is very interesting.

3. Okay, I will admit that I read into your post on non-duality a little too much. You have not talked about Buddhist concepts at all. I do apologize.

4. You're right, until someone teaches you the language. It's like a Christian converting to Islam. The new Muslim would have all of these Christian concepts and ideas of what things mean in their head until knowledgeable Muslims correct him/her.

5. Great! You've chosen a great place to start. And, I apologize, muddymick ji. I went overboard in my own thinking. I was under the impression you were wanting to syncretize Buddhism with Sikhi. See? I was a little wild with my thoughts. This stems from experiences in my past and I do apologize.

I do hope you find what you are looking for and I am going to respectfully bow out of this conversation now. Good luck!
-Justin

 

[muddymick]

Sikh15 ji,

Thank you very much for the reply.

If I may, I will respond in kind using the same listings you have (1 to 5)

1) "First, if you want to be a Sikh, and maybe you don't, I don't know, you must not belong to another religion at the same time" Firstly could I just point out that although many people misapply the term religion to Buddhism it does not make it so.
Yes we consider the Lord Buddha to be a teacher, although this said we also consider the whole of creation to be our teacher! As everything expresses the divine (or in a Buddhist phraseology Objective reality is the truth immanent in all, including relative reality) I don't see this as at odds with the teaching of the Guru's

2)Terms like creator or God are so loaded that I think it is much more useful to examine what we say constitutes the (ultimate reality) or Waheguru. We can sometimes get bogged down in terms that one rejects and one accepts but for entirely different reasons!
Your atheist and my deist maybe the same! and of course the obverse maybe true.

3) There is absolutely no need to apologise.

4) My use of the analogy of language was a little clumsy but I think you get my meaning whether I call GanDaa- Pyaz or Onion, loon- namak or salt it's nature may be the same!
However I accept that is not always the case and certain nuances can be lost.

5)Again you have nothing to apologise for and I look forward to sharing more with you!

With deep respect :interestedsingh:

 

[spnadmin]

The thread title is "Sikh path" often referred to as the Sikh Maarg to be technically correct. We have ventured into what is probably necessary ground -- those preliminary struggles with meanings, personal meanings. But I do want to get back to the Sikh Maarg and then will leave you alone for a while.

This morning I, a Sikh, received a note from a Sikh, and without divulging anything of its contents, must share my reaction. He and I because we are Sikhs bow to the Guru. There is no other and everything that happens is under his jurisdiction - Sri Guru dev nameh! Therefore, it is normal to feel emotions - which have been under discussion for several posts up to this point. It is also therefore foolish to protest when our individual and ideal visions of how things should be are violated.

When we are Sikhs, we begin our day in simran of the Guru, and we end in simran of the presence of the Guru in our hearts before we go to sleep at night. In between waking and sleeping we take refuge in the Guru, seeking strength and courage. That is our Nit Nem, and that is what the prayers of the Sikh Nit Nem represent. To me, and these are only my thoughts, the practical and theoretical questions we have about Nit Nem are not the issue. A Sikh starts and ends by finding refuge, guidance, strength, courage and moral vision from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, but not in a solo and sanctimonious enterprise. We realize Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has given us work to do. Do we realize that work we are given is not done in solitude but in sangat? For Guru Nanak there is a purpose and it is to take others with us across the terrifying world ocean.

Basic message. Sikh path.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I agree with Spnadmin ji. We should all stick to the thread which is Sikhi Path and it has nothing to do with any other religion.

Anyone is free to ask what this path consists of which as a matter of fact has already been responded eloquently by Spnadmin ji above.

If anyone wants to starts a new thread to compare different religions, then please do so.

Let's not muddy this thread with that.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[muddymick]

With respect Tejwant ji,
As the progenitor of the thread I think I may be best placed as to judge it's original intent. Whether one wants to consider the Sikh path as distinct was never at question however to suggest it came into being in a social, linguistic, historic or even theological vacuum is blatantly and highly questionable.

spnadmin ji wrote on another thread "Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was never intended to be exclusively for Sikhs. Guru Nanak spoke to Mulsims, Hindus, Jains, and Christians. Thus, there are those of us who prefer to think of the message of Guru Granth as inclusive not exclusive. That does not however mean that Guru Nanak was integrating teachings from many different religions into a single message. Rather it means he was disclosing a message that could take a devotee beyond the exclusive orthodoxies of his or her particular religion"

One wonders if this is true does it not suggest that all exclusive orthodoxies are to be examined and questioned?
would that also include what have become exclusive orthodoxies of Sikhism? (I am talking of the established religion not the actual teachings of the Guru's)

However just as a guest in ones house bows to ones rules, so I will be lead on this issue.

My intent has not been to upset or insult and if I have done so I apologise for my short comings.

With respect.

 

[spnadmin]

Actually muddymick ji Accepting you are the progenitor of the thread, still I have to agree with Tejwant ji. The title is "Sikh path." That implies that you the OP want to know more about the Sikh path, as a Buddhist. Interfaith elements of discussion are therefore unavoidable. However, the last several posts have been more about truth v reality, sensation v perception, thought and language, the legitimacy of emotions, and less about the Sikh path. That is why I came back to the thread to reorient the discussion.

--------------------------------------

As a separate note: It is rather difficult to pinpoint orthodoxies in the Sikh scriptural tradition. If you think that, fine. However, it is not the case. To discuss the myriad ways in which Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji has been translated and interpreted is a topic for a different thread. It is a complex topic. Just to give a hint of closure on this point, the translations of Dr. Sant Singh Khalsa are infused with Vedantic interpretation, but less so than a Nirmala interpretation, and far more so than the interpretation of Dr Manmohan Singh. Shouts of heresy have not come out of this in spite of antagonisms. One is free to read.

I attempted in the other thread to explain that scriptural mix and match is not possible with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji because the Granth was sealed in 1708. I did not mention that every page of the Aad Granth was signed by Guru Arjan dev, who even signed some blank pages, bound in the original pothi, to cover the possibility that a later guru might want to add more bani. His strategy made it impossible for scholars to wage academic wars over the legitimacy of the scripture. That was the status before 1708, and then the granth was complete.

There is nothing to debate on those grounds. It is what it is. So let's stay on task

I also pointed out that Sikhs are obliged to discuss the meaning of gurbani and figure how to apply it in personal ways in their lives. There is no latitude as far as what the scripture includes; nor can gurbani be considered a blend or an offshoot of other scriptures because scholars debate. There is comfortable latitude in how the message of Guru Nanak is made relevant to individual lives.

 

[muddymick]

Spnadmin ji,

"the last several posts have been more about truth v reality, sensation v perception, thought and language, and less about the Sikh path"
Personally I thought the nature of reality and truth, how we are subject to sensation and perception. How we are affected by thought and language are very much at the heart of religious investigation/contemplation and dealt with in some detail by the Guru Granth Sahib ji. So forgive my ignorance for considering them intrinsic to the Sikh path (op)

"It is rather difficult to pinpoint orthodoxies in the Sikh scriptural tradition"
I did not suggest such in fact I posted "I am talking of the established religion not the actual teachings of the Guru's"

"I attempted in the other thread to explain that scriptural mix and match is not possible with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji because the Granth was sealed in 1708"
Again with deepest respect for the Guru Granth Sahib Ji are you really suggesting that because it was sealed in 1708 one can not consider it's historical genesis in prevalent Indian philosophical traditions previously and contemporarily or in fact compare it to philosophical systems?
It would seem you do when you say "There is nothing to debate on those grounds. It is what it is" However that will not and cannot stop this from occurring.

"nor can gurbani be considered a blend or an offshoot of other scriptures because scholars debate" again posting or saying such does not make it so, what you may actually mean is in orthodox Sikhism this should not be considered, however one would have to also consider your previous statement about orthodoxy being transcended by the Guru's.

I find it strange that a claim to transcend orthodoxy has become an orthodoxy, one that can not be questioned in either it's expression or philosophical basis.
In fact the way one approaches examination and contemplation of such has a orthodox route and a heretical route.

If I have caused offence or have been inadvertently rude I apologise this has not been my intent.



With respect

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

You seem a bit upset and I apologise for that if my post made you so. Sikhi is all about conversation where disagreements are part and parcel of the learning process.

You write:

=muddymick;186876]With respect Tejwant ji,
As the progenitor of the thread I think I may be best placed as to judge it's original intent.

Yourself as a progenitor of this thread has helped me explain what the subject of the thread is, which is Sikhi Path. It has nothing to do with any other religion including Buddhism which you often mention in your posts as a comparison to Sikhi. As I mentioned in my previous post, any one is free to do that. If you want to compare it with other religions than the title is the wrong one I am afraid. It does not indicate what you have been talking about in your posts in response to others.

Whether one wants to consider the Sikh path as distinct was never at question

So, what are your questions? If it relates to the above, then please say so and ask them in that manner so we can have a conversation.

however to suggest it came into being in a social, linguistic, historic or even theological vacuum is blatantly and highly questionable.

What is highly questionable and in what manner? Please elaborate with concrete examples.

spnadmin ji wrote on another thread "Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was never intended to be exclusively for Sikhs. Guru Nanak spoke to Mulsims, Hindus, Jains, and Christians. Thus, there are those of us who prefer to think of the message of Guru Granth as inclusive not exclusive

First and foremost, thanks for proving my point which Spnadmin ji and myself tried to drive home. What is said in the other thread belongs to that one. Please question or share your ideas there. This thread started by you is called Sikhi Path and we should stick to it.

Secondly, I do not consider Sikhi as a religion but a way of life. A Sikh simply means a learner, a seeker, a student; unlike a Buddhist who follows the teachings of only Buddha although no one is certain what they are because he did not write a single word or a Christian who does the same with the Gospels as Christ's words, but no is certain because they were written many many years after like the teachings of Buddha. Hence these teachings and of other religions which include the Abrahamic ones are highly questionable because we have no idea about the author/s unlike the writings in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji where every author is known and it is written in such a way that nothing can be taken out or added to it. In other words, the distortions, if intended of the original writings are impossible to do.

Guru Nanak never mentioned anywhere nor did the other nine Nanaks who followed him that they came to form another religion but to share their ideas with others. That is why it is a lifestyle.

Thus, there are those of us who prefer to think of the message of Guru Granth as inclusive not exclusive. That does not however mean that Guru Nanak was integrating teachings from many different religions into a single message. Rather it means he was disclosing a message that could take a devotee beyond the exclusive orthodoxies of his or her particular religion.

Is the above your personal opinion? If it is, please elaborate it with examples.

One wonders if this is true does it not suggest that all exclusive orthodoxies are to be examined and questioned?
would that also include what have become exclusive orthodoxies of Sikhism? (I am talking of the established religion not the actual teachings of the Guru's)

Once again, your questions above should be asked, opined in the thread they were written in as Spnadmin ji and myself mentioned, let’s stick to the subject of this thread that you started,which is Sikhi Path, otherwise everything becomes muddled. No pun intended.

However just as a guest in ones house bows to ones rules, so I will be lead on this issue.

We are all guests here. That is the beauty of Sikhi. We are all learners, seekers and students.

My intent has not been to upset or insult and if I have done so I apologise for my short comings.

Interactions, disagreements are part of Sikhi as mentioned before. No one is taking your post as an insult but requesting you to stick to the subject you started. So, no need to apologise.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Spnadmin ji,

"the last several posts have been more about truth v reality, sensation v perception, thought and language, and less about the Sikh path"
Personally I thought the nature of reality and truth, how we are subject to sensation and perception. How we are affected by thought and language are very much at the heart of religious investigation/contemplation and dealt with in some detail by the Guru Granth Sahib ji. So forgive my ignorance for considering them intrinsic to the Sikh path (op)

"It is rather difficult to pinpoint orthodoxies in the Sikh scriptural tradition"
I did not suggest such in fact I posted "I am talking of the established religion not the actual teachings of the Guru's"

"I attempted in the other thread to explain that scriptural mix and match is not possible with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji because the Granth was sealed in 1708"
Again with deepest respect for the Guru Granth Sahib Ji are you really suggesting that because it was sealed in 1708 one can not consider it's historical genesis in prevalent Indian philosophical traditions previously and contemporarily or in fact compare it to philosophical systems?
It would seem you do when you say "There is nothing to debate on those grounds. It is what it is" However that will not and cannot stop this from occurring.

"nor can gurbani be considered a blend or an offshoot of other scriptures because scholars debate" again posting or saying such does not make it so, what you may actually mean is in orthodox Sikhism this should not be considered, however one would have to also consider your previous statement about orthodoxy being transcended by the Guru's.

I find it strange that a claim to transcend orthodoxy has become an orthodoxy, one that can not be questioned in either it's expression or philosophical basis.
In fact the way one approaches examination and contemplation of such has a orthodox route and a heretical route.

If I have caused offence or have been inadvertently rude I apologise this has not been my intent.



With respect

I would be wiling to discuss all of this -- but my comments were clarification of earlier comments by you --- and if we keep on churning these points, then the thread will be about not one but several topics entirely. So I am for now holding off on the temptation to explain what I have already explained. Suffice it to say, that if all pages of a pothi called the Aad Granth are signed by the 5th Guru, the provenance of individual shabads should be clear. If, after adding some bani by the 9th Guru, the 10th Guru "seals" the pothi, there should be nothing to explain. The mundaavani is the seal. What else can make it clearer?

Here is a link to 272 pages that relate the story in detail Compilation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji by Professor Sahib Singh http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Compilation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.pdf

Now I am as I said resisting the temptation to say more. And will split the thread if it seems that has to be done. :angryadminkaur:

 

[Ishna]

Sat Sri Akaal Ji, and may I thank you for your response.
What you say makes total sense. I also like/resonate with the way that Sikhi approaches the whole person. Again there are striking parallels with Buddhism the meditative aspect balanced by the intellectual aspect of deepening ones understanding with the Sutras/scripture. The use of words to bring about an awareness of the non-dual unity of the creative principle and of course both good conduct/morality and service/compassion to all beings.
I sense that your post has highlighted something for me (thank you) That is if I am to apply myself more fully to my existing discipline and study. Any other distinct Sikhi disciplines, contemplation or meditation can only be a good thing.
I hope that this does not offend anyone and I most sincerely hope that no one feels that I am compromising the Sikhi path in this?

With kind regards.

Mick ji

Firstly, quoteing 101: put the word quote in square brackets [ quote ] (without the spaces) at the beginning of what you want to quote, and at the end put the same word quote in square brackets but with a forward slash / in front of the word. [ / quote ] If you want to put someone's name in the quote, then type, for example [ quote = SPNAdminji ] (again without any spaces at all).

I found your post a bit tricky to understand so please forgive me if I've got it wrong. I think you're trying to express something abstract which is difficult and moreso hard for me to understand being simpleminded as I am (needing things to be spelled out very clearly).

I think what you're saying is you'd like to augment your current spiritual discipline with a technique from Sikhi to get an idea of what sort of spiritual activities Sikhs engage in. Having made it clear that Sikhi is a complete way of life, and that by taking it piecemeal you'll only get a small glimpse of this way of life (a dirt track as opposed to the broad highway laid by our Guru Sahiban), it is still possible to specify some of the discreet practices that Sikhs may engage in, as I outlined in my first post - simran, seva, jap, Gurbani vichaar. Is this the sort of thing you're looking for?

Andrew Bowden joined with BeliefNet to do a 12 month tour of different religions in 2011 (I think). Sikhi was one of them. He took the most obvious aspects of Sikhi, immersed himself in it for 1 month, and wrote a blog about it along the way. Here it is: http://projectconversion.com/category/sikh/ He also did a month on Buddhism which you might find interesting. Perhaps you can take inspiration from his journey.

Am I anywhere near what you're looking for? I hope so.

 

[spnadmin]

Tejwant Singh ji

You quoted the following from muddymick ji's post, and then asked if it was his opinion.

Thus, there are those of us who prefer to think of the message of Guru Granth as inclusive not exclusive. That does not however mean that Guru Nanak was integrating teachings from many different religions into a single message. Rather it means he was disclosing a message that could take a devotee beyond the exclusive orthodoxies of his or her particular religion.

muddymick ji was quoting me -- I actually wrote that -- and yes it is my opinion that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not the integration of the teachings of many different religions (in particular the Vedas and the Quran), and yes Guru Nanak was trying to move the awareness of devotees beyond exclusive orthodoxies of Hinduism and Islam. It is an opinion that is widely shared.

 

[muddymick]

Muddymick ji,

Guru Fateh.

You seem a bit upset and I apologise for that if my post made you so. Sikhi is all about conversation where disagreements are part and parcel of the learning process.

I am sorry if I gave the impression of upset, I am not and may need to look at how I post.

You write:

Quote:
=muddymick;186876]With respect Tejwant ji,
As the progenitor of the thread I think I may be best placed as to judge it's original intent.
Yourself as a progenitor of this thread has helped me explain what the subject of the thread is, which is Sikhi Path. It has nothing to do with any other religion including Buddhism which you often mention in your posts as a comparison to Sikhi. As I mentioned in my previous post, any one is free to do that. If you want to compare it with other religions than the title is the wrong one I am afraid. It does not indicate what you have been talking about in your posts in response to others.

Quote:
Whether one wants to consider the Sikh path as distinct was never at question
So, what are your questions? If it relates to the above, then please say so and ask them in that manner so we can have a conversation.

This was a response to spnadmin Ji

Quote:
however to suggest it came into being in a social, linguistic, historic or even theological vacuum is blatantly and highly questionable.
What is highly questionable and in what manner? Please elaborate with concrete examples.

I am suggesting that pretending that the Guru's where not affected by prevalent linguistic, social or theological mores of that particular historic period would be questionable.

Quote:
spnadmin ji wrote on another thread "Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was never intended to be exclusively for Sikhs. Guru Nanak spoke to Mulsims, Hindus, Jains, and Christians. Thus, there are those of us who prefer to think of the message of Guru Granth as inclusive not exclusive
First and foremost, thanks for proving my point which Spnadmin ji and myself tried to drive home. What is said in the other thread belongs to that one. Please question or share your ideas there. This thread started by you is called Sikhi Path and we should stick to it.

That seems fine.

Secondly, I do not consider Sikhi as a religion but a way of life. A Sikh simply means a learner, a seeker, a student; unlike a Buddhist who follows the teachings of only Buddha although no one is certain what they are because he did not write a single word or a Christian who does the same with the Gospels as Christ's words, but no is certain because they were written many many years after like the teachings of Buddha. Hence these teachings and of other religions which include the Abrahamic ones are highly questionable because we have no idea about the author/s unlike the writings in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji where every author is known and it is written in such a way that nothing can be taken out or added to it. In other words, the distortions, if intended of the original writings are impossible to do.

Firstly Buddha means one who is awake (there have been many Buddhas) Buddhists do not exclusively follow the teachings of Lord Buddha (the historic Buddha) That would be the Theravadins. The teachings of some Branches (also written by others who are awake) are followed and the historical veracity is beyond question. However this is not exclusively so and all sytems that accord with reaching ultimate reality are Buddhist (as they lead to one awakening) Buddhist= one who strives to awake.
However trusting to historic veracity is questionable in it's self considering some philosophical and religious scripture (however that is another debate)

Guru Nanak never mentioned anywhere nor did the other nine Nanaks who followed him that they came to form another religion but to share their ideas with others. That is why it is a lifestyle.

Quote:
Thus, there are those of us who prefer to think of the message of Guru Granth as inclusive not exclusive. That does not however mean that Guru Nanak was integrating teachings from many different religions into a single message. Rather it means he was disclosing a message that could take a devotee beyond the exclusive orthodoxies of his or her particular religion.
Is the above your personal opinion? If it is, please elaborate it with examples.

No it is not my opinion it is a direct quote from spnadmin.

Quote:
One wonders if this is true does it not suggest that all exclusive orthodoxies are to be examined and questioned?
would that also include what have become exclusive orthodoxies of Sikhism? (I am talking of the established religion not the actual teachings of the Guru's)
Once again, your questions above should be asked, opined in the thread they were written in as Spnadmin ji and myself mentioned, let’s stick to the subject of this thread that you started,which is Sikhi Path, otherwise everything becomes muddled. No pun intended.

No prob.....I seem to make a habit of questioning beyond the thread....mmmm

Quote:
However just as a guest in ones house bows to ones rules, so I will be lead on this issue.
We are all guests here. That is the beauty of Sikhi. We are all learners, seekers and students.

Quote:
My intent has not been to upset or insult and if I have done so I apologise for my short comings.
Interactions, disagreements are part of Sikhi as mentioned before. No one is taking your post as insult but requesting you to stick to the subject you started. So, no need to apologise.

Many thanks