The Sikh path
To the question of reality v truth.
"And even now, you have not savored the sublime essence of the Lord. || 47 || I had looked upon the world as my own, but no one belongs to anyone else. O Nanak, only devotional worship of the Lord is permanent; enshrine this in your mind. || 48 || The world and its affairs are totally false; know this well, my friend. Says Nanak, it is like a wall of sand; it shall not endure. || 49 || Raam Chand passed away, as did Raawan, even though he had lots of relatives. Says Nanak, nothing lasts forever; the world is like a dream. || 50 || People become anxious, when something unexpected happens. This is the way of the world, O Nanak; nothing is stable or permanent. || 51 || Whatever has been created shall be destroyed; everyone shall perish, today or tomorrow. O Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and give up all other entanglements. || 52 || DOHRAA: My strength is exhausted, and I am in bondage; I cannot do anything at all. Says Nanak, now, the Lord is my Support; He will help me, as He did the elephant. || 53 || My strength has been restored, and my bonds have been broken; now, I can do everything. Nanak: everything is in Your hands, Lord; You are my Helper and Support. || 54 || My associates and companions have all deserted me; no one remains with me. Says Nanak, in this tragedy, the Lord alone is my Support. || 55 || The Naam remains; the Holy Saints remain; the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, remains. Says Nanak, how rare are those who chant the Guru's Mantra in this world. || 56 || I have enshrined the Lord's Name within my heart; there is nothing equal to it. Meditating in remembrance on it, my troubles are taken away; I have received the Blessed Vision of Your Darshan. || 57 || 1 ||"
Ang 1429 from the final saloka of the 9th Guru and immediately preceding The Closing Seal, the Mundaavanee
To the question of reality v truth.
"And even now, you have not savored the sublime essence of the Lord. || 47 || I had looked upon the world as my own, but no one belongs to anyone else. O Nanak, only devotional worship of the Lord is permanent; enshrine this in your mind. || 48 || The world and its affairs are totally false; know this well, my friend. Says Nanak, it is like a wall of sand; it shall not endure. || 49 || Raam Chand passed away, as did Raawan, even though he had lots of relatives. Says Nanak, nothing lasts forever; the world is like a dream. || 50 || People become anxious, when something unexpected happens. This is the way of the world, O Nanak; nothing is stable or permanent. || 51 || Whatever has been created shall be destroyed; everyone shall perish, today or tomorrow. O Nanak, sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord, and give up all other entanglements. || 52 || DOHRAA: My strength is exhausted, and I am in bondage; I cannot do anything at all. Says Nanak, now, the Lord is my Support; He will help me, as He did the elephant. || 53 || My strength has been restored, and my bonds have been broken; now, I can do everything. Nanak: everything is in Your hands, Lord; You are my Helper and Support. || 54 || My associates and companions have all deserted me; no one remains with me. Says Nanak, in this tragedy, the Lord alone is my Support. || 55 || The Naam remains; the Holy Saints remain; the Guru, the Lord of the Universe, remains. Says Nanak, how rare are those who chant the Guru's Mantra in this world. || 56 || I have enshrined the Lord's Name within my heart; there is nothing equal to it. Meditating in remembrance on it, my troubles are taken away; I have received the Blessed Vision of Your Darshan. || 57 || 1 ||"
Ang 1429 from the final saloka of the 9th Guru and immediately preceding The Closing Seal, the Mundaavanee
muddymick ji
Let's talk about the saloka line by line later. What do you mean by orthodoxy?
p/s I had some time to come back to this and found the dictionary meaning of "orthodox" quite interesting, first meaning implying conformity with established traditions, as I had assumed. The origin of the word is also quite intriguing.
orthodox |ˈôrθəˌdäks|
adjective
1 (of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved : the orthodox economics of today | orthodox medical treatment | orthodox Hindus.
• (of a person) not independent-minded; conventional and unoriginal : a relatively orthodox artist.
2 (of a thing) of the ordinary or usual type; normal : they avoided orthodox jazz venues.
3 (usu. Orthodox) (of the Jews or Judaism) strictly keeping to traditional doctrine and ritual.
4 (usu. Orthodox) of or relating to the Orthodox Church.
DERIVATIVES
orthodoxly adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Greek orthodoxos (probably via ecclesiastical Latin), from orthos ‘straight or right’ + doxa ‘opinion.’
So how does the dictionary meaning match up with your understanding of the word?
Let's talk about the saloka line by line later. What do you mean by orthodoxy?
p/s I had some time to come back to this and found the dictionary meaning of "orthodox" quite interesting, first meaning implying conformity with established traditions, as I had assumed. The origin of the word is also quite intriguing.
orthodox |ˈôrθəˌdäks|
adjective
1 (of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved : the orthodox economics of today | orthodox medical treatment | orthodox Hindus.
• (of a person) not independent-minded; conventional and unoriginal : a relatively orthodox artist.
2 (of a thing) of the ordinary or usual type; normal : they avoided orthodox jazz venues.
3 (usu. Orthodox) (of the Jews or Judaism) strictly keeping to traditional doctrine and ritual.
4 (usu. Orthodox) of or relating to the Orthodox Church.
DERIVATIVES
orthodoxly adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Greek orthodoxos (probably via ecclesiastical Latin), from orthos ‘straight or right’ + doxa ‘opinion.’
So how does the dictionary meaning match up with your understanding of the word?
Last edited:
Or the easier way is to highlight what needs to be in quotes and click the yellow square with a little tail- the 4th from the right- in the symbols on the top of the 'Reply box'. If you point your cursor on it you will read-Wrap
muddymick
SPNer
- Jan 17, 2011
- 96
- 107
raam gur saran prabhoo rakhavaarae ||
In the Sanctuary of the Guru, the Lord God saves and protects us,
jio ku(n)char thadhooai pakar chalaaeiou kar oopar kadt nisathaarae ||1|| rehaao ||
as He protected the elephant, when the crocodile seized it and pulled it into the water; He lifted him up and pulled him out. ||1||Pause||
- Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 982
Have I missed something here?
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
Thanks for the ang. I'm the one missing something. *wanders off to think about elephants, egos, crocodiles, maya and kirpa*
So then, using the dictionary definition of "orthodox" the next step would be to try to figure out who "orthodox" Sikhs are who hold traditional views?
And because you have raised the question of orthodoxy regarding scriptures rather than practices, I have to refine the question to ask, Who are these orthodox Sikhs who hold traditional or established opinions regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a scripture or scriptures?
The definition of orthodoxy adds a spin of its own in the context of this discussion. The definition lumps together the ideas of right, true, established and approved as matters of tradition. "Traditional" in the case of Sikhs may lead to more than one tradition and more than one traditional scripture. That will complicate this discussion. We might find that a "traditional" scripture may not be the same thing as an "established" scripture.
So are you really asking about orthodox opinions regarding any scripture that is right, true, established and approved?
My own response to that question is that it would be hard to know what an orthodox Sikh is... I haven't yet met one. Sikhs who adhere to established traditions? Yes, I have met them. Sikhs who adhere to an established scripture? Yes, I have met them too. Are they necessarily the same group of Sikhs? No.
The final concern, in my opinion an important one, is how an "established" scripture is established to be a "correct" scripture. It seems to me that a judgement that a scripture is correct depends on more than states where all opinions (even traditional opinions) are equal and therefore all opinions should be honored where scriptures are concerned. However, these days the Internet does foster the idea that any opinion is as good as any other opinion.
Last edited:
muddymick
SPNer
- Jan 17, 2011
- 96
- 107
spnadmin Ji
"And because you have raised the question of orthodoxy regarding scriptures rather than practices"
This is incorrect! You can clearly see from the latter part of this 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)
I am referring to everything but scripture!
So although I am sure your post would have been useful in such a discussion unfortunately it was not the discussion I was engaged in.
With respect
"And because you have raised the question of orthodoxy regarding scriptures rather than practices"
This is incorrect! You can clearly see from the latter part of this 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)
I am referring to everything but scripture!
So although I am sure your post would have been useful in such a discussion unfortunately it was not the discussion I was engaged in.
With respect
muddymick ji
Good! So it was hard work but I was able to flush out exactly what you were asking about. Over several comments back and forth it was not clear to me.
I don't view my effort as wasted because there are repeated efforts to undermine the primacy of the Aad Granth. One thing has to be stipulated. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the established scripture - in fact the Guru - and that is not a matter of orthodoxy but history.
So now onto the "discussion" you were "engaged in." Who are Sikhs who practice "exclusive" orthodoxies? What are these exclusive orthodoxies you speak of?
As I commented previously, I have not met them. Yes there are Sikhs who take an exclusive view of their brand of Sikhism. Can they be defined as "orthodox" as are Orthodox Jews who represent a branch within the broader religion of Judaism?
So let me rephrase the relevant parts of my previous comments. Orthodoxy lumps together the ideas of right, true, established and approved as matters of tradition. "Traditional" in the case of Sikhs may lead to more than one tradition. My own response to that question is that it would be hard to know what an orthodox Sikh is... I haven't yet met one. Sikhs who adhere to established traditions? Yes, I have met them.
Who do you think they are?
If you are wondering whether Sikhs question and debate "exclusivity" in the practice of Sikhi .. this forum is testimony to word YES.
Last edited:
muddymick
SPNer
- Jan 17, 2011
- 96
- 107
spnadmin Ji,
I thought I was being clear when you posted.....
"It is rather difficult to pinpoint orthodoxies in the Sikh scriptural tradition"
I replied.....
I did not suggest such in fact I posted "I am talking of the established religion not the actual teachings of the Guru's"
When you then posted....
"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 wondered whether you were implying that by logic one could deduce that the scripture therefore was outside of historical, cultural etc influences and although I could see that would be correct from 1708. It would not be before that date! So I wondered if you were making a statement of faith (orthodox opinion on how one can approach the scripture)
which is why I posted.......
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?
You stated then.........
"There is nothing to debate on those grounds. It is what it is"
I wondered whether that was a 'orthodox' position regarding how one can (what ispermissible) or in this case cannot approach the scripture?
You also posted...."nor can gurbani be considered a blend or an offshoot of other scriptures because scholars debate"
This would imply to me that you have a prescribed methodology (orthodox) approach to scripture that will bear no truck with more heterodox investigation. You do not explicitly say I will not consider however you do make a statement of fact nor can gurbani be considered
As you can see above because you make these factual (as opposed to personal) prescriptive statements I was under the impression that you where making statements on accepted orthodox approaches to scripture.
I apologise if I have misconstrued or offended, that has not been my intention.
With respect
I thought I was being clear when you posted.....
"It is rather difficult to pinpoint orthodoxies in the Sikh scriptural tradition"
I replied.....
I did not suggest such in fact I posted "I am talking of the established religion not the actual teachings of the Guru's"
When you then posted....
"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 wondered whether you were implying that by logic one could deduce that the scripture therefore was outside of historical, cultural etc influences and although I could see that would be correct from 1708. It would not be before that date! So I wondered if you were making a statement of faith (orthodox opinion on how one can approach the scripture)
which is why I posted.......
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?
You stated then.........
"There is nothing to debate on those grounds. It is what it is"
I wondered whether that was a 'orthodox' position regarding how one can (what ispermissible) or in this case cannot approach the scripture?
You also posted...."nor can gurbani be considered a blend or an offshoot of other scriptures because scholars debate"
This would imply to me that you have a prescribed methodology (orthodox) approach to scripture that will bear no truck with more heterodox investigation. You do not explicitly say I will not consider however you do make a statement of fact nor can gurbani be considered
As you can see above because you make these factual (as opposed to personal) prescriptive statements I was under the impression that you where making statements on accepted orthodox approaches to scripture.
I apologise if I have misconstrued or offended, that has not been my intention.
With respect
muddymick ji
Don't worry about offending me. I simply need clarity. You lost me again in this last post. If you would comment on my questions post before yours it would help get back to themes related to Sikhi Path.
Part of me is participating in a discussion with you. Part of me is trying to keep the discussion and the thread title together.
Don't worry about offending me. I simply need clarity. You lost me again in this last post. If you would comment on my questions post before yours it would help get back to themes related to Sikhi Path.
Part of me is participating in a discussion with you. Part of me is trying to keep the discussion and the thread title together.
- Who are Sikhs who practice "exclusive" orthodoxies?
- What are these exclusive orthodoxies you speak of?
All the questions you have just recently posted related to scripture are going to take me back to scripture and you said that is not what you wanted to discuss. So let's either move on or start a new thread on the matter of debating how Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the established scripture. But again --- these scripture questions that you said you don't want to talk about take me back to trying to swim through some "muddy" stuff.
Last edited:
muddymick
SPNer
- Jan 17, 2011
- 96
- 107
spnadmin ji,
Who are Sikhs who practice "exclusive" orthodoxies?
In my last post I gave examples where you had clearly stated facts as opposed to opinions on how one can approach scripture.
If these are accepted as facts by other 'Sikhs' these could be considered orthodoxies.
This would mean that both you and them would constitute those Sikhs who practice 'exclusive' orthodoxies.
would it not?
"What are these exclusive orthodoxies you speak of?
"scriptural mix and match is not possible with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji"
"nor can gurbani be considered a blend or an offshoot of other scriptures because scholars debate"
"There is nothing to debate on those grounds. It is what it is"
With respect
Who are Sikhs who practice "exclusive" orthodoxies?
In my last post I gave examples where you had clearly stated facts as opposed to opinions on how one can approach scripture.
If these are accepted as facts by other 'Sikhs' these could be considered orthodoxies.
This would mean that both you and them would constitute those Sikhs who practice 'exclusive' orthodoxies.
would it not?
"What are these exclusive orthodoxies you speak of?
"scriptural mix and match is not possible with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji"
"nor can gurbani be considered a blend or an offshoot of other scriptures because scholars debate"
"There is nothing to debate on those grounds. It is what it is"
With respect
So you do want to discuss scriptures!
Discovering the Sikhi Path is open to Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike. Throughout the thread I and others have posted ideas, comments, gurbani that are relevant to a discussion of the Sikh path.
Deconstructing history is also open to Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike. My question at this time is whether you want to discover the Sikhi Path or do you want to deconstruct Sikh history?
Discovering the Sikhi Path is open to Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike. Throughout the thread I and others have posted ideas, comments, gurbani that are relevant to a discussion of the Sikh path.
Deconstructing history is also open to Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike. My question at this time is whether you want to discover the Sikhi Path or do you want to deconstruct Sikh history?
Last edited:
muddymick
SPNer
- Jan 17, 2011
- 96
- 107
Spnadmin Ji,
No! I want to discuss how one can or cannot approach scripture according to your statements! The approach is not the scripture!
I think there is an element of disingenuousness here
As neither of your statements are reasoned historical conclusions by anyone other than other mainstream Sikhs one would normally conclude orthodoxy!
Or could you point me towards comparative religionists work or historians work outside of the mainstream Sikh faith that concurs?
If not it is obviously a orthodoxy and definitely not historical!
How can one be open to new evidence or compelling arguments when one will not even consider looking at those arguments or evidence ?
That just does not make sense!
On one hand you claim that investigation of comparative elements in scripture cannot happen then you claim but they would if you considered them either historically or intellectually compelling.
How would you decide if they where compelling if you would not consider them in the first place?
I agree a close reading of history would not be an exclusive practice!
However what you have exhibited is neither a close reading nor historically credible!
Quite the obverse.
I think this final quote proves my point vis-a-vis your statements being closer to orthodox edicts than historical conclusions.
When you ask whether I want to discover the Sikh path you infer that my line of investigation precludes such discovery!
You also liken such a line of inquiry to Sikh deconstructionism further implying that one must preclude the other.
In simple terms you say I cannot follow my current line of inquiry and still investigate Sikhi!
What is that but a typically orthodox statement?
What if I want to discover the Sikhi Path and de-construct Sikh history? Are you implying they are mutually exclusive?
No! I want to discuss how one can or cannot approach scripture according to your statements! The approach is not the scripture!
I think there is an element of disingenuousness here
As neither of your statements are reasoned historical conclusions by anyone other than other mainstream Sikhs one would normally conclude orthodoxy!
Or could you point me towards comparative religionists work or historians work outside of the mainstream Sikh faith that concurs?
If not it is obviously a orthodoxy and definitely not historical!
How can one be open to new evidence or compelling arguments when one will not even consider looking at those arguments or evidence ?
That just does not make sense!
On one hand you claim that investigation of comparative elements in scripture cannot happen then you claim but they would if you considered them either historically or intellectually compelling.
How would you decide if they where compelling if you would not consider them in the first place?
I agree a close reading of history would not be an exclusive practice!
However what you have exhibited is neither a close reading nor historically credible!
Quite the obverse.
I think this final quote proves my point vis-a-vis your statements being closer to orthodox edicts than historical conclusions.
When you ask whether I want to discover the Sikh path you infer that my line of investigation precludes such discovery!
You also liken such a line of inquiry to Sikh deconstructionism further implying that one must preclude the other.
In simple terms you say I cannot follow my current line of inquiry and still investigate Sikhi!
What is that but a typically orthodox statement?
What if I want to discover the Sikhi Path and de-construct Sikh history? Are you implying they are mutually exclusive?
Last edited:
muckymick ji
I did not realize that anyone was trying to prove anything. So now I have to drop my bomb. I get the distinct impression after several exchanges with you that you might be playing mind games, or carrying out your version of the affirmative obligation of Buddhists to bring all sentient creatures to moksha, using your particular style of doing that.
This is called proselytizing. Though it may not seem at first to be preaching - as that is not the Buddhist style - it does begin with a phase where numerous and conflicting questions are thrown out to "check" the ability of responders to think for themselves. The goal is to demonstrate that the responder doesn't know what he/she is talking about, and through attribution (is disingenuous, is orthodox) has a loose grip on logic, couldn't possibly have an open mind, and everyone else in the viewing audience should be attracted to the intellectual clarity of the proselytizer.
Frankly you are not making any sense. You continually contradict your own reasons for asking questions, nullify your own questions and then reinstate them post to post, and contradict your stated reasons for wanting to know about Sikhi. I don't think you really want to learn anything because you seem to have all the questions and the answers. When Ishna ji re-framed the problem in a very direct and concise way http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/41024-sikhi-path-3.html#post186885 you did not pick up on her effort.
Let's regroup. What is it that you would like to know about Sikhi? And let's leave the matter of "orthodox" practices, scriptures and beliefs out of the discussion.
This is an admin warning.
I did not realize that anyone was trying to prove anything. So now I have to drop my bomb. I get the distinct impression after several exchanges with you that you might be playing mind games, or carrying out your version of the affirmative obligation of Buddhists to bring all sentient creatures to moksha, using your particular style of doing that.
This is called proselytizing. Though it may not seem at first to be preaching - as that is not the Buddhist style - it does begin with a phase where numerous and conflicting questions are thrown out to "check" the ability of responders to think for themselves. The goal is to demonstrate that the responder doesn't know what he/she is talking about, and through attribution (is disingenuous, is orthodox) has a loose grip on logic, couldn't possibly have an open mind, and everyone else in the viewing audience should be attracted to the intellectual clarity of the proselytizer.
Frankly you are not making any sense. You continually contradict your own reasons for asking questions, nullify your own questions and then reinstate them post to post, and contradict your stated reasons for wanting to know about Sikhi. I don't think you really want to learn anything because you seem to have all the questions and the answers. When Ishna ji re-framed the problem in a very direct and concise way http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/41024-sikhi-path-3.html#post186885 you did not pick up on her effort.
Let's regroup. What is it that you would like to know about Sikhi? And let's leave the matter of "orthodox" practices, scriptures and beliefs out of the discussion.
This is an admin warning.
Last edited:
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Latest Activity
-
Punjabi ਮਹਾਨ ਦੇਸ਼ ਭਗਤ ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਕਰਤਾਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਸਰਾਭਾ (ਸ਼ਹਾਦਤ ਦਿਵਸ ਤੇ ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼)
- Latest: dalvinder45
-
-
-