gupy

Also tSingh again shows my main criticism with mainstream Sikhs who don't acknowledge McLeod's work. It's fine that you don't agree, but no one ever puts forward any decent response to the so-called 'lies' in his work. Why do all other Sikh Scholers fail to challenge him on a level field??? Are Sikhs just that damn stupid???????????????????

OKay......... back to the topic at hand, I completely disagree with this, on the notion that bani due to its nature cannot be interpretated as any kind of a 'Rahit'. There is very very little, in fact as a %, very small of the bani which omments on Rehits. The vast vast majority is a journey of mind. This journey personifies many forms (this is illustrated by the differings in the writings of the different bhagats). So if you and I followed by the DOT, we would still be different. But the real question would be : Is there any thing wrong with being different??? Also another request - please stick to the topic, their have been many personal attacks on these forums, lets act like adulst and keep this sensible. If any of you really have something to say about any individual, go say ity to him/her. Don't admin cut here about it. Thank you

I'm not saying that cannabis has anything to so with ones spiritual philosophy per say. However it has DEFINITE uses. Please also be precise which part of Adi Granth you refer to. Also keep in mind the bani of Dasam and Sarbloh granths which you have already attributed to Guru Gobind Singh. ... and even if you won't be convinced about the cannabis thing, again fair enough. But that is not the be all and end all of the sanatan form...

... Like i said before, i don't think naam literally trans;ates to name. Especially just Vaheguru. I think naam refers to something that involves a lot more (how can i say this) 'investigative' thinking. I.e. why does Adi Granth use many names for 'him'. These names aren't randomly chosen because they ryhme well, but have definite relevance to given shabads. In essence they are describing the inexpressible forms/ characteristics/ understandings/ personifications of the 'one'. So in this (my) understanding of the philosophy of Adi Granth, there is no end to the definitions of words like bhagti, hence the special relationship i believe bhagti has with art. Both are expressions of an understanding beyond the realm of words. Then in this context Dasam and Sarbloh bani can be seen in differing lights. I don't belive every 'Sikh' needs to see them as Guru if they so wish. But the PROceed the Adi Granth in examplfing forms of the understanding we seek, mosty from a Warriors (Kshatriyas) point of view. And Academic text are useful, not to shape our philosophical thinking, but in order to explore our heritage, which you may or may not find of any interest. That fair enough.

okay i see your point, however the obviously we dont mean the same things by naam and bhagti. Naam (in my opinion) is far beyond any spoken name of God. It is an intuitive understanding of the divine. Bhagti is that which achieves the forer (naam). Simple (or as complicated) as that... (nature of snatan world = PARADOXICAL ... not for those who like it black and white)

Alas... now where getting to the real stuff! Let us be careful how we use terms like bhagti and naam. In my opinion the interesting thing with the sanatan world is the view of dharam, bhagti and naam. I personally believe, for example, it is too simple to translate naam as name. Dharam as rightousness, and bhagti as the standard path/ prayers. To me the terms have almost intuitive understandings and can be expressed in a multitude of ways. So as i said before, what is wrong with: a musician excelling in his/ her field to such a point that the music almost becomes divine... a warrior excelling to such a point that all around seems to merge into his being... ... main point being it is not what your doing, but what the essence of what your doing is. The need for fluidity for this to occur isn't present. We are confined to live in a box, devoid of the riches of arts, that TRUELY TRANSCEND THE BEING. This is the true nature of what i see as the sanatan world.

gurpreet_singh You make a good point when you said So why the hostility to the sanatan world then? This is exactly what Udhasis practice. To the above, the answer dpends on what your bhagti is. To some it is the sword, hence Dasam and Sarbloh bani is just as essential. But i accept this need only apply to those who are inclined to this way. But to others, the Gita, Vedas, Upanishads, Puraans maybe equal, because they are inclined that way. To another their music may be their bhagti. ... and to some a woman might be... actually i'll leave it there you get my point

Another point of view is as follows: If you define your 'Sikhi' by JUST the Adi Granth, then how do you justify the KHALSA ??? For example quote me where the insistance on 5 K's is, or the Nitnem is mentioned, or in general a direct set of cammandments (rehit)

Pheena : Another book that may interest you, which is considerably shorter, is 'Who is a Sikh' again by McLeod. The first text i recommended is much longer and detailed, this one would be a much better introduction, which would nicely lead to the other Hope that helps

N30! Okay, i wont get into that particular debate now, but the overall point is clear, that you cant ignore history... gurpreet_singh I dont just take websites as 'gospel', there is much independant literature to support my claims... Could you share your sources with us...

gurpreet_singh This is a forum for adults... If you wish to make a criticism at least display enough intellect to put forward a more cultured response.

I'm not advocating that we should base our beliefs on academic works on HIstory. But what ever they are, we should be able to provide some justification for them. To simply ignore History is just as bad too... So my point remains : Only 4 sampradyas were intiated by the Gurus - Nirmala, Nihung, Udhasi, Seva Panthi This does NOT mean i expect every individual who claims to be sikh to be one of the above. But I at least expect some RESONABLE explination, besides name calling and other typical responses

The word sanatan, in relation to Sikhs has been used in many context. Textually references are made in the Adi, Dasam and Sarbloh Granths in the context of ones mind being 'snatan'. On a social level, it is arguable whether people would call themselves snatan. Howver the reason for this may well be, that using 'snatan' to label a set of people is an invention of modern day on lookers. They are only snatan to us, because something else now exist, so it is a relative term, that is defined against todays forms of SikhISM. Hence, the essence of any argument about snatan sikhs should be well defined. The main arguments of the relatively labelled snatan sikhs is simple: Only FOUR smapradyas were intiated during Guru period. And form the textual analysis, it is even simpler. For your mind to be snatan, merely could be taken as fixing your mind on the primal source. Which does not mean Brahma, Vishnu, Shiv Maharaj, etc. Although excepted as important figures. This means that primal entity beyond form or source tha precedes them. Yes, there is the feeling now generating as people 'jump on to the snatan boat' of relative relations with other orders, who ever the term must be viewed in the correct context. As most modern day authors have been able to do (McLeod, Oberoi, Pushwara, etc...), which of couse more contempory sources wouldn't have (Malcolm, Foster, etc...)

Hi, I think anyone interested in this topic should read 'Sikhs of the Khalsa - A history of Rehit' by W.H McLeod. Rather than just state various 'theoeires', we should all respect the academic work of a scholar who invested years on this subject. As a side point, I think it is amazing that the majority of Sikhs have not only ognored such work, but failed to respond to it also. The literature out there by popular Sikh authors (Kohli, Kushwant, etc...) are nowhere near the same standard of authorship, and are 'romantic' visions of HIstory that are pleasing to the (sorry to be so harsh) uneducated Sikh audience.

Hi, Could i get opinions on the following assertions: To maintain DHARMA surely the Khalsa must be able to: 1) recognise the dynamic nature of Dharma 2) be able to relate to every path in practising dharma 3) to stay away from close minded which fails to embrace all manner of people 4) Be able to adapt 5) Be accessible to all (i.e. reffering to language and identity barriers) and most importantly 6) Be comprised of a multitude of people , with distinctly varying life styles, all practicing the myriads of Dharmic values Thanks

Question: SWB point is a very valid one, and i want to re-word some of it in a question or two: 1) How do you explain the apparent 'contradiction' between the modern day concept of a strict rehit attributed to Guru Gobind SinghJi and a even stricter adherence the the philosophy of the Adi Granth. Considering that the Adi Granth persistantly makes it clear (in my opinion) that the journey needs to come with in). 2) Are 5 k's essential to practice Dharam. In particular hair? I have some thoughts on tis, but i wanna know what your thoughts on these questions are. Thanks

On a serious note, i think it is vital for people to stop having such an idealistic purtanical view on sex. If you insist on repressing yourself by having your 'penji / paji' notions, all that happens is that filth gets swept under the carpet. A level of openess is needed, so that things can be addressed. Any normal person knows how potent their sex drive is, ignoring it is simply unhealthy. I'm not saying go out and mate like rabbits. But more saying you need to find some balance where you sddress the issue sensibly. For example, everyone gets hungry, so we eat. Eating too much or the bad thing is very bad. Eating nothing is EQUALLY as bad. As for sex, for most of us the same is true. If you run away from your lust, believing that you've somehow conquered it, it'll harm you even more because you think its not there. This is why religious institutions (incl ours) all have mass sexual assualt problems, and were blinded to it.

Again i think your making implicit assumptions. You maybe right on what you say about Guru Gobind Singh giving Hukum to see Guru as the Granth, and i'll even for now let you have the part about 5 K's. But am i NOT a sikh if i have followed the Adi Granth? If so, then 5 K's DO NOT explicitly come into it, in particular hair cutting. Pleae also refer to the post about 5K's effect on Sikhism. My overall question is this, answer on this thread or the other : HOW DO MODERN DAY SIKHS JUSTIFY THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE ADI GRANTH TEACHING FOCUSED SOLELY ON MIND AND SOLE. AND THE INSISTANCE ON EXTERNAL 'REHIT' AS A MANDATORY PART OF SIKH LIFE????

N30 singh, i think we should give the above question a bit more thought than just playing 'the guilt/pride game of using our beloved Gurus and rehit etc....' From my understanding of the Agi Granth, ALL outwardly pursuits (charities, pilgrimages, rituals, 'good' deeds, etc) are of NO avail apart from the INTUITIVE notion of EKTA. So i think it is a valid question to ask whether the INSISTANCE on 5 K's his hindering SOME people from reaching the message of the Adi Granth, by covering it up with what could be called Ritual. SIMPLY PUT, i think we're all making an assumption that i believ is false : SIKH is not the same as KHALSA p.s. it is not my intention to offend anyones personal beliefs or practices

talk about handbags at ten paces.... lol Look, please read the following and comment on anything you care to disagree on and WHY: 1) If the Adi Granth is my guru, then i am a 'sikh' (the definition i woll make our common reference point, agreed?) 2) The rehit of khande ke amrit is not explicit in the Adi Granth 3) The notion of the Khalsa is not detailed either 4) 3 of the 5 components of Nitnem are not from THE Adi Granth 5) The notion of religious identity is infact submissed by the Adi Granth 6) AND KHALISTAN ....... I don't even have enough respect for that notion to care to comment So question remains, the great poet that Guru Gobind SINGH was, where is his poetry..... ? Who are the Khalsa, if not explicit in the creators own words, then it must be ur man made infactuation

The above posts are good, but still avoid answering the question. And in response to Infernal Monks post, you made an assunption there..... which is the most likely cause of the mass confusion. My question is not related solely to Khalsa, but to someone who is 'sikh' (simplest definition being someone who acknowledges the Adi Granth for arguments sake), so even if you can be proved correct, it still doesn't answer the question. Thank you

So far, NO ONE has been able to show that the Adi Granth explicitly forbids the cutting of hair. Please reply to the above only. Can anyone contraict this point alone, regardless of any other opinion they have. And to this note can anyone show that ANY OF THE 5 k's are absolutely essential to being a sikh of the Guru (the Guru being the Adi Granth) Thanks

VJKK VJKF My raag buddies, theres a new website : Gurmatsangeet.org out there. Its still very basic at the moment, but the sevadars are planning to put a vast amount of rare raag samples on their. Please keep an eye out, i'll inform you of any changes. Gupy

VJKK VJKF This is a question that i've always had, maybe its a really dumb question and im missing something obvious here, but when we see the symbol for what we call 'ik onkaar' were not really reading whats written are we? I originally thought that i must be missing something about the grammer of Gurmukhi or something like that and it must me completely obvious to say the 'kaar' part. But recently someone also asked the same question and also made two interesting points: 1. In another shabad, the word onkaar appears in the main body of a shabad (i.e. not the start, e.g. ikonkaar sat gurparsaad ), and in that instance it is written in i think four letters, i.e. each sound is described. 2. I was also told that there is a nirmala tradition of saying " ik-aauuuuuum...." (sorry about the transliterations... forgive my mistakes), i.e. like the AUM found in ancient Indian texts. Like i said maybe im missing something really big here, but then again i dont understand why it isn't written out as 'onkaar' (with all the appropriate letters) if it is meant to be just that. Through thinking along these lines, and taking into consideration other Gurbani and older indian texts, you start to look at things differently, so can anyone shed any light on this issue (if it is even an issue)? Thanks