..you tell'em Lady!I think Original Ji is saying that one has to believe in the ideology taught by the Gurus, before one can truly put it into practice in ones life and that’s how one can become Gurmukh.
..you tell'em Lady!I think Original Ji is saying that one has to believe in the ideology taught by the Gurus, before one can truly put it into practice in ones life and that’s how one can become Gurmukh.
For example, someone might be doing community service as punishment for a minor crime. They would not be doing it for the right reasons and they certainly wouldn’t believe in the ideology of selfless service. So I don’t think they would become Gurmukh... even if that service was the exact same service that a believing Sikh was doing voluntarily and selflessly right beside them... let’s say both were serving food to homeless in a soup kitchen.
Harkiran ji,
Community service is part of his punishment.
Do you mean that any kind of good it may bring is not enough?
Is that what you are saying? He may be thinking of turning into Seva when he leaves the place of his confinement.
Do you find anything anti-Sikhi in his attitude?
The fact is neither you, nor @Orginal ji, nor anyone else knows the reason.
Why not?
How do you know that?
It does all come to yours and Orginal's beliefs as Harry rightfully pointed out.
This seems like a dogmatic judgement a la Abramanic religions, nothing more.
And?
These are mere speculations, aren't they?
Lastly, do you also claim Stephen Hawkings was a Manmukh as Original does?
so could you explain to me, if you have the time, and bearing in mind I have not taken Amrit, hell I am not even a Sikh, what is the difference between the community service person doing it as a punishment, and you doing it for personal gain, so that you get to live for eternity, what is so holy about that?
First of all, nobody can do service for a life of eternity
well live and let live eh, if that is what they believe, that is what they believe, and that is what you believeWe all already exist eternally as ONE. There is no trading good deeds for eternity a’la Abrahamic religions.
Second I don’t do anything I might do in hopes of personal gain. At least I try my hardest. I still struggle sometimes with wanting a little bit of recognition if I did something major and I feel bad if someone else got the recognition. That’s a personal demon I have (metaphorically of course).
When it comes to seva, and selflessness if service is done for the wrong reasons that persons eyes likely won’t be opened the same way as laying aside your own ego and doing it selflessly
What I meant was not that the homeless person wasn’t going to be fed either way, but that when someone is forced to do something out of punishment they will usually not see how they are helping others because they are blinded by their own rage, selfishness, resentment.
And I guess this is where five thieves comes in and how they affect us. Now someone who believes in doing service selflessly for no other reason than to benefit others, will see things differently. Instead of being blinded by rage and resentment they will more likely see the good that service is benefiting others. But more than that they will also feel empathy for the situation others are in.
Now I’m not saying the criminal could never see that and maybe some might see and really change. However they will have a lot more anger and resentment to deal with... that fog which will make it much more difficult.
I know you will say someone who doesn’t believe in a creator at all can still do selfless service and be a good person yes they can...
actually if you are not looking for something, and if you don't believe in something, there is nothing to findIf you aren’t looking for something or even more if you don’t believe in something, it will be much more difficult (though not impossible) to find.
By the way holy is not really a Sikh term is it? I hope this got my thoughts across?? I don’t know how else to explain so please forgive me Harry Ji...
l
By the way truly selfless acts happen all the time. The stranger who leaps in front of an oncoming bus to save a child that isn’t theirs. This has happened and the stranger did die. They had no reason not even time to think about personal recognition or being a hero. It was a truly selfless act. Or a medic who goes above and beyond, ignoring commands that it’s too dangerous to go and save an injured soldier. In fleeting moments when we have no time to think at all and a life or death decision must be made, you’ll see truly selfless acts. More recently in the news I read a story about a young Mother to be whos baby was in danger of dying if they didn’t do a C section but her condition also was such that major surgery would likely kill her. She did the c section, the baby survived and she didn’t. What could she possibly have been trying to gain? I’d call that selfless...
But I do wonder why do you like to separate love from selfless? Isn’t love one of the things which drives selfless acts? (And I don’t mean romantic love but true love and empathy for all) If through love I put someone first is that not selfless? I’m not trying to gain anything if I truly desire to put their needs above mine.
But yes I struggle with the recognition thing. A good example recently I joined the fundraising committee for our Gurdwara and since my husband has missionary college training and the sangat liked his ardaas and shabad Vichar etc I came up with an idea to create a nitnem Cd containing him reciting the nitnem banis. The CD sale would go toward the building fund. I sold the idea to sangat by explaining how it’s a good resource to learn proper pronounciation etc. I had audio experience so I did the recording myself, I did the CD artwork and even organized the actual production / costs etc. In the end my husband got all the recognition by sangat. And I did struggle with that a bit. Well maybe more than a bit. Even though my intentions on creating it were never about recognition. I genuinely wanted to help the building fund which we were having trouble with.
Riders n Runners - good morning !
The real reason for posting this thread was twofold:
This in no way is to be construed discriminatory or offensive. All are equal and welcome to debate n discuss topics pertaining to Sikhism, in particular, and of relevance, in general.
- set clear parameters for the graduates of the University of Life [manmukhs] and the students of Gurbani [Sikh, gurmukhs] to study the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
- lessen the onerous burden of answering repeatedly, irrelevant questions so that the ebb n flow of debates n discussions remain on course.
The journey is Sikh and a Sikh is a spiritual being having a human experience.
Much obliged
Riders n Runners - good morning !
The real reason for posting this thread was twofold:
This in no way is to be construed discriminatory or offensive. All are equal and welcome to debate n discuss topics pertaining to Sikhism, in particular, and of relevance, in general.
- set clear parameters for the graduates of the University of Life [manmukhs] and the students of Gurbani [Sikh, gurmukhs] to study the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
- lessen the onerous burden of answering repeatedly, irrelevant questions so that the ebb n flow of debates n discussions remain on course.
The journey is Sikh and a Sikh is a spiritual being having a human experience.
Much obliged
But yes I struggle with the recognition thing. A good example recently I joined the fundraising committee for our Gurdwara and since my husband has missionary college training and the sangat liked his ardaas and shabad Vichar etc I came up with an idea to create a nitnem Cd containing him reciting the nitnem banis. The CD sale would go toward the building fund. I sold the idea to sangat by explaining how it’s a good resource to learn proper pronounciation etc. I had audio experience so I did the recording myself, I did the CD artwork and even organized the actual production / costs etc. In the end my husband got all the recognition by sangat. And I did struggle with that a bit. Well maybe more than a bit. Even though my intentions on creating it were never about recognition. I genuinely wanted to help the building fund which we were having trouble with.
..with pleasure, on the proviso, questions pertain to Sikh Faith.i would be much obliged if you just answered the questions that people ask of you,
I'm a student who wants to explore and learn about his religion. Setting parameters help achieve objectives and on my part, an invitation to cooperative inquiry..with all due respect, who are you to set any parameters?
Inderjeet Ji,
I too have lot of time for Stephen Hawking [RIP]. One of my favorite reads is his "brief history of time" - absolutely brilliant. On page 15 he questions "why we're here and where we came from ?". This line of questioning is also found in Sikh literature, albeit, theological. The difference is in perspective and not context. His perspective was science and Nanak's perspective is theology. But when you squeeze the two what do you get ? you get the beginning of everything from a "singularity" [science, bag bang] and "one" [theology, Ekonkar] point. However, where science stand to change its stance should new evidence emerge, theological concepts will not change. And rightfully so, because in this infinite expanse of the universe no anchor means no home - you're a lost soul. The underlying factor is "faith", an irrational component part of the rational human being. Science and irrationality don't gel, albeit, a desirable proposition on part Stephen Hawking when he said, “You cannot understand the glories of the universe without believing there is some Supreme Power behind it.”
Goodnight
Of course it does ! As I said above, its the one and the same but seen through different lenses. Stephen Hawking saw through science lenses and Nanak through theological lenses. The conundrum of course, is, that whilst manmukh searches/creates unknowingly outside into space, [science] with unending quest, the gurmukh is anchored to nam* [see below] and meditates within.Original Ji Of course
Interesting you mention the Big Bang. Because from scientific standpoint, somehow the entire universe fit into an infinitely small pin point and from there expanded everything. Doesn’t that fit quite well with what Gurbani says about everything coming from ONE?
You forgotOf course it does ! As I said above, its the one and the same but seen through different lenses. Stephen Hawking saw through science lenses and Nanak through theological lenses. The conundrum of course, is, that whilst manmukh searches/creates unknowingly outside into space, [science] with unending quest, the gurmukh is anchored to nam* [see below] and meditates within.
Moving on with what you've said above:
Call that "pin point" Big Bang or Ekonkar, but are they not words expressing something ?
And isn't word a sound with meaning ?
And isn't sound a shabd [word] when expounded ?
And isn't it the word from whence came creation [John 1:1 King James Bible] ?
And isn't it the word [alam] that precedes Quran' Sharif and holds true the creation ?
The aggregated sum of all of the above is Sound and sound is Nam.
Harkiran, this is interesting ! I wanted to use this, but I didn't because of the content within which it was uttered [by Nanak]. Sikh scriptures speak of creation [ਕਵਾਉ, through word, meaning sound], but in contexts macro n micro, that is, universe n world, respectively. And, in this instance ਕੀਤਾ ਪਸਾਉ ਏਕੋ ਕਵਾਉ its the latter of the two. Nanak is mindful of the content of the subject matter [man and world as oppose to man and universe] and frames it accordingly.ਕੀਤਾ ਪਸਾਉ ਏਕੋ ਕਵਾਉ ॥
Kīṯā pasā▫o eko kavā▫o.
You created the vast expanse of the Universe with One Word!
(SGGSJ Ang 3)