skeptik

I still hold that the sikh gurus did not want a equalitiarian society. I hold that it is us who make these claims without considering the facts. It is the countless men and women making websites, writing pamphets and giving speeches who fill our heads with these ideals - regardless of whether or not our gurus wanted them, or sought them, and they do so by claiming the sikh gurus held those same ideals. We should be very worried that our religion is being determined by some well-wishing reformists who perhaps are not consciously dishonest, but are totally and completely bereft of truth because they envision for our gurus, fashionable ideals and delusions of today, regardless of fact. These ideals are dangerous and destructive. I've wasted five years of my youth on these silly ideas and it has cost me a great deal. While our religion is a practical one, making well grounded men and women who are rational and mostly sensible - the reformists are turning our faith into a romantic passionate affair, where ideals and emotion; passionate idealism are pushed beyond all, and at the cost of keeping our heads on the ground. I wont say more about this, but I enter this personal detail here so it is seen that I've spent a great deal of time and thought contemplating and living the way they encouraged me. If I had known that this was only their personal fantasy, their personal fetish of liberally intepreting sikh history and philosophy to seem trendy and progressive- i would ofcourse have been more skeptical. But instead these people tell us that the Sikh Gurus wanted it that way. That the sikh gurus wished equality (and ofcourse other romantic ideals which are equally as destructive.) Do they not do a diservice to our community by claiming these false ideals? Do they not mislead our young? Do they not mischaracterise our Gurus? Why is it that all young interested sikhs today are convinced that the state of the Sikh community is in great decline? Why are they convinced that our society is doomed? The answer, ofcourse, is that when the young sikh compares what he sees around him to what he reads on the Enlightened Sikh Website - he sees such a great disparity - that he cannot help but reach this conclusion. After all when he imagines that the great founders of our faith set up an equalitiarian society, a passionate idealistic community which broke down all social barriers, which conquered all social ills and stood triumpantly in the fight against tyranny then what else should one think? The only good thing one can do about society, it seems, is to change and fix it as did our gurus, in so many ways, and so many times. So the idealistic passionate youngster must begin to see reformist change as the only way out. He is taken at once by the propaganda, and must begin to see everything and anything as a problem to be solved. He will complain about the caste system, about gender inequality, about this and that, about how Sikhs cut their hair, Rakhri, photos of Gurus, about whatever. And at once the young sikh has been made a tool of the Enlightened reformists. But how can you sustain such an ideology? Only by bringing out and cultivating the questioning young boy's idealism. Then the real world is something that must be opposed and ideals to reign supreme. Once this is established, the idealist can carry any number of delusions in his head without a problem - equality - not a problem, it is possible, after all it was once attained by the gurus, we can do it again. This benovolent passion gently dulls the intellect, while convincing the victim that it is the rest of the world which is irrational, inconsistent and ruinous. The 'problems' of society are blown up at once and made into these insurmountable obstacles. The youngster is left alone to battle against the impossible. And this, I ask you, is it any way to treat a young man of our community? Is this a way to treat our future sikhs? I continue to hold strongly that the usual examples cited by these men and women: Langar; accepting lower castes and higher castes together, rejecting female infantacide, the practice of Sati, and so on, are not proof that our gurus wished equality - but instead are proof that our gurus believed in non-descrimination. They held that any man or woman ought not to be descriminated on the grounds of race or gender, caste or status. They welcomed all these denominations into their sangat because they wished to make religious material accessible to all - without descrimination. In the case of Sati; a practice that any man or woman of good conscious would oppose as being evil, was opposed for the reason of being evil, and as well as being descriminatory against widows. I havent heard one person argue that the sikh Gurus were for equality. Surely this isnt because there arent any people who think this way. Step up, put your view out, and defend what you honestly believe.

Macca, you are roughly proposing a meritocratic society. Most people agree with this idea and think the best man should get the job. There are problems with the idea - but it will take us off-topic discussing them. For instance, how does one go about determining these 'inherent abilities?', keeping in mind that while there may be some brilliantly endowed men and women amongst us, for whom it is easy to decide, the rest of us have little seperating us in ability - then how do you decide who gets what role and why, again keeping in mind that some roles are better, often much better than others. In any case I dont think there is any proof that the sikh gurus were interested in meritoracy itself - except in the sense that you can often see meritocratic results in the real world, whether or not those results were determined solely on meritocractic principles.

Rupz, you are raising a different issue, but i think a relevant and important one. To be an egalitarian is to maintain that inequality itself is a problem and must be corrected. That inequality should be turned into equality. You though are talking about how ones attitude should be in the presense of an inequality. Suppose I am poor and you a rich - that is an inequality but it isnt a problem, in my opinion. If my attitude is one of envy towards you, if I wish you ill because you are richer than me, then I am making a mistake, I think. Our gurus, in my opinion did not hold that a poor man necessarily has a right to oppose those who are richer than him, or to wish them ill because they have more than him. I think they would urge me to be content with what I have, and thank Waheguru for whatever other blessings i have been bestowed. They wouldnt tell me ofcourse, that it is wrong for me to work towards becoming more wealthy, they wouldnt hold that I shouldnt wish to be richer, say, if i cannot feed my family today, that i should want to be able to feed them tomorrow. I think they would warn me that it isnt a good idea to obsess over wealth, but I would tell them that a starving man cannot help but worry about food and shelter. Still i would accept their wisdom and realise there is ofcourse more to life than just survival. This sort of argument ofcourse would go for many other inequalities, and you are free to substitute other ones to check out.

No problem veer, its just that while everyone might have come across those terms, they are usually used in a way that acts to obscure and partially conceal what the person is saying, because were he to state it in plain english, everyone would see at once that he has nothing significant to say, or that he is dressing up something trivial in a mass of complexity. I am not accusing you of that, ofcourse, but I think it makes it much easier for everyone involved if we write simply rather than elaborately. I am guilty of some gamesmanship here, because I used the term communist instead of egalitarian. I did so deliberately, because were I to ask, 'Were the sikh gurus Egalitarians?', most people would think it was a rhetorical question, and immediately lose interest. But it is a honest question and there is no rhetoric intended. Were they really egalitarians? As you hint, there are different kinds of equality, so which one are we to talk about? Well I think an egalitarian would be interested in all of them, and would have something to say, and usually something much the same, irrespective of the particular kind of equality. An egalitarian who starts off removing caste inequality would quite naturally be led to also considering gender inequality, and perhaps some other kind of inequality, and then another. He doesnt decide that a particular inequality is morally right, and another, morally wrong. He is usually compelled to oppose all inequalities by virtue of his principles, which he must defend, because he doesnt wish to become a hypocrite, or someone who is guilty at once of justifying and defending inequality instead of attacking it. This because to an egalitarian, the moral indignation of inequality is simply the arbitrary advantage of some people and the arbitrary disadvantage of others. To then arbitrarily select some inequalities as being right, and others as being wrong is then to commit the very same sin, the sin of supporting an inequality of inequalities. If that is too abstract, an example might make help it clearer. An egalitarian cannot hold, for example, that gender inequality is important and that race inequality isnt. If the gurus were such egalitarians then the inequality of property would present itself immediately. There are some who have great wealth, others have nothing. This is an inequality, and an egalitarian, a honest egalitarian must see it as such, and must begin to oppose it. This, to me, is the beginning of communism, where i use the term in the very precise sense of inequality of property. If our gurus were egalitarians and saw this inequality as a problem, then to me, they were communists. I admit this definition says nothing of Marxism, but that doesnt concern me at all. Lets stick to the inequalities of wealth, religion and gender. Why? Because we know at once that those were present and relevant during the Guru's times. So where is the proof that our Gurus were commited to removing these inequalities?

Veer kindly leave out all the frame-work/paradigm/context/sociological gimmicks please. I'll respect you enough not to play out that nonsense, do the same for me, okay? Ofcourse I realise that the gurus lived in one time period, and we live in another. This is too obvious to mention, but you have pushed it as a particularly palpable attack on the question, which it clearly is not. I have ofcourse made an inference from what knowledge I have of our gurus to answer a simple question, were they advocating equalitarianism? This is an important question. It isnt meaningless because you charge that, 'it's anachronistic and Eurocentric,' whatever that means. If you hold that making inferences from the past, of our gurus, and what their ideology was, is meaningless, then you are necessarily holding that we cannot be Sikhs today, because necessarily a Sikh has to make many such inferences in his daily life to aid him deciding on, and in maintaining opinions on problems and issues. It would then indeed be meaningless to speak about Sikhi today, because Sikhi as created and conceived was in an entirely different 'context' to our own time. It is a common spoken truth that the Sikh Religion is an Universal one, like you reiterated (half apologetically), but surely it cannot be, if Anglo-Saxon's cannot even understand our Guru's ideology, because they are from a 'different political world'. Hardly the mark of a universal religion then, when a foreign born man cannot grasp and learn about the teachings of the universal sikh faith, because alas, his questions are meaningless and eurocentric! Universal but not timeless, because a mere three hundred years later, we can no longer ask sensibly of our Gurus, whether they believed in equality or not! More importantly, if the question is so meaningless, then why do so many Sikhs today know that their gurus believed in Equality? Why do we publish pamphlets and write books where it demonstrated with great zeal that our gurus were enlightened men who wished to advance the common brotherhood of man and woman in the spirit of equality! Ofcourse to maintain that is to already have answered the question which is supposedly meaningless! So why do so many sikhs, even educated intelligent ones, believe a widely held delusion that their Gurus were For Equality when you cannot even make any meaningful inference about whether or not they were? The question is binary, yes. But a little thought will convince you that this is unavoidably so. You cannot be a part-time egalitarian, indeed the meaning of such a thing is necessarily a contradiction in terms. It brings to mind Orwell, who wrote, 'all pigs are equal, some are just more equal than others.' Egalitarianism if taken seriously can not be done half heartedly. If you truly believe in it, then there are no exceptions, indeed to admit an exception is to deny equality. Surely this is obvious? I repeat my question again in the hope of a proper debate. Were the gurus egalitarians? Did they believe in equality? Did they make this a part of their philosophy? Did they envision and encourage in their sangat, a utopia of equality? Javanmard, My definition of communist is that if you answer the above questions in the affirmative then yes they were, if they did not, then no they were not. I can explain this reasoning too, but i will do that later, because that has proven to be far too contentious a topic to allow proper answers to the above very important questions. The lefty righty division in this debate is that of benevolent-reform-happy-revolutionaries on one side and on the other hand, conservatives - ie, those who for the most part accept inequality as it occurs as a natural state of the world, and not necessarily always as a wrong to be corrected, as a lefty/egalitarian would naturally hold. Hope this helps clear up any difficulties in communication.

It is true that ive made up my mind about some things, but i havent made up my mind on some other things. Thats why i made the thread! I think I've uncovered a way of looking at the world that makes more sense than before. I grew up in a third world country, and thanks to some early Christian influences, I was gently filled with some ideas that I've carried ever since, but no more. I no longer feel guilty for being well off, or responsible for other people being without. Furthermore I think its dangerous for Sikhs, who tend to be quite naturally conservative, to put their lot in with the Lefties just because the latter appears sympathetic to our differences living in the West. This is dangerous for we are taking a Viper to our chest. Lefties only pay lip-service about tolerance, but we are just another pawn in their game of social change. It isnt in our interest to accept all their delusions, all their pathologies and all their crazy ideas about society. Especially the idea about equality. Tsingh, my generalisations are oversimplistic, because perhaps they are too obvious, but more likely, it is because I didnt list all the little exceptions to the rules, which would have made my post much much longer, and far less readable. I admit there are exceptions, and I keep them in mind, because I do not wish to advocate an unreasonable view. But i didnt see the need to mention that, yes, some revolutions are good, some are needed, slavery ought to have been abolished, infantacide is bad and should be stopped, etc. But these are just common everyday problems that most people agree with, irrespective of ideology. I hardly need mention these, just so that my generalisations are not too simple. Life is simply too short for that sort of thing!

Thanks for the reply tsingh. I havent read much on communism and could not, even if i wanted to. There is only so much intellectually feeble posturing one can suffer before he gives up in disgust on communist jargon and nonsense. Just reading through your post was bad enough! I am familiar with men who have studied at length about communism and I am inclined to take their opinions seriously enough. In any case my issue is with egalitarians specifically, and communists are only one particular example of these. Thats why gender equality falls in the same subject. I certainly have no interest in what any Marxist will tell me about Stalin and Lenin, because these are just mere excuses. The weight of experience and history is enough to settle the issue for me. Marxists are united with other egalitarians in one important respect - and that is their immense passion for change. Passion is one thing - but i dont believe we should make drastic changes to society on the basis of passion. Long considered, sensible thoughtful reform, yes, perhaps. The fundamental problem with egalitarians is that they are well-wishers and do-gooders of the highest, most dangerous order. To them their idealistic revolution is the only thing that matters, and their changes are not driven by careful consideration of reality, but by a lust for their utupian vision. I often enough find such people to be root of evil itself. I would hasten to add any Jihaadi, any Khalistani or Nazi and any Marxist to this list. I am not convinced at all that our gurus were contemplating such a vision. The analogy is there, ofcourse, for the exploiting by Marxists, that the Gurus wished to overthrow the 'ruling class', or whatever. But I do not think this has any basis in fact. Besides the Brahmnical hegemony excuse is just too convenient. Why select them and not the Mughals? In any case, I would expect from my Guru not passion, but dispassion for revolution. I would expect calmness not rage. I would expect justice, not revenge. I see the latter qualities in egalitarians and i scarcely see the former. This is absurd anyway; I challenge knowledgeable Sikhs to demonstrate quite unequivocally that the Guru's were not motivated by, and did not advocate, any such revolution. To be sure they opposed injustice and violence against the weak - but this is only trivially true from what we know of their saintly character. It is ofcourse quite widespread for lefties to subvert, champion and exploit any situation where there is human suffering, to claim that it is being caused by some ruling class, and that the sufferers must revolt. This is ofcourse true for any egalitarian, who must hold that the inequality is a result of someone powerful directly responsible for the suffering of the weak, and that this is proof of the moral bankrupcy of the powerful. That the inquality itself is morally wrong, and must be corrected. I dont accept such emotive and stupid arguments. It is not the right of a man who is born poor, to not be poor. It is not the fault of a rich man, that another man is poor. It is not the right of a woman to be as strong as a man. Our guru's never said so. Only silly emotional people claim such a thing. People like egalitarians have not sense but only passion. I saw recently a poster that said, "Who benefits most from the War on Terror" - the answer to me, ironically enough was obvious. Sure some small number of capitalists might benefit directly from the war - but it is the vast majority of lefties who salivate in their lust for change. They get more ammunition from a war than anyone else. Look at all the suffering! Look at all the murderers! Imperialism! Imperialists! And so on. It is ofcourse merely just lip service. Any such lefty would scarcely put his life on the line. That perhaps would be immoral, or something, because in the bag of idealistic excuses, Pacifism is a favorite choice.

I dont know what you've done RupZ, but after your post this thread doesnt load properly, and only does if you wait for a long time. In any case, can we delete his comment, because I've already adressed it in my post. Yes there would be no Guru's if there werent women to give birth to them, but that is only obvious. You cant go from that to saying the Guru's believed in sex equality.

on the question board. it seems any post to do with 'RupZ' doesnt load, and crashes my browser. ive tried using different browsers and the same thing happens. sort it out please.

I dont like communists. i think they're dangerous and harmful. were our gurus ones though? breaking down the caste system is often cited along with reasons of equality and egalitarianism. similarly there is often talk about elavating the place of women. if this is true, then were our gurus one of the first commies? should be we ashamed? should we be proud? many sikh 'thinkers' tend to be lefties, so they'd tend to agree that the sikh gurus sought to break down social inequity. well, so did i until very recently. it has only dawned on me that egalitarianism eventually has the (perhaps unintended) consequence of setting up a communist society. i used to look oddly and circumspectly at my cousins who would talk about the philosophy of Sikhs, and yet at the same time assert their caste identity. i thought they were hypocrits, but now im not sure. ive thus concucted an alternative hypothesis, that im sure many of you will come to dislike, but i see it as necessary for maintaining myself as sikh, in all that entails with regard to respecting our founders. here it is, thus: The sikh gurus did not believe in equality in the sense we've come to attribute to them, and in the sense it is thought of today. They did not think or hold that all men were equal, that women were the equals of men, that all men were similarly gifted in wealth, physical strength, beauty and intellect. They could not deny that these differences exist, and to think otherwise would not have befited such wise men. Furthermore it was taken for granted by Guru Nanak, as he writes in his first composition, that some men are born high, some low - acknowledging that differences of class exist. I do not think he wished to challenge the existence of this difference. It is therefore left to complete what equality was intended by our gurus. The sikh gurus intended equality in the very direct sense that all men are welcome to learn from the Guru no matter what his background. That is all. Now you may say that Guru Nanak said that men are born of women, kings are born of women, and so on, and this means he thought women and men were equal. Well this doesnt follow at all. Clearly injustice and hatred of women is morally reprehensible, and it is that which Guru Nanak attacks here. He is not calling for equality, whatever that might mean, and whatever it might mean, it doesnt bear out, because no Guru was a woman, so at least that way we can say that there was strict inequality in the sense that it isnt true women were equally capable and able, and did infact rise to the very high levels; because they simply did not! all thoughtful responses welcome.