newAgeSikh

Thanks for enlightment 'palm_w1' veerji, thats exactly what I should do. Keep mum and let the community figure out what is good for it. I used to think that communities become great whenone everyone has the right to question and know what is going in the community. Taking part and reshaping is what make community great. I wanted to contribute my 2 cents. I cann't see the Sikh community plagued with the same disease the Hindu community used to be plagued with against what the Guru Nank fought his first battle. We it seems fast approaching to the following arrangement AmritDhari Sikhs ------ hindu Brahmins ' Who actual rules the Religion and has powerful influence in Sikh Politics' Normal Turbaned Sikhs --- Hindu Kstriya/Buisness class ' Who has the political power and are influenc eof AmritDhari Sikhs' SahjDhari Sikhs --- -- Fastly becoming equivalent of Hindu Shudras. So I'm just trying to voice my concern that is it this Guru Nank Started the faith for. What went wrong where? is my quest.

N30 Veerji, it doesn't seems that you have any original thoughts. If you had you must have had asked questions yourself. There is tons to ask about. tons of things to Khoj in the Gurbani. Thats what Gurji left the message with all the Saad Sangat to come together and Khoj the meaning. If you give up like this then there will never be any awareness. People will go on following the Leaders without any say of them and soon the Sikhs will become another Hindus with Sects as AmritDhari Sikhs --------------- Hindu Brahmins Normal Siks(with turbans) ----------- Hindu Shatrias/Baniyas Shajdahri Sikhs --------------- Hindu Sudras Beware before it is too late. We are going backward as a Sikh community and is not progressing as Guru Nanak Vision. There is no age old enough to learn and no age young enough to teach. A true Guru learned from the Chella's also.

Student is trying to learn that is why is asking question. You don't read a book without asking question, if you do that then you remain where you are and can never progress. I'm just trying to parse the SGGS. Trying to read between the line. Trying to Khoj the meaning of life by understanding the compilation of SGGS. It is said in the Gurbani "... Khoj Shabd me Lai" But when I try to Khoj in the shabad I come across question but it seems Sikh Scholars try to avade questions. THis give rise to making my own conception about the things the way my Knowledge seems to be working. I think logically, for me 'RAM' is one word has one meaning to one person as in India during that time the lanuage doesn't provide overloading. So the question is " If 'RAM' word is used in many shabad with different meanings then it is due to the fact that those shabads have been written by different people as same person will use the word 'RAM' in the same context". Now it seems from this discussion board we can attribute 'RAM' to creator GOd without any reference to 'RAM Chandra the Hindu GOd'. but then the question is 'Why you use 'RAM'', one could have used 'Bhagwan' as it has been used in SGGS or 'Nanak' that has been used lavishly. Again my theory says the person who used 'RAM' refering to GOD either tries to convey the Hindu's regarding GOD RAM as at that time the majority of the followers of Guru's were Hindu only or consider himself RAM as the GOd and so tries to refer to him as God e.g Why Kabir won't use RAM refering to 'Hindu God RAM chandra' as he was not trying to create anything new. So whats is wrong in using the word 'RAM' refering to Hindu God 'RAM Chandra'. If today some Guru wants to convey something to Sikh community then the Guru will use the word GOD and 'NANAK' as Synonymous. Now if in future that Guru give rise to a new religion with a new SGGS and has reference to Nank and the follower of that group says that the word 'Nanak' there refers to GOD and has no bearing to the Sikh's first Guru Nank. Will that be appropriate. We have come from Hindu religion then why hide the fact that the word 'RAM' in the SGGS will mean anything else then the prevailing notion at the time of writing of the SGGS to denote to the Hindu god Ram Chandra.

Let me make it really clear that YOU DON'T Know the Sikh Religion. Because if you know you do know that Gurbani says "Hum Nahi Changee Bura Nahi Koi". So I don't fear for my life and know no enemies. You are an overly obssessed AmrithDhari who feel proud to carry the Kirpan. But in the essence forget that it has no bearing in today's society. you cann't even kill a dog with that else save yourself on US crime fested downtowns. Do you think I Sikh with his turban and Kirpan is safer than a Sikh with no turban and no kirpan? You must be dreaming if you think you are more safe with a Kirpan and Turban, while it might be the other way. If you are so particluar about saving your life then carry AK-47 and wear Helmet that make more sense and is logical with your physche if you believe in the following: "HUM HI HAI CHANGEE BURAE HAI SARI DUNIYA"

Let me give you the meaning too as I know you just follow blindly and don't try to find even out what it means. It is true when some comes to kill you, you have the right to bear arms. But who tells you that it is right to keep the arm with you ever where there by increasing the animosity between human being. When there is no need to bear arm, then the arms should be left home and not to be carried with you. Also talk about the today. The Kirpan you have won't help you or your loved being, You in this case start bearing AK-47 and a Helmet not turban 24 hours. The lines mean when the need be then bear arm and not wear these 24 hours. SO that why I said you are a blind follower and doesn't know what the religion is.

These are no more than empty rituals. You are trying to show that you are not like Brahmins but you are more narrower than today's brahmins. You are like ancient Brahmins. Wearing Turbans for no reasons at all, having long hair, wearing a bangle seems to like following something that have been just told to do without any relevance to the society you live in. Brahmins used to do the same and you are doing it too. If you are not asking questions and you are trying to shut people up by saying that our Guru has told us to do this and hence we should do this is absurd. You have your own mind and can understand if you try to find whether or not htese things are empty rituals or has any significance to the life you are living. I just want to narrate an incident, recently one of my friend died of a motor cycle accident in India because he was wearing turban and not Helmet. What it shows that you ready to die foolish honoring an empty ritual that has no bearing to today's life. If you are really a Saint Soldier than change the turban to a Helmet and change your Kirpan to AK-47. Thats what many in India seems to be preaching because that what you see if you visit Amritsar.

An ancient brahmins used to follow what their Guru have told them too, so I don't think it is any different from What Guru Gobind told AmritDhari Sikhs. The teaching of treating equally doesn't seems to be practiced by 'AmritDhari Sikhs' at all. Where ever you go whether to Gurudwara or house. An AmritDhari Sikh always tend to make you feel lowely of yourself if you don't keep beard, hair or have small turbans or are not an AmritDhari Sikh. This is no different than a Brahmin treatment of a women, Shudra, or anyone else for that matter. I don't think all Sikhs need to be Saint Soldier and not all Sikhs can. If you think Guru Gobind conveyed that the Sikh can only be a Saint Soldier then you are absolutely wrong. A Sikh is a Sikh wether he is timid or strong, whether he is tall or short, dark or white. Only a Saint Sikh is a Sikh actually equate then a Sikh with Brahmin. Because not all people can be Saint and Soldeir. Killing a person is a human instinct not all humans are blessed with. So law of nature restricting Sikhs to be Saint Soldier makes the religion too narrow. Grow up 'AmritDhari Sikhs' this is new age and should have new rules. A Sikh need not be a Soldier. TIme is to prevail peace and not wars. We need more human and saint but not Soldiers.

The change of Philosphy in my sense begins when Bibi Bhani asked for Guru Gadi to be in the Guru Ghar. This seems to be an act of selfishness and under human. Prior to this there was more immortal qualities in Gurus than a normal human but with this there is more human qualities in Guru than before that might be the reason for 'Guru Granth Sahib' to contain Bani's from earlier Gurus than later Gurus. I'm not sure about anyone else but thinking of Bibi Bhani as some one great is not correct. The act of asking for Guru Gadi to be in her house is too selfish to even call her a great human than calling her any thing more.

Another change in the Philosphy of the Sikhism: In the initial phase the 'best disciple' became the next Guru that goes with the Philosphy of the best man gets the job. But it changed to the 'heir to the Guru Gadi" became the next Guru. How can you say a Good Guru son will always be a Good Guru. In Nature that is not true. So that is also a big shift in Philosphy.

It is a new question as I've not read the work of any Scholar to reach this conclusion. If there is a suspicion in my mind by just going through the Sikh history then it seems a very valid question. The teaching of the early Guru's have been to peacefully practice the Jaap of Waheguru and those are the only teaching compiled in the Guru Granth Sahib. That seems to be the true Philosphy of Sikhisim. But the Philosphy later have changed to 'Politicalized' the Guru Home the Gurudwaras, that is what is diturbing to me and seems a different Philosphy. There is no reference to bearing arm or solving political issues in the Gurudwara's but it has become the way of Sikhs. This is Muslim Philosphy, the Quran contains reference to solving Political issues has complete punishments for act of crimes. Guru Granth Sahib is different, it has the teaching the bring humans together to reach the goal of meeting the Waheguru. So answering the question: The true Philosphy of Sikhism begining with Guru Nanak to Guru Arjun Dev with Sthapana of Guru Granth Sahib in 1604 is to promote harmony, purifying souls, bringing people together and search for truth and nothing else. But the Philosphy was later influeneced by Muslim Philosphy of ruling by Islam Law where by Punjab is now ruled by AmritDhari Sikhs enforcing Draconion rules. If people on the raods starting telling girls "why are you not taking Scarf on the Head while walking on the raod, Why are you wearing any other clothes" or asking the boys on the road "Why the turbans are small or not there at all" shows that there is no difference of Philosphy of the AmritDhari Sikhs and Muslims.

Guru Nank tried to prove to the world that don't be obssessed with rituals, tries to search for truth. He showed at many places bu the 'Haridvar Incident' or 'Macca Incident'. SO by looking for truth is the work of a true Sikh. By just accepting what some AmritDhari Sikh says is not being a true Sikh. I need to still find the truth behind why to wear turban or keep beard because as Guru Nanak showed us that blindly following ritual will make us no better than the Brahmins of ancient India. The AmritDhari Sikhs are more narrower than Brahmins of ancient India.

This seem to be in contracdiction to what I have learned. Guru Nank tried to prove to the world that don't be obssessed with rituals, tries to search for truth. He showed at many places bu the 'Haridvar Incident' or 'Macca Incident'. SO by looking for truth is the work of a true Sikh. By just accepting what some AmritDhari Sikh says is not being a true Sikh. I need to still find the truth behind why to wear turban or keep beard because as Guru Nanak showed us that blindly following ritual will make us no better than the Brahmins of ancient India. The AmritDhari Sikhs are more narrower than Brahmins of ancient India.

N30, Thats being very narrow. The bhagat were what they were. there us nothing like non typical Hindus. The fact that Hindu Bhagats Bani is registered in Guru Granth Sahib adds to the credibility of embarcing people of all faiths into Sikhisim. My intention is to understand why translator translates meaning of the same word multiple time. This is true of English language but I've not come across Gurmukhi any other relevant words used with multiple meanings. In Computer you do call it 'overloading'. The word 'Ram' is overloaded with multple meaning at different places. Why is there any need to make multiple meanings of the word?

But it is well known fact the Guru Granth Sahib contains Bani of Hindu Bhagats then reference in Hindu Bhagats Bani to Ram should mean the 'Hindu God Ram' and should not be translated to generic term 'Lord'. What harm can that cause?

Consider the example: raam naam ur mai gahi-o jaa kai sam nahee ko-ay jih simrat sankat mitai daras tuhaaro ho-ay. This verse seems very characteristics of a Bhagat who has enshrined the 'Ram' Naam and infering it to be a generic 'Lord' doesn't make sense.

Another example nwmu rihE swDU rihE rihE guru goibMdu naam rahi-o saaDhoo rahi-o rahi-o gur gobind Here Gobind is used to refer to 'Lord'. So why the Bani of any other Guru or Bhagat than Guru Gobind or a Bhagat after Guru Gobind uses 'Gobind' to refer 'Lord' as there is no dictionary meaning of Gobind being 'Lord'. Similary there is no dictionary meaning of word Ram is 'Lord', hence only the Bhagat's devotional to Ram will have it as 'Lord' in their Sloks. Just my 2cents

While if you look at this example: rwmu gieE rwvnu gieE jw kau bhu prvwru raam ga-i-o raavan ga-i-o jaa ka-o baho parvaar Here the Reference to Ram is considered as Ram Chandra the Hindu God as it was clear in context as used with reference to Raavan. In that case why all other references to Ram have been attributed to 'Lord' if these are not from different bhagat's. All the examples are from Slok M 9

While check this example: khu nwnk sunu ry mnw so mUriq Bgvwn kaho naanak sun ray manaa so moorat bhagvaan In this the word Bhagvaan is used instead of Ram. While the translation of the two words are 'image of God' and 'Lord' respectively. But it shows inconsistency in writting or writting of two different Guru's or Bhagats attributed in 'Slok M 9'.

Checkout the example: khu nwnk sunu ry mnw ismrq kwih n rwmu kaho naanak sun ray manaa simrat kaahi na raam

My theory says it refers to Hindu God Ram and the verses or Shabad containing it, are Bani of Bhagats like Kabir. But in translation it alwyas refers to as 'Lord'. Any Explanation, Why it is so? Since it makes it difficult to understand what Bani comes from Bhagats and what comes from Guru's. Why Guru's will use Ram to refer 'Lord'. they should have used Nanak.

I think a true Sikh needs to be pure inside than thru the appearance. In fact my theory says the Philosphy of Sikhisim took a shift after the 5th Guru Arjun Dev and so the Guru Granth Sahib contains Bani of the first 5 Gurus and Guru Teg Bahadar as his philosphy align with the original Philosphy. The original Philosphy doesn't restrict a Sikh to be in some farm shape size color or creed. You are no more a Sikh with the Amrit or no less without it.

The Mool Mantra of Sikhisim contained in the Bani of First 5 and 9th Guru. There seems to be a shift in the philoshphy of Sikhisim after Guru Arjun Dev. As my knowledge go the 9th Guru are of the same time as of Guru Arjun Dev so hence his teaching reflect the same Philosphy. Does it sound right or wrong?

I cann't speak for Sikh or Non- Sikh Girls. But my belief is that they should look for the right person Turbanned or Non-Turbanned. Neither can make a person better or worse. Every bodies Karma makes them what they are? So my feeling girls with fastidious viws for a Turbanned or Non-Turbanned are fool and will suffer in the end. Look for the best guy in the town not the best Turban or best hair style.

My theory says that Guru 'Granth Sahib' was compiled by Guru Arjun Dev and pages were left for Guru Teg Bhadar to add his bani. Guru Arjun Dev knew the change of Philosphy of Sikh Religion after him and knew that only Guru Teg Bhadar will have the same Philosphy.