HFTarasque

Bro what is your country of origin ?

You lay too much stress on same sex marriage .Can this be the only yardstick for liberalism ?

Love marriage is accepted largely...there are few of them who are strongly clinging to the clan identities ...things are changing .

The western society is an amalgamated society and therefore is not based on principles that rigidly ..and there is a constant adding of more diverse cultures..even from the remotest corners of the world. Therefore it wont be the same as a society which is already established and has had a foundation centuries old .

I'm from the USA but I live in Europe.

I am laying a lot of stress on it because it is very important to me. I would not be able to accept a religion which teaches that homosexuality is somehow wrong. So, is it the only yardstick, no, not at all. Is it a crucial one for me? Yes it is.

Wouldn't what apply?

Asking questions about God and Nirvana leading to attachment.

Ok I think the homosexual issue is in the same category. It's a big discussion I think.

True, but we can still discuss how the issue is treated within Sikhi.

Why either or? Both

Every label can lead to attachment but labels also guide us and are necessary for building a framework. We want to attach ourselves to good labels that will benefit us. This is why Guru sahibs say to become attached to God's label.

However ultimately, one has to experience a completely detached consciousness. That's where God resides ie nirvana.

So are you saying that the label benefits us on our spiritual path, but to ultimately reach the state of Nirvana we have to completely detach ourselves even from those labels?

I don't know what that means. Isn't everything questionable?

Let me rephrase that. I mean, is questioning tolerated? So, for example, in my hometown there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians. Many of them believe that the Bible is the perfect Word of God, and is unquestionable. They do not tolerate any doubt, investigation, or skepticism. To even question that a verse or teaching is directly from God is un-Christian in their eyes. Whatever the Bible, or your preacher, tells you to do, you HAVE to do if you are a good Christian and you have no choice. This is what I mean by dogma.

First of all, thank you for the thoughtful response.

Having been listening to both Buddhist and Sikh teachers, amongst others, so I think I am a fairly good candidate to answer your questions.

Sach khand is just a different word for Nirvana. In fact, in Guru Granth sahib Nirvana appears way more than Sach khand (which only appears once, compared to Nirvana which appears 100 times). They are the same thing.

I think you are missing Buddha's view. He means to say any question that lead to attachment to an object impedes spiritual growth. If you make Nirvana into another object to seek out then you are impeding your spiritual growth.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that nirvana is such a common term. I have to admit, my introduction to Sikhi came from listening to the talks of Ishwar Puri Ji, who is a follower of Radha Soami, and he uses terms like Sach Khand much more frequently.

I understand. Wouldn't that also apply to God, the self, or Nirvana as well?

None of the religions you mentioned should impede with your values. All Gurus have a message that is universally applicable by all humans.

Although you might want to look up studies done in psychology. The differences men and women are almost, if not entirely, biolgical and psychological. These bio/psychological differences appear as soon as they are born and build up through puberty. You can start with the documentary 'Paradox of Equality' to get a brief glimpse into this research, and then go from there.

Cultural and Spiritual differences arise due to Biological and Psychological differences. Men and women have to pay attention to how they respond to various spiritual teachings and should find the best approach according to their own individual psychology.

Some Sikhs I have talked to, as well as the Singh on the basicsofsikhi channel, do not support gay marriage within Sikhi (at least with the Anand Karaj/for the Amritdhari). It is in the Rehat Maryada that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, I have seen a number of explanations of this, but I've never really seen one that was very satisfying/consistent.

Funnily enough, I am actually a Psychology student. There are two fundamental issues with the psychological studies that have been done so far - Psychology has, at least historically, been very limited to a western audience. It's starting to expand more now, but there is still a huge lack of cross-cultural studies and studies of non-western cultures. The other fundamental issue is the lack of transgender studies. There are multiple studies which have shown that transgenders have hormone receptors more similar to the opposite sex than their own, and even their brain structures are more similar to the opposite sex, and that's pre-hormone therapy.

However, I don't want to turn this into a debate on Psychology. It's a totally different topic and not of much concern right now. I will take a look at the documentary you recommended, and perhaps it will give some information I am not aware of.

None of the religions you mentioned should impede with love or arranged or interfaith marriage.

However, differences between religions and values can often lead to difficult marriages. I have a friend who is going through this right now. He has different values from his partner and that is making things more complicated than they should be.

So Sikhi accepts love marriages, but they are not encouraged? Am I understanding that correctly? And interfaith marriages are also acceptable, but not encouraged and cannot be done with Anand Karaj? I am still confused about this, so if you could clear it up for me I would appreciate it.

I can definitely understand that. When I was with my Muslim girlfriend, even though she was actually agnostic, I ran into a number of value conflicts with both her and her family.

Why would he shun religious labels which can lead to attachment and not other labels which can also lead to attachment, labels such as mother, father, or other names even.

Guru Sahib was talking about the atma and how it is formless, it is neither this nor that. When he is say there is no hindu, nor muslim, he is saying to recognize the atma within which cannot be labelled. Guru Sahib's message can be summed up to "You are the form of the light (atma) within, recognize your original form."

Guru Sahib recognized the power or labels and names. That is why the name of God becomes the most important name for Guru Sahib. This is a label/name you keep remembering, reciting and meditating on, all day everyday.

"Fallen prey" lol
Dogma has become a negative word but it is very much a part of life. Everyone has their own dogma that they are blind to. It's more important to recognize your own dogma so that it may be transcended.
Dogma provides us with a framework that we can use to transcend things, to transcend the very dogma we are following.

That's a good point.

So Sikhi itself, as a label, is powerful. Does such a label lead to unnecessary attachment, or is some attachment beneficial (such as the attachment to merging with God)?

I think we are defining dogma differently. I am using dogma in the sense of being told what to do, and not being able to question it. Is Sikhi questionable? Can things, and beliefs, be challenged?

Hello everyone,

As the title of the thread suggests, I am currently exploring Sikhi as well as other religious beliefs (including Buddhism and Radha Soami, though I have issues with following a human master). I come from a Christian background, but I would not describe my beliefs as being particularly Christian, as I believe in an all-pervading God who is impersonal, and I believe in systems such as reincarnation and karma. So, I have many questions about Sikhi as I am on my search, and I was hoping that you all might be able to answer some questions for me. None of these questions are meant to challenge your beliefs at all, but merely to express my own doubts and challenges that I face in my search.

1. Buddhism and Sikhism I think are largely similar, but they have a major difference that I find hard to reconcile. Buddhism (at least Theravadan and Zen) teaches that the existence of God can't be answered for sure, and the same can be said for the soul. Instead the Buddha says that we should forget such questions, and instead focus on achieving Nirvana, as these questions impede our spiritual growth. Sikhi (as far as I am aware) states that our ultimate purpose is to merge with God, and reach Sach Khand. The problem is, I can see and understand the reasoning behind both of these positions, and I have a really hard time figuring out what to believe on this issue. How can I resolve this conflict?

2. Scriptures are obviously very important to Sikhs, as the SGGSJ forms the foundation for Sikhi. My question regarding this is, why is reading the Bani repeatedly so important? Is kirtan more beneficial than to practice simran and meditation on the atman inside? I can understand reading it for understanding, and of course reading scriptures at different times in our lives, we will receive different lessons. But is inward meditation not more valuable, provided it is done with a proper spiritual understanding?

3. As I am young and come from the West (I am only 18), I have certain Western values which I find hard to reconcile with both Sikhism and Buddhism, even though I may find the religion very appealing. Specifically, I feel very strongly about gender equality, and that differences between men and women are almost entirely (if not entirely) cultural rather than biological or spiritual in nature. This means that I am a strong advocate of homosexual rights, gay marriage, and transgender rights. I realize that Sikhi has done a lot to stand up for many of these things, but at the same time, I see that homosexuals are not allowed to be married with the Anand Karaj. As a Westerner, this seems to be the same religious dogmatism that I tried to escape when I left Christianity, but maybe I am misunderstanding it.

4. Marriages. As far as I understand, Sikhs do not condone love marriages, and instead practice arranged marriages. What is the harm in a love marriage, or in dating? Again I realize I come from a Western perspective, but I fail to see how these things are harmful to your spirituality. If all of your energy is focused on finding a partner, or on sexual promiscuity, or the like, I can definitely understand it. Also, why can an inter-faith marriage not be done with the Anand Karaj? If a Sikh wants to marry a non-Sikh, isn't that their choice? And if they want to do the marriage the Sikh way, is that not displaying the proper respect to Sikhi? For a long time, I dated a Muslim girl and we planned to be married. Sadly that didn't happen, but I can't imagine missing out on someone who may be the love of my life, because I am limited to only marrying someone of my religion.

5. Again as far as I understand, Guru Nanak Ji shunned religious labels. He stated "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim." So therefore, why have his teachings started a religion? This is something I haven't been able to find much discussion about, and I am quite curious about it. Has Sikhism fallen prey to the same dogmatism that he taught against?

6. The SGGSJ was named as the last Guru for the Sikhs. Does this mean there will never be another Guru? What about when we move out of Kal Yug and into the next age, will there be another succession of Gurus?

I'm sorry for the long list of questions. I look forward to hearing your responses. Thank you.