Gurus Was Guru Nanak A Good Father?

[Astroboy]

Guru Nanak was a good father because he never scolded his children.
He taught them only the true purpose of their earthly mission.
He evaded the entrapment of a family life which leads one nowhere.
He disapproved the greed to earn lots of money by means of trickery as encouraged by his father, Mehta Kalu.
He gave away his earnings to the poor and needy and considered such an act as a good investment.

How many children would wish they had a father like Guru Nanak? :whisling:

 

[Sinister]

a good father is someone who teaches, plays a role model and trys to advise his children to do good things in life...
to say that guru nanak did not do this with his children is impractical and very hard to believe.

 

[JustCurious]

Guru Nanak was a good father because he never scolded his children.
He taught them only the true purpose of their earthly mission.
He evaded the entrapment of a family life which leads one nowhere.
He disapproved the greed to earn lots of money by means of trickery as encouraged by his father, Mehta Kalu.
He gave away his earnings to the poor and needy and considered such an act as a good investment.

How many children would wish they had a father like Guru Nanak? :whisling:

I am surprised how you think Guru Nanak could have taught his kids anything of any value if he was off gallivanting around India for 28 years, which surely would have been throughout his kids' formative years! According to Wikipedia's page on Sri Chand (Guru Nanak's oldest son) he was raised by Guru Nanak's sister.

If he taught his kids so well & taught them the only true purpose of their earthly mission than why is it that one of his sons formed a sub sect of Sikhism known as the Udasis opposing his father's teachings? They are celibate and, either nude or while wearing a yellow robe, carry around a begging bowl to receive food or donations (begging is forbidden among orthodox Sikhs).

I am not sure there are many children who would honestly say that they would prefer to have an absent father who was away for 28 years to one who took an active role in their formative years.

 

[roab1]

Did you read 'aarta' of Sri Chand? Do you understand the basic teachings of Sikhism with regard to five vices? Why are you obsessed with a need of father being around during formative years? A lot of children in west grow up without fathers and do real brilliant. Who guides them? Ask your mother does she trust if your father, if you have one, to stay away from you and her and the follwing four things will not happen
1. Your father will find a mistress or start visitng prostitutes
2. Your mother will find a new boyfriend
3. You will turn a druggie
4. Your sister will run away from home.

How rich is your family? I know it is a personal question but it is essential to know why you need a father always around especially during formative years. Is your mother educated? Is she able to take care of you in your fathers absence? Do you have caring and rich extended family like fathers or mothers siblings?

You still have not admitted your faith. Did you learn that in Quran?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I am surprised how you think Guru Nanak could have taught his kids anything of any value if he was off gallivanting around India for 28 years, which surely would have been throughout his kids' formative years! According to Wikipedia's page on Sri Chand (Guru Nanak's oldest son) he was raised by Guru Nanak's sister.

If he taught his kids so well & taught them the only true purpose of their earthly mission than why is it that one of his sons formed a sub sect of Sikhism known as the Udasis opposing his father's teachings? They are celibate and, either nude or while wearing a yellow robe, carry around a begging bowl to receive food or donations (begging is forbidden among orthodox Sikhs).

I am not sure there are many children who would honestly say that they would prefer to have an absent father who was away for 28 years to one who took an active role in their formative years.

Just Curious ji,

Guru Fateh.

Once again lots of presumptions and assumptions laced with falsehood which is a shame. You have no evidence to prove your claim as has been the case for most of your claims.

Guru Nanak brought pragmatism to the world. You should read about it. As mentioned before, make knowledge your best friend not your worst enemy.

You have shown how insecure and feeble you are mentally and is fearful of sharing your own faith with others. Your babbling above shows nothing but your ignorance of the subject which is unfortunate.

Tejwant Singh

 

[JustCurious]

Just Curious ji,

Guru Fateh.

Once again lots of presumptions and assumptions laced with falsehood which is a shame. You have no evidence to prove your claim as has been the case for most of your claims.

Guru Nanak brought pragmatism to the world. You should read about it. As mentioned before, make knowledge your best friend not your worst enemy.

You have shown how insecure and feeble you are mentally and is fearful of sharing your own faith with others. Your babbling above shows nothing but your ignorance of the subject which is unfortunate.

Tejwant Singh

It is a historical fact that Guru Nanak went gallivanting around India, in this regard I have not presumed anything. And as a result of this he left behind a wife and 2 small children without their father. This too is fact.

I have to confess that over the past several hours I had not been following this thread too closely. Here is where some changes need to be made. The use of the word "gallivanting" takes the idea of Guru Nanak's missionary work to a new low. You are warned and will receive an infraction.

Now as I mentioned before I can only presume that children need their dad especially in their early formulative years, and especially young boys who would see him as a role-model to look up to and emulate. This I think is clear and no-one in their reasonable mind would contest that.

In the case of his wife, who would have attended to her phsyical needs, as surely every normal women has a desire to be with her husband and receive his care and affection? The fact that he left her could that not be mis-construed as cruelty on his part? What about her emotional needs? What about helping her raise their two children, which he helped bring into the world?

To this roab ji has made a good reply. But to the following there is no excuse for your language. TOS demands No Undermining of the Sikh Faith.

Isn't the example set by Guru Nanak an irresponsible one considering that he is considered a paragon of virtue and an example to be emulated by all Sikhs? See my comments below Would not Sikhs who follow him then assume by his example that it is perfectly ok to abandon your family and your responsibility to take care of them and their needs and instead go gallivanting around?

Let me tell you why. When missionaries from any other religion take on a lengthy program of preaching in lands far and wide, most consider this an act inspired by God. I have never read any criticisms, the likes of what you are stating here, EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO GURU NANAK. You are not the first to do this. If you do not cease and desist, then you are looking at being banned.

These are sincere questions that have arisen in my mind and I would very much appreciate it if you could allay my concerns.

 

[roab1]

It is a historical fact that Guru Nanak went gallivanting around India, in this regard I have not presumed anything. And as a result of this he left behind a wife and 2 small children without their father. This too is fact.

Now as I mentioned before I can only presume that children need their dad especially in their early formulative years, and especially young boys who would see him as a role-model to look up to and emulate. This I think is clear and no-one in their reasonable mind would contest that.

In the case of his wife, who would have attended to her phsyical needs, as surely every normal women has a desire to be with her husband and receive his care and affection? The fact that he left her could that not be mis-construed as cruelty on his part? What about her emotional needs? What about helping her raise their two children, which he helped bring into the world?

Isn't the example set by Guru Nanak an irresponsible one considering that he is considered a paragon of virtue and an example to be emulated by all Sikhs? Would not Sikhs who follow him then assume by his example that it is perfectly ok to abandon your family and your responsibility to take care of them and their needs and instead go gallivanting around?

These are sincere questions that have arisen in my mind and I would very much appreciate it if you could allay my concerns.

Do you even know the meaning of 'abandoning'? You have been given the answers but still you keep on repeating same old whining. Do you even bother to read the replies regarding your query? Your assumption that 'all children need a father in formative years' and 'all women need a husband for specific needs' is as stupid as a mullah from stone age religion can get. Muhammed kept several wives and concubines, so didnt they miss him during every night he wasnt with them in the bed? Or did he service all of them in One night?

Your thinking process comes from the direction given by an orphan who was first abandoned by his father while still being in his mothers womb and then the mother abandoned the child when he was only two years old. Then he landed in a foster home where he was physically abused. No wonder you need a 'father' during 'formative years'.

But this is not the case with family of Guru Nanak. They lived in their own house, had their own source of income , great eductaion for children, and a loving father and family. Sri Chand lived a very long and healthy life. Atleast he wasnt born malnutrioned.

Now you havent answered a single question posed to you? Why? Why is musllahs want only one sided convesation? They seek answers but themselves provide none ! Typical sullah coward. Or maybe you are a orphan who grew up without a father, hence the hate. Did your father abandon you?

 

[Sinister]

Do you even know the meaning of 'abandoning'? You have been given the answers but still you keep on repeating same old whining. Do you even bother to read the replies regarding your query? Your assumption that 'all children need a father in formative years' and 'all women need a husband for specific needs' is as stupid as a mullah from stone age religion can get. Muhammed kept several wives and concubines, so didnt they miss him during every night he wasnt with them in the bed? Or did he service all of them in One night?

Your thinking process comes from the direction given by an orphan who was first abandoned by his father while still being in his mothers womb and then the mother abandoned the child when he was only two years old. Then he landed in a foster home where he was physically abused. No wonder you need a 'father' during 'formative years'.

But this is not the case with family of Guru Nanak. They lived in their own house, had their own source of income , great eductaion for children, and a loving father and family. Sri Chand lived a very long and healthy life. Atleast he wasnt born malnutrioned.

Now you havent answered a single question posed to you? Why? Why is musllahs want only one sided convesation? They seek answers but themselves provide none ! Typical sullah coward. Or maybe you are a orphan who grew up without a father, hence the hate. Did your father abandon you?

calm down dude...he's just another troll without an ounce of original thought in his brain and in all likelihood thrives on this type of confrontation...and you're playing into his hand.

 

[spnadmin]

Sinister ji

I agree that much of what we are reading is designed to wind up the membership, get people angry and off-balance.

There is a very important reason for roab ji to respond as he did. The vast majority of members read but do not write replies. There are many reasons for that. But roab ji in writing accomplishes some important objectives. 1) He gives a voice to those who have not replied. In other words, empathy for their perspective is preserved in the thread. 2) He sets the record straight on their behalf. So it really doesn't matter if roab ji has the last word or not. He has accomplished something important. 3) This thread will fall out of sight in a week or so. Months later it will be picked up and someone will want to resume the discussion. At that time it will not look as if no one was "watching the store" and the gold nuggets of our faith were snatched away. roab's comments will be there providing some continuity of respect for Sikh values and beliefs.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

It is a historical fact that Guru Nanak went gallivanting around India, in this regard I have not presumed anything. And as a result of this he left behind a wife and 2 small children without their father. This too is fact.

Now as I mentioned before I can only presume that children need their dad especially in their early formulative years, and especially young boys who would see him as a role-model to look up to and emulate. This I think is clear and no-one in their reasonable mind would contest that.

In the case of his wife, who would have attended to her phsyical needs, as surely every normal women has a desire to be with her husband and receive his care and affection? The fact that he left her could that not be mis-construed as cruelty on his part? What about her emotional needs? What about helping her raise their two children, which he helped bring into the world?

Isn't the example set by Guru Nanak an irresponsible one considering that he is considered a paragon of virtue and an example to be emulated by all Sikhs? Would not Sikhs who follow him then assume by his example that it is perfectly ok to abandon your family and your responsibility to take care of them and their needs and instead go gallivanting around?

These are sincere questions that have arisen in my mind and I would very much appreciate it if you could allay my concerns.

Just Curious ji,

Guru fateh.

Thanks once again for sharing your fear bred by your own insecurity. One wonders if this is part of your faith!. It seems so. This is the reason that you are not secure enough to share your faith with us. It shows more about your own disability than Guru Nanak's who challenged the fiendish Muslims who did nothing but abducted and raped innocent Hindu women. Guru Nanak made people fearless which was the beginning to the end of the marauding of the cruel self centered Muslims whose religion is based on fear,hatred and anger. The fact is that there were some more suicide bombings today which have become daily occurrences and your defending of this violent religion that breeds hatred and anger shows more about your own character than anyone else's. It is a shame and an everyday affair that Muslims kill each other in the name of Allah.

Tejwant Singh

 

[Sinister]

Sinister ji

I agree that much of what we are reading is designed to wind up the membership, get people angry and off-balance.

There is a very important reason for roab ji to respond as he did. The vast majority of members read but do not write replies. There are many reasons for that. But roab ji in writing accomplishes some important objectives. 1) He gives a voice to those who have not replied. In other words, empathy for their perspective is preserved in the thread. 2) He sets the record straight on their behalf. So it really doesn't matter if roab ji has the last word or not. He has accomplished something important. 3) This thread will fall out of sight in a week or so. Months later it will be picked up and someone will want to resume the discussion. At that time it will not look as if no one was "watching the store" and the gold nuggets of our faith were snatched away. roab's comments will be there providing some continuity of respect for Sikh values and beliefs.

say WHAAAAA?
<FONT size=3><?"urn:

So a flame war is acceptable because it guards “golden nuggets”?

Isn’t JC and all of us (including myself) breaking a whole bunch of forum rules here?

I just questioned his mental capacity and another good portion of the membership seems to be calling him a coward? And he seems to be disrespecting guru Nanak by using words like “cruelty” “irresponsible” “abandoning” and “gallivanting”.

Some consistency in the enforcement of rules would go a long way in creating a better forum.

Jus my 2 cents :a26:

 

[spnadmin]

Sinister ji

"Trolling" I can see. "Flame war" you have to explain to me how you understand there is a "flame war" in the thread.

In my opinion, it is important for this conversation to continue for the following reason. There are an untold number of young Sikhs across the globe who are confronted by these kinds of convoluted arguments against our Gurus and Sikhism. These are arguments that are short on facts and designed to prey on the unwary. They are as you say deliberately designed to wind people up. I want to add they are deliberately designed to demoralize. Many young Sikhs don't know how to come back. They are not prepared for the assault on their fundamental beliefs. And that makes a lot of sense, because why would parents raise their children to be cynics, on-guard for attacks 24/7. So the absence of information is in the end a problem. If only a handful of kids, who might be following this discussion, can read through this encounter and several others that are going on right now, they will know what arguments to use the next time they are undercut rudely and without warning. And if only 1 mother or father is reading and wonders, What can I tell my child who is being badgered constantly about his faith, well they have access to the same. So I make no apologies for allowing this to continue.

 

[spnadmin]

It is a historical fact that Guru Nanak went gallivanting around India, in this regard I have not presumed anything. And as a result of this he left behind a wife and 2 small children without their father. This too is fact.

I have to confess that over the past several hours I had not been following this thread too closely. Here is where some changes need to be made. The use of the word "gallivanting" takes the idea of Guru Nanak's missionary work to a new low. You are warned and will receive an infraction.

Now as I mentioned before I can only presume that children need their dad especially in their early formulative years, and especially young boys who would see him as a role-model to look up to and emulate. This I think is clear and no-one in their reasonable mind would contest that.

In the case of his wife, who would have attended to her phsyical needs, as surely every normal women has a desire to be with her husband and receive his care and affection? The fact that he left her could that not be mis-construed as cruelty on his part? What about her emotional needs? What about helping her raise their two children, which he helped bring into the world?

To this roab ji has made a good reply. But to the following there is no excuse for your language. TOS demands No Undermining of the Sikh Faith.

Isn't the example set by Guru Nanak an irresponsible one considering that he is considered a paragon of virtue and an example to be emulated by all Sikhs? See my comments below Would not Sikhs who follow him then assume by his example that it is perfectly ok to abandon your family and your responsibility to take care of them and their needs and instead go gallivanting around?

Let me tell you why. When missionaries from any other religion take on a lengthy program of preaching in lands far and wide, most consider this an act inspired by God. I have never read any criticisms, the likes of what you are stating here, EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO GURU NANAK. You are not the first to do this. If you do not cease and desist, then you are looking at being banned.

These are sincere questions that have arisen in my mind and I would very much appreciate it if you could allay my concerns.

Now the other side of the coin.

Just Curious ji

If you continue on this path of insult and innuendo, you will be banned. You have the opportunity to clean it up.

 

[JustCurious]

Just Curious ji,

Guru fateh.

Thanks once again for sharing your fear bred by your own insecurity. One wonders if this is part of your faith!. It seems so. This is the reason that you are not secure enough to share your faith with us. It shows more about your own disability than Guru Nanak's who challenged the fiendish Muslims who did nothing but abducted and raped innocent Hindu women. Guru Nanak made people fearless which was the beginning to the end of the marauding of the cruel self centered Muslims whose religion is based on fear,hatred and anger. The fact is that there were some more suicide bombings today which have become daily occurrences and your defending of this violent religion that breeds hatred and anger shows more about your own character than anyone else's. It is a shame and an everyday affair that Muslims kill each other in the name of Allah.

Tejwant Singh

I have never mentioned my faith for, what I can see now, was a good reason. I have never mentioned that I am a follower or Islam or any other religion. Regardless of this you have spouted so much hatred for Islam. There have also been subtle insults against the Jewish faith. I thought Sikhism was supposed to honour and respect all religions?

I have had similar offensive comments about Muslims/Islam by other members in their responses to me, even though I have never claimed to be Muslim.

I have come here as an outsider to Sikhism to ask some serious questions that have troubled me and to see how the Sikh community could answer me, and feel disappointed so far with the aggression of the responses by SOME not ALL members.

 

[Astroboy]

Guru Nanak was not only a good father but he was also a good husband. If we want to make comparisons based on today's standards, then here are some of the today's complains women have about their husbands on the daily basis.

Guru Nanak's wife had no reason to make such complains. Enjoy the following article of complains which every husband of today tries to dodge.

Excerpts from Why Mars and Venus Collide (by Dr. John Gray)

John Gray Q & A: My Husband Gives Me the Silent Treatment | Mars Venus LIVING

 

[dalbirk]

Just Curious Ji ,
Have you really gone through the Vaar 1 by Bhai Gurdass Ji , which are treated by Sikhs as Gurbani ( The Sermons of the Gurus ) , they are first hand information . The whole Vaar 1 is about the life of Guru Nanak Dev Ji , the conditions prevailing at those times , the background of the origins of Sikh Faith
http://www.searchgurbani.com/main.php?book=bhai_gurdas_vaaran&action=pauripage&vaar=1&pauri=1
It is a beautiful poetry will not take much long . Do not believe any one-sided statements or half-baked analysis . Read it & decide for yourself , you may get something in real which has escaped the attention of the world for 541 years . We shall all then discuss the same .

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Just Curious ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

I have never mentioned my faith for, what I can see now, was a good reason.

Thanks for sharing that being insecure and hiding behind a facade is a good reason for you. I am glad your religion teaches you that. Despite our many requests to share your faith with us, you have refused to do so. It shows how fearful and insecure you are which must have been bred by your own faith.

I have never mentioned that I am a follower or Islam or any other religion. Regardless of this you have spouted so much hatred for Islam. There have also been subtle insults against the Jewish faith.

Facts are not insults. Car bombings are everyday thing in the Muslim countries. Not eating pork is a tribal mindset by anyone based on lame excuses.

You are the one who came insulting Guru Nanak in your diatribes and we let it pass so that you could be educated but you refused to. You insulted the founder of Sikhi directly. No one has insulted any other religion here. Have the courage and show us where someone has insulted anyone.

You defended and praised the tyrant Jehangir a Muslim and a Mughal ruler who tried to forcefully convert Sikhs into Islam and tortured Guru Arjan Dev ji to death because he refused to convert to Islam. You ignore history. It is you who is insulting humanity by defending the tyrants of the Muslim world and hide behind your own faith.

I thought Sikhism was supposed to honour and respect all religions?

Once again, your lack of knowledge which does not surprise me anymore. Sikhi does honour and respect all other religions. Check who are the ones whose poetry is part of SGGS, our only Guru, and you will find the answer. Check who laid the foundation stone of Harmander Sahib.It pays if one educates oneself. So, go and educate yourself.It will help you in your life.

I have had similar offensive comments about Muslims/Islam by other members in their responses to me, even though I have never claimed to be Muslim.

It is you who have come here to insult Sikhi and Guru Nanak(Read Narayanjot ji's note). You never claimed to be a Muslim but you defended Islam and the tribal halal slaughter in the name of Allah shamelessly. One wonders why!

Where is your neutrality?

I have come here as an outsider to Sikhism to ask some serious questions that have troubled me and to see how the Sikh community could answer me, and feel disappointed so far with the aggression of the responses by SOME not ALL members.

Yes, you came here as an insecure outsider who is too afraid to mention her/his own faith and share its goodness with us. You feel disappointed because no one fell for your insulting and aggressive ways.

If you want to learn something about Sikhi or talk about other religions including yours, you are free to do that but having the goal to interact, teach and learn, not to hurl insults as you have done from the get go.

If you want to start anew without any preconcived and ill founded ideas about Sikhi, Guru Nanak, other Gurus, all the writers whose Gurbani is in SGGS, including of the Muslims, then go ahead. There is always a chance in Sikhi to become better and this is your opportunity.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[karam]

we should be thankful to not only Guru Nanak but his family too, it is because of the sacrifice of Guru Nanak's wife and his parents that we are aware of naam simran and he showed us a ray of hope, I am sure it would have been hard for Mata Sulakhani jee to live without her husband, they took all the pain so that this world could be at peace, Guru Nanak did everything in hukum, he did nothing without divine order so we can not blame him for anything, most of us are mistaken when we look upon Guru Nanak or Guru Gobind Singh jee as ordinary human beings, Guru Nanak was shadow of God, he was born enlightened, akal purkh himself was Guru Nanak's Guru, Guru Nanak came to this earth on a mission and freed many of falsehood, I feel lucky that I am born into sikh religion and I did not have to wander here and there for peace

 

[Amarpal]

Dear Khalsa Ji,

Every thing is relative in this earthly world. The conclusion one arrives at is dependent on the yardstick it uses to evaluate the attributes of the entity under study. For example: Two individuals standing side by side, I find one to be taller than the other; the one I call taler now, becomes smaller when another person of greater height comes a stands along with the two individuals under study. So the same entity assumes a value depending on the yardstick used to measure it.

I evaluate the person based on the person's mission of its earthly life. As I understand it consists of three components. (i) to exhaust our past bad Karmas; (ii) to experience the negativity and positivities in this earth bound life and over come the negativities in life and evolve spiritually - like lotus which rises from muddy and stands above it as symbol of Purity; (iii) to act as instrument of 'The Sat' and work to further its cause in absolutely selfless manner. Each of the person born on this planet, has these three components composing its mission and thus its life. The only difference is the weighing factors of these three components varies with person to person depending on the past Karmas.

Guru Nanal Dev Ji had no past karmas to pay for and during his earth bound life he had overcome the negativities of worldly life and and discovered his ture self which was at the ultimate level of Spiritualiy. Thus only the thrid component remained i.e furthering the cause of 'The Sat'; 'The absolute', 'The Almighty and Mercifull', 'The God'.

His mission, in this way was not just limited to his biological children, but covered all the entities of the creation of 'The Sat'. He was like a father to the entire humanity, a protector of all that is part of creation - living and non-living in form and the formless.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji, was a great father. His life and actions should not be judged with a narrow, worldly self-centered viewpoint, but in the wider context of the totality he cared for.

He was a great Father.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

Amarpal Singh

 

[karam]

Dear Khalsa Ji,

Every thing is relative in this earthly world. The conclusion one arrives at is dependent on the yardstick it uses to evaluate the attributes of the entity under study. For example: Two individuals standing side by side, I find one to be taller than the other; the one I call taler now, becomes smaller when another person of greater height comes a stands along with the two individuals under study. So the same entity assumes a value depending on the yardstick used to measure it.

I evaluate the person based on the person's mission of its earthly life. As I understand it consists of three components. (i) to exhaust our past bad Karmas; (ii) to experience the negativity and positivities in this earth bound life and over come the negativities in life and evolve spiritually - like lotus which rises from muddy and stands above it as symbol of Purity; (iii) to act as instrument of 'The Sat' and work to further its cause in absolutely selfless manner. Each of the person born on this planet, has these three components composing its mission and thus its life. The only difference is the weighing factors of these three components varies with person to person depending on the past Karmas.

Guru Nanal Dev Ji had no past karmas to pay for and during his earth bound life he had overcome the negativities of worldly life and and discovered his ture self which was at the ultimate level of Spiritualiy. Thus only the thrid component remained i.e furthering the cause of 'The Sat'; 'The absolute', 'The Almighty and Mercifull', 'The God'.

His mission, in this way was not just limited to his biological children, but covered all the entities of the creation of 'The Sat'. He was like a father to the entire humanity, a protector of all that is part of creation - living and non-living in form and the formless.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji, was a great father. His life and actions should not be judged with a narrow, worldly self-centered viewpoint, but in the wider context of the totality he cared for.

He was a great Father.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh

Amarpal Singh

well said amarpal jee