love??

[Amrikingh]

I think many people in this topic are confused between what is emotional attachment and love...........

would some like to do da conclusion?

[d33p]

NEO, You say "there is such thing as true love towards opposite sex ..rarely you will find couples like bhagat kabir and mata laoi rest these days".

But this cant be right. Are you saying all those gursikh kaurs who served gursikh men and the gursikh men who served gursikh kaurs didnt experience true love? You then go onto give an example of the said true love. Doesnt this counter your own statement? Furthermore, i've read people on this site saying there are few true sikhs these days, does that mean there cant be a true sikh? That doesnt stop us from trying, does it?

I thought about your friends girlfriend leaving him. And i think all this proves is that your friends girlfriend didnt truly love your friend. Nothing more. Are you really saying that because you havent seen or experienced true love in opposite sex relationships, that this means they cannot or do not exist? I dont know, but iam not fully convinced.

I saw a list of hukams on this site and one of them said you should serve a sikh. Are you saying you shouldnt serve a sikh of the opposite gender, because this cant work. Isnt this just a little bit silly.

You say what is true love to you. Thats something more interesting to me since it says we have different ideas on what exactly this thing is. If you asked me what sikhi is, i'd tell you that it is pure love. And thats what it means to me. Its more than just a few words, its something i feel and believe. I'd not make distictions based on gender myself on the veracity of this love.

The previous poster makes the point that there is a difference between emotional attachment and love. Maybe there is in your mind. But i dont think so. I read some gurbani where the narrator was going at length to describe his emotional state at the time and it was very emotional. That to me is true love. Feel free to disagree. But whats the point of forcing your view on others?

[Guest]

d33p, I dont beleive in point of forcing my views onto others.. i respect your views, even though you decide not to respect mine...

bas akaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal hiii akaaaaaaal

anand hiii anand

[Morpheous]

why are you trying to dicuss something which cannot be put into words ?

[Morpheous]

i would like to withdraw theabove comment - please forgive - i have no knowledge in this subject - sowee

[commander]

I read through parts of the thread and i noticed some people making their own rules about how a sikh should be or not. To these, i'd like to ask this simple question. What makes you so certain that you have got it right in terms of knowledge and intution to condense Guruji into a sentence or two. "A sikh cant do this" "A sikh should do this". What makes you so sure that you can do a better job that Guruji in setting out what a sikh should be, that you so authoratively and succinctly replace Gurbani with your work.

These rules are outlined in the Rehit Marayda. That is how we can say (for example) that a Sikh cannot drink, or commit adultery etc.

I've always felt that sikhi isnt a religion of rules and regulations. If it were, then we'd have a book of rules. or something like that. Instead we have a Guru. Why you'd want to replace a Guru with a bunch of rules, i dont know. Personally i prefer to have a Guru. You know the feeling you get when you are listening to a dope Shabad and you are feeling the Gurbani. Even though you might not be a scholar of Indic and Arabic languages you might still get that heavy powerful intuitive understanding of the Bani. I love that about sikhi. I like how everything flows logically from first principles. I love how I can turn to my Guru if things are unclear and i need direction. Please dont lessen my sikhi by turning it into something its not. Something boring and trivialising like "rule #3 you may not fall in love, rule #5 you must wear a round pugh, ..." .

Will again refer you to the Rehit Marayada.

NOTE: Since I don't want to debate the meaning of the word "Sikh", I have assumed that you meant Sikh = Khalsa. If you feel different, feel free to ignore what I have said.

About the topic. Love. I think its perfectly fine to love someone. There are people i love. Family ofcourse. Then friends, both male and female. Would i do anything for them? Hard to know for sure. But i'll say now that i would, at least in principle. As long as it doesnt involve breaching my own principles. Note principles are not in general rules. Principles are truths given by the Guru. They are much more wider in scope than simple rules. For example, the principle that there is only one creator, sustainer and destroyed. One God. That is far reaching and more profound than a rule that says for example, "you must only obey the god called Harri". Principles are more suited for application in life. Life isnt about certain fixed circumstances which then involve corresponding rules about what should and should not be done. Instead life is about continuously changing situations, decision which arent always clearcut, uncertainty is real and ever present, its complex. What this means is that if you have a rigid set of rules for a limited number of situations then you are in a position of constantly trying to beat the current situtation into one resembling the rule and then like a programmed machine, implementing the rule without thought. This is not how sikhi is. Sikhi is about intuitive awareness. Its about being aware of the present of Waheguru at all times. And then to use Gurbani to help us make the right decisions and realise the truths that a thinking person does. The relationship between a Sikh and his Guru is a personal one. What place then for rigid rules, one after another, after another, instead of the learning dynamic created by a guru-disciple relationship.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As for me, I do not equate "Love" for things that will perish (mother, father, husband, wife, pet etc.) with Love for (Wahe)Guru (which I consider as the only true kind of Love). I consider the former to be a disguise for attachment (maya).

[d33p]

Mate, you love the souls of those ppl not their physical bodies. And i am told souls are around for an eternity so who am i to disagree.

[d33p]

and if you really feel that "the former to be a disguise for attachment" then what are you doing on a bloody internet forum talking to people like me. I reckon you should pack your bags and head for the mountains where you can live the rest of you life in solace and free of attachment..

I also find it funny that you guys say stuff like "an amritdhari person cannot fall in love". Why? Because they are succumbing to lust. OK. So if you cant expect khalsa to resist lust then who can you? Can someone tell me. IF you dont trust khalsa to avoid sinking into lust then whats the bloody point.

And now a disclaimer. Iam no scholar but i do test things against things i know to be true. Saying so-and-so cant do this seems wrong to me. But you know what, if anyone wants to move to the mountains and become a monk you are welcome to join me, because iam confused (Guys only cause girls cause lust)

[Guest]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Interesting discussion. Its so difficult to define love because as someone once told me :wink: there are so many shades of grey. Imagine everything was black and white, pretty boring. Love/Lust. Clearly a combination is needed within a marriage? Otherwise there would be either very bad parents (no love between them) or no parents?!

For a Sikh, the Guru's Hukam, as Iron Bangle Veer Ji pointed out in another thread is 'Jin Prem Kio Tin Hee Prabh Payeo'. This may not be within the scope of this particular discussion, but faith and love is both needed. You may think a person is trustworthy, but you dont feel love towards him, because you're not related to him, or whatever. Similarly, a parent may love his child, but the parent knows the child cannot be completely trusted. A Sikh needs both 'bharosa' and 'prem'.

D33p, I understand you point, you feel suffocated when people implement rigid rules, regarding what a Sikh should or shouldn't do. The 10th Nanak set rules, so not every rule is wrong, not every rule restricts your growth as a person. Why are we arguing about this?! We're surrounded by lustful images, films etc etc. It would be rare to find even one couple who is truly in 'love' in this day and age.

The love between Laila-Majnu etc etc, is limited, what did that love give them?! Death! What will we get from loving Waheguru?! See the distinction?!

Everyone goes through the phase of wanting to trust in this image of love according to Bollywood, but the real love is found with our Guru. 'Jau toh prem khelan ka chao, sir dhar tali gali mori aao' <----sacrifice is needed, who sacrifices for love these days?! It's not worth it! Love between souls is too difficult, unless we recognise our own soul, and the way to recognise our own soul, our reality is to follow the Guru's Hukam, once we have that, then we can truly love.

Love within a marriage, and family is good. Love for all is greater. Depends on how limited you want your love to be. Is it possible to achieve the love Baba Nand Singh Ji had for Guru Nanak through loving one person?! A person who doesn't know who he/she even is?!

Just my rambles, Im just as confused :?

Gurfateh

[commander]

Mate, you love the souls of those ppl not their physical bodies.

Practically speaking, when people fall in "love", they are attracted to the person's personality and physical features. We don't know which characteristics in a person are attributed to the "soul" and which are biological. So, the question is, is it even possible to fall in "love" with someone's "soul"? Also, how do you take reincarnation into account? Are two souls who "love" each other outside of Waheguru's hukam? If the bodies perish and are incarnated into other living beings, their "love" is no more.

Like I said earlier, everyone has their own opinions but I simply will NOT equate the Love for (Wahe)Guru as the same as we have for another person.

And i am told souls are around for an eternity so who am i to disagree.

I think they are too, but we apparently don't agree on their purpose for being.

[commander]

and if you really feel that "the former to be a disguise for attachment" then what are you doing on a bloody internet forum talking to people like me. I reckon you should pack your bags and head for the mountains where you can live the rest of you life in solace and free of attachment..

Because, first there is no need for it - the Guru tells us so. Secondly, maya is everywhere - even in the seemingly devoid "mountains". We just have to accept the fact maya is a part of this world and there is virtually nothing wrong with it in moderation. Finally, even if I did go out there, I would probably starve to death. Can't have that, can we?

I also find it funny that you guys say stuff like "an amritdhari person cannot fall in love".

Sure they can - with the Guru I will say this: There's nothing wrong with falling in "love" with another being - it is natural - so long as the Guru comes first before everyone and everything.

Why? Because they are succumbing to lust. OK. So if you cant expect khalsa to resist lust then who can you? Can someone tell me. IF you dont trust khalsa to avoid sinking into lust then whats the bloody point.

In another thread, another Sikh wanted to know the reason for marriage. I think it is a perfect answer here. I think it's quite difficult to totally overcome lust. Infact, it would be harmful to do so since it is needed for natural procreaton.

And now a disclaimer. Iam no scholar but i do test things against things i know to be true.

Any logical being would. But you have to have an open mind - I certainly do. The ultimate authority in this matter is the Guru. I look to the Guru to tell me what exactly "love" is. I suggest you do the same.

Saying so-and-so cant do this seems wrong to me.

Most things, we can only voice our opinions on (just like we are doing in this thread). The important things, however, are in the Rehit Marayada.

But you know what, if anyone wants to move to the mountains and become a monk you are welcome to join me, because iam confused

I don't think that would solve any problems

(Guys only cause girls cause lust)

What about gays? :wink:

[the english man]

Love and lust are two very seperate emotions. If you truly love someone you would and should do everything in your power to be with them. Its hard enough in this world to find true love and happiness without adding barriers of your own making.

Religion and and the belief in God are not the same thing. I can believe in God and still marry outside my faith. God isn't going to love me any less. All religions are the tool and the intepretation of man and as such they have human characteristics - good and bad. And being judgemental seems to be one of its biggest flaws.

Surely everybody loving God should be the ultimate goal? If I recall Guru Nanak advocated abolishment of the caste system..people CHOSE not to accede to his wishes. Does that make all Sikhs bad people? No. If choose to marry a man who's white does that make me a bad person? No.

I love you too sweet pea.

[Aman_90]

In my opinion

Considering Sikhi does not support Racism and in Sikhi all man is equal no matter what caste or creed. Falling in love with another person who is a different religion to yourself, is completely fine. The thing that makes it un-acceptable is normally Parents/Family who encourage you to marry people of the same religion etc.

Pul Chuk Maaf

Fateh