The Evolution Of "manmukh"

[spnadmin]

Exploring Sikhi ji

Are you exploring Sikhi because you may want to become a Sikh and are trying to find out where you stand in relation to Sikh teachings.

or

Are you exploring Sikhi because you enjoy positioning apparent contradictions in Sikh teachings so that you can wind the forum up? I say positioning because the claims you are making are put there by you. They are your starting assumptions and not necessarily based on anything but your own rhetorical needs.

example

In a lot of places in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it will say something like "without the Guru's Shabad/Bani, peace is not obtained" or something along those lines.

Who is this "Guru"? Is it the human Sikh gurus? Or the SatGuru (God)?

If the former, then is this not implying that the Sikhi is actually the only path to God?

Haven't we had this conversation before? You said it was a miscommunication.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Exploring Sikhi ji

Are you exploring Sikhi because you may want to become a Sikh and are trying to find out where you stand in relation to Sikh teachings.

Yes.

or

Are you exploring Sikhi because you enjoy positioning apparent contradictions in Sikh teachings so that you can wind the forum up?

No, and I fail to see how I have done anything of the sort.

I say positioning because the claims you are making are put there by you. They are your starting assumptions and not necessarily based on anything but your own rhetorical needs.

I do not see what is wrong with my question that you quoted. Please expand.

Haven't we had this conversation before? You said it was a miscommunication.

LOl admin ji, I think there has been a double misundestanding. I was talking about my deleted thread, by the way you responded to it, it made me think that you felt I was trying to give a da'wah.

I do not recall having this conversation before.

 

[spnadmin]

I think then Exploring Sikhi ji that you need to ask more questions and make fewer declarative statements that are based on personal assumptions. If you have questions, don't pose them as givens or assumptions that other content depends upon. Ask simple questions.

Because if I and other readers interpret your words to suggest you already have the answers ---- and this has been the case --- then it is logical to ask what you want from us.

If you already know, why bother?

 

[ExploringSikhi]

I think then Exploring Sikhi ji that you need to ask more questions and make fewer declarative statements that are based on personal assumptions. If you have questions, don't pose them as givens or assumptions that other content depends upon. Ask simple questions.

Because if I and other readers interpret your words to suggest you already have the answers ---- and this has been the case --- then it is logical to ask what you want from us.

If you already know, why bother?

I do not know, which is why I am asking.

With regards to the question you quoted, I was referring to Shabads such as these:

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=19&L=15

and

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=229&L=2

"Without the word of the shabad, people wander lost in reincarnation."

"Without the Guru's shabad, no one is emancipated."

etc etc...

All I was asking was, who is the "Guru" to whom the shabad belongs? Is it the human Gurus or God him/her/itself?

How does this tie into the belief that Sikhi does not claim to be the only path to liberation?

 

[aristotle]

All I was asking was, who is the "Guru" to whom the shabad belongs? Is it the human Gurus or God him/her/itself?

ExploringSikhi Ji,
If the word Guru referred to human Gurus then it would be that the Gurus were offering their own faculties. Consequently then, there wouldn't have been a tradition of the Shabad Guru. Sikhi does vouch for the belief that the Ten Gurus had a continuum of a single Jyot, and even if all of them did not reveal Gurbani, they represented the virtues and embodiment of the Shabad or the Word. The Guru ultimately is the Shabad itself, that was the logic behind the Guruship of Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj.

Contrast this with the Abrahamic faiths, who even while revering their respective Book to be the Word of God, don't believe the Word to be the Prophet. The whole concept, you will realise, is different from Sikhi.

How does this tie into the belief that Sikhi does not claim to be the only path to liberation?

We have been raised to see 'salvation' in the Abrahamic sense and 'liberation' in the Buddhist/Hindu sense. While Sikhi may compile some points of these philosophies in itself, it does not subscribe to the way these faith traditions view the world. Sikhi does not even claim to 'describe' God like other faiths do, who is referred to with epithets of unsurmountability and unknowability in the Gurbani.
Sikhi's concept of savation and liberation is not of heaven, renunciation of the worldly, Nirvana or Moksha, but that of Jeevan Mukt, lierally the one who has freed himself from the five vices in his dealings of life.

Liberation in Sikhi is not a destination, but a constant path, you have to always be deliberate in this, renunciation or achievement of a 'higher state' once and for all does not equal 'Liberation'.

 

[Harry Haller]

The name of the true Guru is 'the eternal truth' , no one has a monopoly on the truth

 

[Harry Haller]

Who is to say that we are ALL born with a moral compass, an inherit ability to distinguish between right and wrong? I would argue that this is not the case, there are people out there who are mentally programmed in such a way that killing their fellow man brings about great pleasure for them. Who get off on the idea of causing pain and suffering,

, all those who get off in such a way are clearly aware that such is wrong, unless we are talking mental imbalance. We all do things that we know are wrong, it brings to mind an old joke

a man is sitting next to a woman at a dinner party, and asks for a kiss for £10, she agrees, so he if she will sleep with him for £30, 'what kind of woman do you think I am' she says, 'that has already been established, now we are just bartering over the price' he replies,

That thought you had yesterday, you know, the one where you passed a young woman in tight jeans and boots, the one you think no one knows about, the one you know is wrong, but you cannot help yourself can you, or that feeling leaving a takeout with a full bag of tasty food, and walking past a beggar, yes, lets just ignore it, unless you have a mental condition, wrong and right is clearly engrained in us, how can we define it? easy, right brings you closer to Creator, wrong takes you further away, what you do on a daily basis depends on how much you value your connection to Creation, and such applies to Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics with equality.

Is "goodness" not defined by the society within which we live? What is "good" today is vastly different to what it was in the past. As little as 50 years ago, there were separate washrooms and water fountains for colored and white people, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus.

For hundreds of years, Europeans and Americans would go to Africa and round up the darkies, bring them back to shore and sell them into slavery. The Islamic "Barbary Pirates" would do similar things with non-Muslims. All of this went on for hundreds of years.

Even something like rape has an evolutionary basis, I'm sure it was quite common thousands of years ago, maybe even encouraged for reproductive purposes.

On the flipside, something like homosexuality, which has become increasingly mainstream in the modern world, has historically been frowned upon by most, if not all socieities round the world (at least those that I am aware of). But once again, this depends on where you live, in a lot of areas around the world, there is still racism, there is still rape, there is still some form of slavery.

If truth is relative, then who's to say that we are more "good" than our ancestors?

Clearly we are moving towards the light, the shadows that cover the eternal truth are lifting, it takes more people to stand up for the truth, to be honest with themselves, each other, to think of the beggar rather than ones own stomach, soon even these concepts will be commonplace, in time, when the eternal truth rules, the world will be a better place, your own argument confirms this.

Or, as you seem to imply here, if truth is objective, then do you believe that only God him/her/itself has the right to decide what is right and what is wrong?

God decides nothing, we decide everything, the truth is not objective, the truth needs to be seen through clear lenses, gravity is gravity, the earth turns, smoking gives you cancer, there is no bearded goddy figure keeping all this going, simply truths that need to be accepted, or rejected, if you have the time

Do you believe that it is possible to "do good for the right reasons" without being a Sikh?

if you have to ask this then you have misunderstood everything I have written, I then have to ask myself what your agenda actually is, learning? or just boredom

 

[ExploringSikhi]

, all those who get off in such a way are clearly aware that such is wrong, unless we are talking mental imbalance. We all do things that we know are wrong, it brings to mind an old joke

a man is sitting next to a woman at a dinner party, and asks for a kiss for £10, she agrees, so he if she will sleep with him for £30, 'what kind of woman do you think I am' she says, 'that has already been established, now we are just bartering over the price' he replies,

That thought you had yesterday, you know, the one where you passed a young woman in tight jeans and boots, the one you think no one knows about, the one you know is wrong, but you cannot help yourself can you, or that feeling leaving a takeout with a full bag of tasty food, and walking past a beggar, yes, lets just ignore it, unless you have a mental condition, wrong and right is clearly engrained in us, how can we define it? easy, right brings you closer to Creator, wrong takes you further away, what you do on a daily basis depends on how much you value your connection to Creation, and such applies to Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics with equality.

How are you so sure that "right and wrong" are ingrained in us? How do you know that they are not dependant on our upbringing/societal values, and that this "moral compass" is actually inherent? That we are born with it? I'd argue that it is not, otherwise the morality of our predecessors would not have been so diametrically opposed to our morality today.

Please do not shrug this off, but if the Gurus did not literally speak to anything divine, how do you know for sure what the "Creator" wants and doesn't want?

Clearly we are moving towards the light, the shadows that cover the eternal truth are lifting, it takes more people to stand up for the truth, to be honest with themselves, each other, to think of the beggar rather than ones own stomach, soon even these concepts will be commonplace, in time, when the eternal truth rules, the world will be a better place, your own argument confirms this.

I think rape/homophobia/racism etc... are all bad because that is the way I have been raised by my (non-religious) parents.

You are forgetting something very important: if you think that society today is more tolerant, more "moral" than societies of the past, then this is not because of religion, this is inspite of religion. These values are a product of secular western philosophy and thought.

Which then begs the question, if we are able to become more "moral" without religion, what is the need for religion in the first place?

God decides nothing, we decide everything, the truth is not objective, the truth needs to be seen through clear lenses, gravity is gravity, the earth turns, smoking gives you cancer, there is no bearded goddy figure keeping all this going, simply truths that need to be accepted, or rejected, if you have the time

See, you also said this:

The name of the true Guru is 'the eternal truth' , no one has a monopoly on the truth

Which to me sounds like an objective truth, unless I have interpreted it wrong, in which case, please explain.

if you have to ask this then you have misunderstood everything I have written, I then have to ask myself what your agenda actually is, learning? or just boredom

Asking questions is the best way to learn. I would appreciate it if my motives were not questioned simply because I demanded clarity on an issue.

Thank you.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

ExploringSikhi Ji,
If the word Guru referred to human Gurus then it would be that the Gurus were offering their own faculties. Consequently then, there wouldn't have been a tradition of the Shabad Guru. Sikhi does vouch for the belief that the Ten Gurus had a continuum of a single Jyot, and even if all of them did not reveal Gurbani, they represented the virtues and embodiment of the Shabad or the Word. The Guru ultimately is the Shabad itself, that was the logic behind the Guruship of Guru Granth Sahib Maharaj.

Contrast this with the Abrahamic faiths, who even while revering their respective Book to be the Word of God, don't believe the Word to be the Prophet. The whole concept, you will realise, is different from Sikhi.

Thank you aristotle ji, I appreciate it. And I agree with you, I have found that a lot of people in the Abrahamic faiths almost revere their prophets, even in Islam where Allah is the most supreme, having conversed with many Muslims, it seems to me like most of them worship the ground that Muhammad walked upon. They treat him like a God, wipe their butts the way he did, shake hands the way he did and so forth.

What I like most about Sikhi is that the emphasis is on the message, not so much as who revealed it.

One thing I want to know about the jyot is, the Gurus having the same jyot, is that literal or metaphorical? Do Sikhs believe that when Guru Nanak Dev Ji died, that a light actually left his body and entered Guru Angad Dev Ji, and then the 8 proceeding Gurus, and is now in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, or is it a more poetic way of saying that they all spread the same message?

We have been raised to see 'salvation' in the Abrahamic sense and 'liberation' in the Buddhist/Hindu sense. While Sikhi may compile some points of these philosophies in itself, it does not subscribe to the way these faith traditions view the world. Sikhi does not even claim to 'describe' God like other faiths do, who is referred to with epithets of unsurmountability and unknowability in the Gurbani.
Sikhi's concept of savation and liberation is not of heaven, renunciation of the worldly, Nirvana or Moksha, but that of Jeevan Mukt, lierally the one who has freed himself from the five vices in his dealings of life.

Liberation in Sikhi is not a destination, but a constant path, you have to always be deliberate in this, renunciation or achievement of a 'higher state' once and for all does not equal 'Liberation'.

So when it says that there is no peace/the cycle of reincarnation is not ended without the "Guru's Shabad", is that a translation error? Because it does make it sound like the two are separate, that the latter belongs to the former.

Also, why no peace without Shabad Guru? What about Buddhists or Jains who have become "jeevan mukhti" through the teachings of their religion and without the Sikh Shabad Guru, do they not count? Or Atheists, there are lots out there who are humanists and serve humanity without expecting anything in return, they don't follow the teachings of any teacher or any Guru, are they not "jeevan mukhti"?

Thank you.

 

[aristotle]

One thing I want to know about the jyot is, the
Gurus having the same jyot, is that literal or
metaphorical? Do Sikhs believe that when Guru Nanak Dev Ji died, that a light actually left his body and entered Guru Angad Dev Ji,

No, it was no such physical light which entered the successive Guru's body, it is a metaphorical symbol used in Silh literature.

So when it says that there is no peace/the cycle of reincarnation is not ended without the "Guru's Shabad", is that a translation error?

Rather than a translation error, I would say it is an error in the way we view the Shabad. Gurbani is intended to take spirituality to the masses, and the imagery used relates to the masses, while some Gurbani authors talk about Mukti and breaking the cycle of reincarnation, Baba Farid uses the metaphor of Malik-ul-maut (Isalmic angel of death), it is all about taking hold of substance of the Shabad.

Also, why no peace without Shabad Guru? What about Buddhists or Jains who have become "jeevan mukhti" through the teachings of their religion and without the Sikh Shabad Guru, do they not count? Or Atheists, there are lots out there who are humanists and serve humanity without expecting anything in return, they don't follow the teachings of any teacher or any Guru, are they not "jeevan mukhti"?

Exploring Sikhi Ji,
As I mentioned earlier, the understanding of Sikhi on the topic of Mukti or Jeevan Mukt is not identical to other faiths. But, I get the point you are raising here.
Some Bhagats who have contributed to Gurbani actually lived and died years before Guru Nanak Sahib was even born, and they are considered Jeevan Mukt. Sikhi doesn't have the concept of 'only path to liberation' or 'the only right way'. Sikhi offers its own understanding of a virtuous life and its own unique spiritual discourse to offer, but it does not claim any monopoly on spirituality.
Moreover, Jeevan Mukt is not just about donating or doing social work, it is about constantly confronting the Five Vikaars and ending on top of them. There isn't any set criterion or parametres to Jeevan Mukti, but it is not for any spiritual title the Sikh shall vie for, fulfilling the Sikhi ideals on a daily basis is the only thing we consider equals the so-called liberation of other faiths for us. If done for the greed of heaven, Moksha or breaking the reincarnation cycle, even good work and spirituality are nothing but products of Houmai and falsehood (see how well this connects with Pauri from Vaaran Bhai Gurdas that was earlier quoted.)

 

[angrisha]

How are you so sure that "right and wrong" are ingrained in us? How do you know that they are not dependant on our upbringing/societal values, and that this "moral compass" is actually inherent? That we are born with it? I'd argue that it is not, otherwise the morality of our predecessors would not have been so diametrically opposed to our morality today

.

Im not sure what you are referring too here... there are varying degrees of what we constitute as moral or not moral... Hence why Ethics is a considered philosophy.... I dont think there is any opposition in morality, for me I feel as if we as a human race have stayed pretty constant. The only difference now, is we are more connected.

I think rape/homophobia/racism etc... are all bad because that is the way I have been raised by my (non-religious) parents.

You are forgetting something very important: if you think that society today is more tolerant, more "moral" than societies of the past, then this is not because of religion, this is inspite of religion. These values are a product of secular western philosophy and thought.

Again morality is relative, and they vary. So judging something is more or less moral is relative to what you believe. The question becomes, how do your actions make you feel after, do they lead to greater unhappiness or do they give you joy. If we break it down to a basic level then everyone has these basic attributes. You bring up a valid point, in how we were raised and what we seen plays a role on how we perceive the world. However, we all have the value of free will too make different decisions as we grow up.

Which then begs the question, if we are able to become more "moral" without religion, what is the need for religion in the first place?

I am unsure how religion is related to morality.... Maybe your thinking more along the lines of Abrahmic religions and the 10 commandments?

Religion serves a purpose for those involved and those who participate with in it... what, and how that participation manifest in your life is your decision. Some ppl will join for a sense of belonging, others will join because the message provides an opportunity to transcend. The need is individual....

Please do not shrug this off, but if the Gurus did not literally speak to anything divine, how do you know for sure what the "Creator" wants and doesn't want?

I don't recall any of our Guru's saying that they had any idea of what our creator wanted? I also dont know what you mean by literally speaking to the divine? How would the divine speak back?

I think for alot of the basic questions you ask, if you did a little more reading you would probably benefit. Please see this link as a basic starting point for a lot of the basic questions you bring up.



http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page




One more quick thought, Guru Shabad that is mentioned through out Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, doesn't specifically limit to only the Shabad contained within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It actually to me means any word of god which we believe to be true... it can come from anywhere really, as long as it proves true for you.

 

[harmanpreet singh]

Very very good question Harmanpreet Ji, and this brings me to my next point.



In a lot of places in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it will say something like "without the Guru's Shabad/Bani, peace is not obtained" or something along those lines.

Who is this "Guru"? Is it the human Sikh gurus? Or the SatGuru (God)?

If the former, then is this not implying that the Sikhi is actually the only path to God?

If the latter, then is this not implying that the Shabad/Bani, and consquently the entire Guru Granth Sahib, is the literal word of God, since it is God's poetry?



Thank you

sat sri akaal exploring Sikhi ji ,


Shabad/Word/Bani is the GURU . in "Siddh Goshat -dialouge between Guru Nanak and Siddhas of Himalyas" ,Siddhas asked Guru Nanak a question


ਤੇਰਾ ਕਵਣੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਜਿਸ ਕਾ ਤੂ ਚੇਲਾ ॥
Ŧerā kavaṇ gurū jis kā ṯū cẖelā.
Who is your guru? Whose disciple are you?

Guru Nanak replied


ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਧੁਨਿ ਚੇਲਾ ॥
Sabaḏ gurū suraṯ ḏẖun cẖelā.
The Shabad is the Guru, upon whom I lovingly focus my consciousness; I am the chaylaa, the disciple.


http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=942&g=1&h=1&r=1&t=1&p=0&k=0&fb=0



there are many other shabads in Guru Granth Sahib which says "Bani/ShabaWord is the GURU and GURU is Bani/shabad"

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=982&punjabi=t&id=42105#l42105

If the latter, then is this not implying that the Shabad/Bani, and consquently the entire Guru Granth Sahib, is the literal word of God, since it is God's poetry?

ya it imply , but not in Abrahmic sense .


blessings ..

 

[Harry Haller]

How are you so sure that "right and wrong" are ingrained in us? How do you know that they are not dependant on our upbringing/societal values, and that this "moral compass" is actually inherent? That we are born with it? I'd argue that it is not, otherwise the morality of our predecessors would not have been so diametrically opposed to our morality today.

How I would behave if I were fighting for survival is markedly different to how I behave sitting in my warm shop surrounded by chocolate and lucozade. Sometimes we do the right thing for the right reason, in the past we may have done the wrong thing for the right reason, to act in a way that embraces the wrong thing for the wrong reason takes either a complete lack of normal intelligence or a desire to be as bad as possible. Did Genghis Khan offer himself up as a good role model, a figure or truth and justice? no, he did not, all 'bad' people know they are bad, revel in that badness, if you can show me a bad person who thought they were good from history, I would be interested.

Of course then there is doing the right thing for the wrong reason, Mother Teresa is classic example of this, to millions she was a saint, but to the hundreds who knew her, she was not, yet, to her mind, she was good.

We can all delude ourselves, but whether it was today, or a million years ago, what is right and what is wrong is there, where we sit in balance depends on our circumstances, how desperate we are, how ready we are to turn away from the light and step into the darkness for personal gain, or even to survive.

Please do not shrug this off, but if the Gurus did not literally speak to anything divine, how do you know for sure what the "Creator" wants and doesn't want?

In order to answer this, one must clarify Creator. Creator is not the Abrahamic God that is worshipped by those of the book, I must also stress that this is my own personal definition of Creator that I hold dear, others may have different views,. Creator is formless, eternal and in everything. Therefore, I attribute Creator to a life energy that is in all, it does not have opinions, it does not grimace or smile, it has no feelings, it exists and it represents the eternal truth. Our truth hangs those today and then puts them on pedestals later, the eternal truth represents the end game all along.

The Gurus did not speak to Creator, they were in tune with Creator, they were in consonance with Creation, they were in step, in tune, aligned with Creator, and from that, they knew how the world operated, how humankind operated, they could see through the whole game and see what the game was about, and how to play it, how to live. They did not pass on elaborate rituals and prayers, just a code of life, a way of living. If you align yourself with Creation you will discover the same.

I think rape/homophobia/racism etc... are all bad because that is the way I have been raised by my (non-religious) parents.

So if you had not been raised in such a way, would you not think they were bad?

You are forgetting something very important: if you think that society today is more tolerant, more "moral" than societies of the past, then this is not because of religion, this is inspite of religion. These values are a product of secular western philosophy and thought.

I think society is more true, and I am not a great fan of any religions.

Which then begs the question, if we are able to become more "moral" without religion, what is the need for religion in the first place?

I agree, Sikhism is more a way of life than a religion. When I hear people say they are 'religious' it makes me laugh, why would anyone want to laud themselves for being ritualistic and for worshipping idols, be they statues or a tree that the tenth master may have touched, or a stone with a handprint on it, for chanting words they do not understand, for praying to enhance their own lives, if this is religion, they are welcome to it. I agree with you, there is no need for religion period, it is self serving and nothing else. Be it the desire to go to heaven, the fear of hell, the need to please 'God', its all pretty self serving. Sikhs do not fear God, or Creation, they love Creation, they wish to have the facets of Creator, to be brave, to assist, to love, not to please Creation, but to be in consonance with Creation, because when your dead, your dead, no rewards, no punishments, you do it because it is the true way to live. Anyone can live like a Sikh, be they Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim etc

Asking questions is the best way to learn. I would appreciate it if my motives were not questioned simply because I demanded clarity on an issue.

I apologise, an old friend came to stay, it sometimes makes me short.

 

[Luckysingh]

One thing I want to know about the jyot is, the Gurus having the same jyot, is that literal or metaphorical? Do Sikhs believe that when Guru Nanak Dev Ji died, that a light actually left his body and entered Guru Angad Dev Ji, and then the 8 proceeding Gurus, and is now in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, or is it a more poetic way of saying that they all spread the same message?

Do you think that the jyot is a literal 50watt light ?
What message are you referring to here ?
There are no poetic ways or excuses of explaining a message as you mentioned.

The 'JYOT' is the light of God.
The same light mentioned in other faiths, the same noor mentioned in your other interest-Islam.
The jyot is BOTH of Form and Formless (Nirgun and Sargun).
Both these aspects of Nirgun and Sargun make up the Nirankar(of no form)
The sargun aspects or the form that is revealed to us is the Shabad or the Word which was uttered by the gurus and is now in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.
There are other threads bout Nirgun and Sargun and it may be worthwhile getting your head around these first !eacesign:

 

[Harry Haller]

Do you think that the jyot is a literal 50watt light ?
What message are you referring to here ?
There are no poetic ways or excuses of explaining a message as you mentioned.

ahh he has gone to stay with you lol lol lol lol