Jump to content

Guru ki Maseet


shaheediyan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Malwed da sher wrote:

"Lets go with your logic for a moment. Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji disagreed with the practise of certain Hindu customs so using your logic you would question why Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji saved the tilak and janjoo? You can disagree with an individuals belief and still support their rights to freely practise religion. "

Tilak and janeu are not condemned in Bachitar Natak and let me remind you that the Gurus wore tilak and that the gatra is the Khalsa's janeu. I am talking about issues of contradictory discourse.

"Do the Saudis not believe non-Muslims to be Kaffirs? Yet in Dubai the royal family is constructing a Gurdwara Sahib. Has the British government and other governments not assisted in the finance of constructing places of worship for religions brought into the country by immigrants? Its the result of liberal thinking in society rather than views on anothers faith."

1. Dubai is not part of Saudi Arabia so your example falls appart. The Saudis surely wouldn't build a gurdwara in Saudi Arabia. Dubai is ruled by a non Wahabi family.

2. We're not talking about liberalism. We are talking about a discourse being consistent within itself. If you say X Y Z is a false prophet then you don't build mosques for him. It would be like Sikhs building a Nirankari or Ram Raheem temple for the sake of "liberal thinking" whatever that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Londondajatt wrote:

"What about, live and let live...?"

The cornerstone of dharma is as is stated in gurbani and the Bhagavadgita: protecting the saints and destroying the impious. Impiety and falsehood are to be destroyed otherwise they will endanger the saints and in fact dharma itself. To live and let live means you allow adharma to spread its influence over your society. No responsible ruler can allow this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mosque was built knowingly that it was adharmic, but it was only to filter the weeds away from the true path. The path is the source of Dharma and if too many weeds come near it it endangers dharma, so a mosque was built for adharmis, but to to protect the eternal dharma, which was getting infected with weeds. We still see this today, where adharma is used to filter off people with diseased intellect into what is called 'indrajal' away from the path lest the purity of it be comprimised. May god spread more adharma to misguide the unclean. This was also according to vaishnavism carried out by 'budh' avatara. Who represented excessive scholarly reasoning which is evidently horizontally orientated and does not lift being to higher levels, this is only managed through paradox, which only a few may grasp. SO lwhy create animosity, if you cannot understand, leave it, our aim is to keep people in chardi kala, slowly, too fast and the amrit turns to poison, break up only slowly. Or people will hate you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. the Gurus themselves never stated that they came to trap the unguided souls by building "fly traps".

This is of course not explicitly stated but implied in their actions. Texts are not the whole world.

2. a substantial number of Muslim disciples of the Gurus thus remained consciously misguided which again doesn't really add up.

Yes brother, consciously misguided to expunge all their karmas, the ways of the Guru are certainly marvelous! Even the misguided are guided, all according to their being. Yes Islam according to Sikhism is Adharma to 'trap' people into adharma but by so doing guiding them and also protecting the path. But I am not saying this about the Prophet Mohammed's Islam but Mahadin's Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mekhane'ch Jannat wrote:

"But I am not saying this about the Prophet Mohammed's Islam but Mahadin's Islam."

So Mahadin and Prophet (pbuh) are not the same even though all your commentators say they are the same? I am just curious how you define Mahadin's Islam.

"Yes brother, consciously misguided to expunge all their karmas, the ways of the Guru are certainly marvelous!"

I don't see how misguiding people helps expunge their karma when in fact it worstens it. Buddhavtar came to teach shunyavada so that demonic souls would merge with the void and hence dissapear. Islam doesn't teach shunyavada at all. So the comparison with the Budhavtar is misplaced. Misguidance leads to hell not to liberation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything must return to its cause. Misguidance is indeed a form of hell, but it is not a permanent state. Some people only learn by suffering, to speed up this suffering for some is an act of grace. You before said conscious misguidance, this is different from ignorant misguidance, ignorant misguidance will increase Karma, undoubtedly, but conscious misguidance lessons the weight, even though you may have to spend some time in hell.

"So Mahadin and Prophet (pbuh) are not the same even though all your commentators say they are the same? I am just curious how you define Mahadin's Islam".

Who am I? I am less than some shit. What can I say on this topic, people believe what they want. If you wish to make Sikhs an enemy than let us add to the hatred in the world, I am sure if you try hard enough you can breed the hatred the israelis have for the palestinians but this is indeed a mighty task. But without effort nothing is possible, If SIkhs hate Paki's let the Muslims hate Sikhs tenfold more. Those Sikhs even degrade the prophet in their Holy Books (even though his name is not mentioned, and when it is by Bhai Gurdas it is with the word 'yaara') Spread this around that Sikhs denigrate the prophet and the work of Baba Nanak can be destroyed properly. I call all Sikhs and muslims let us destroy the work of Baba Nanak so he may guide us adharmis and that we may purify ourselves through suffering it seems the only way we will learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mekhane'ch Jannat wrote:

"Everything must return to its cause. Misguidance is indeed a form of hell, but it is not a permanent state. Some people only learn by suffering, to speed up this suffering for some is an act of grace. You before said conscious misguidance, this is different from ignorant misguidance, ignorant misguidance will increase Karma, undoubtedly, but conscious misguidance lessons the weight, even though you may have to spend some time in hell."

I am talking about the conscious misguidance provided by a guide. It is one thing to tell a person: "Keep on drinking" so they realize the evils of alcohol by themselves and building a pub.

This is problematic:

1. The advice my lead to the total ruin of the person instead of taubah.

2. Building a pub would encourage others to drink

This is the very opposite of guidance. It would be like a guide building rape, torture and murder houses for people to "realize" that it is bad. This is the very opposite of guidance and completely contradictory to God's attribute of mercy, compassion and justice. If Islam is indeed adharma then building a mosque is an adharmic act likely to misguide people.

"Who am I? I am less than some (admin-cut). What can I say on this topic, people believe what they want. If you wish to make Sikhs an enemy than let us add to the hatred in the world, I am sure if you try hard enough you can breed the hatred the israelis have for the palestinians but this is indeed a mighty task. But without effort nothing is possible, If SIkhs hate Paki's let the Muslims hate Sikhs tenfold more. Those Sikhs even degrade the prophet in their Holy Books (even though his name is not mentioned, and when it is by Bhai Gurdas it is with the word 'yaara') Spread this around that Sikhs denigrate the prophet and the work of Baba Nanak can be destroyed properly. I call all Sikhs and muslims let us destroy the work of Baba Nanak so he may guide us adharmis and that we may purify ourselves through suffering it seems the only way we will learn."

Emotional demagogy. I am talking about scriptural exegesis and its implications on a jurisprudential level. I am not talking about hatred. I have stated times and times over that I have absolutely no issues with those followers of Baba Nanak (ra) who don't follow this whole Mahadin issue and the anti-Islamic part of the rahit.

I am simply pointing out an exegetical issue i.e. how do Sikhs conciliate the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) is called yara by Bhai Gurdas and that in Bachitar Natak they read Mahadin to be the Prophet (pbuh).

As you may know I have proposed the idea in the past that Mahadin didnt have a literal meaning but:

1. ALL other traditional Sikh institutions cleary state that it is the Prophet (pbuh)

2. The secondary literature confirms it.

I cannot in all honesty say that my previous interpretation corresponds to what the majority of Sikhs believe and I have to respect that fact. And to be even more frank I admit that my interpretation was based on the belief that the two granths couldn't possibly contradict each other hence my attempt to theologically conciliate them. But my attempt conflicted with 200 years of traditional Sikh exegesis and there comes a time when you have to listen. If these Sikh scholars say it's the Prophet (pbuh) then that means that they really mean what they and read. This means unfortunately that their official position is that the Prophet (pbuh) was a false prophet in which case if they live in an Islamic state they are muharib. I am not applying emotion here, I am merely thinking in terms of exegesis and jurisprudence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be honest, regardless of someone being associated to a group of people, it doesn't make the person dharmic or adharmic automatically.

Are all people called "sikhs" dharmic? Course not...

Are all "religious" and amrit-dharis sikhs dharmic? Again, answer is no...

Can a muslim think the same way as a sikh or hindu?

Also,

Can a maseet be incorporated in the indian tradition of going to a place of worship?

I think, we can look at things in a cultural and traditional manner, or we can look in a rather tribalistic manner. Now, Bacchitar Natak describes something. But does it apply to all people who are labelled "muslims". Similarly, the Gurus have used terms such as "hindu", do they apply to all hindus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mekhane'ch Jannat

Interesting post but not really an answer to the questions asked in this thread. If the Gurus were also to allow the spread of Adharma or as in this case take an active part in spreading adharma then why didn't the Gurus also allow the spread of adharma of the Hindu variety? Why criticise Hindu idols, caste system and the like? Why give Shaheedi to stop the forcible conversion of Kashmiri Pandits? Building a mosque hardly constitutes allowing Adharma to spread.

Your argument fails on many levels. Not least as other works such as Bhai Gurdas Vaar 41 and Uggardanti refer to the demise of Islam.

My views are that Bachittar Natak is not in conflict with what Bhai Gurdas writes about Mohammed. Unfortunately Sikh sites translate Yaara as 'beloved of God' whereas it possibly refers to -;

1. Mohammed and the four yaars - Mohammed accomplices in his undertaking. The way in which Mohammed and the yaars are mentioned is negative. The world becomes replete with sin with the advent of Mohammed.

2. Mohammed 'the friend' not 'beloved of God'.

Nowhere in the Sikh scripture is Mohammed referred to in a positive way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exegesis and jurisprudence are only tools, to be used to break up or build up. You choose how you wish to use them. If you want to utilise the divine gifts of exegesis and jurisprudence for the demonic aims of discord and 'causing bad feeling' then go ahead but do not blame 'sikh tradition' for your weakness. Bad feeling or negative energy is the food of demons.

You are creating a large brood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mekhane'ch Jannat wrote:

"Exegesis and jurisprudence are only tools, to be used to break up or build up. You choose how you wish to use them. If you want to utilise the divine gifts of exegesis and jurisprudence for the demonic aims of discord and 'causing bad feeling' then go ahead but do not blame 'sikh tradition' for your weakness. Bad feeling or negative energy is the food of demons.

You are creating a large brood."

Exegesis and jurisprudence are based on rules and have boundaries. It has nothing to do with feelings. If you wish things through the glasses of wishy washy negative vs positive "energies" (again you would need divine guidance to define negative and positive) that is up to you.

Tonyhp32 wrote:

"our argument fails on many levels. Not least as other works such as Bhai Gurdas Vaar 41 and Uggardanti refer to the demise of Islam.

My views are that Bachittar Natak is not in conflict with what Bhai Gurdas writes about Mohammed. Unfortunately Sikh sites translate Yaara as 'beloved of God' whereas it possibly refers to -;

1. Mohammed and the four yaars - Mohammed accomplices in his undertaking. The way in which Mohammed and the yaars are mentioned is negative. The world becomes replete with sin with the advent of Mohammed.

2. Mohammed 'the friend' not 'beloved of God'.

Nowhere in the Sikh scripture is Mohammed referred to in a positive way."

If Mohammed is indeed depicted in such a negative way then maybe God should chose his friends better won't you think...but then again there is the author of the Bachitar Natak to correct God's mistakes...

If Islam is indeed such a bad thing then building a mosque is in fact an act of impiety. It would be like the Vatican building a Satanic chapel or a Jehowa's witnesses hall inside the Vatican city. Pure nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morge,

Read what I wrote not what you think I wrote.

Nowhere have I accepted the Mosque story to be true. As for Mohammed yaara this is in line with Bachittar Natak in that Mohammed failed in his mission from God. If viewed objectively the Quran and Hadiths do point to Mohammed having given a peaceful message in Mecca and a highly controversial and self serving one in Medina. Unfortunate thing is that the Medinan Islam has precedence due to the belief in abrogation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not need divine guidance to know when your words affect an individual in a negative way. Words that cause anger hatred and resentment, are demonic instruments that suck vitality or energy from a individual. I know that when I am angry I waste energy and feel lethargic in life. Whether bound by rules or boundaries nevertheless what you say if it causes anger hatred or resentment in an individual even though it be the truth becomes demonic. We live in a dangerous world brother. The world has become too small to be a muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mekhane'ch Jannat wrote:

"You do not need divine guidance to know when your words affect an individual in a negative way. Words that cause anger hatred and resentment, are demonic instruments that suck vitality or energy from a individual. I know that when I am angry I waste energy and feel lethargic in life. Whether bound by rules or boundaries nevertheless what you say if it causes anger hatred or resentment in an individual even though it be the truth becomes demonic. We live in a dangerous world brother. The world has become too small to be a muslim."

Words that affect others in a negative way...that cause anger and resentment are demonic instruemnts...

WOW that applies exactly to the person who wrote that the Prophet (pbuh) became the king of Arabia, cut the lingas of kings and had his name repeated above God's. Also seems to apply to that famous Damdami Taksal head who said that the Prophet (pbuh) had created a nation of eunuchs and that he was a false prophet.

Yes bro you are spot on!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I found this in parcheen panth parkash page 43.

Quatrain: Murray said, ‘relate to me the circumstances in which God invested Nanak with sovereign power’. Hear accomplished saints, as I had replied to him: great strife arose in the dark-age (Kalyug), ir-religiousness had increased, and religion had declined. Lured by lucre, the kings had lightly abandoned all kingly duties.’42

[Page 43]

Those who had come into the world as originators of ‘paths,’ even their followers had wavered from the path. Money and attachment had beguiled them all. Losing sight of broader spirituality, they sought to benefit only their own clans.43

according to the english translation it talks about the followers deviating from the path

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...