Obsession With Abrahamic Dogma

[ragnarok]

Sikhs today are obsessed with inserting abrahamic-style dogma into Sikhism. Discuss.

People are always going on about 'right & wrong', using 'where is it written' as an argument, our translations are all pushing an agenda by adding words that were not there in the original text, speaking of 'Lord & God' and referring to this 'God' in the context of 'His' being an imaginary buffoon in the sky interfering with and involved with our everyday lives yet separate from us á la Christianity and Islam.

Why the ignorance? Why the obsession with using misleading words which only work in an Abrahamic context? Those of us who understand the original word can fill in the gaps but the uneducated 'yoof' can read only the english and can understand only in an Abrahamic context. Essentially could they even be considered to be Sikhs? They're not learning or following the original teaching so what are they? Who is their Guru? The translator at Sikhitothemax?

All over this forum people talk about God in an abrahamic context, people talk of God giving you things, of God as an exogenous creator of the universe, as God as a punisher and judge.

The real truth contained in Sikhism comes from the emphasis on formlessness and lack of dogma so why are the western Sikhs obsessed with turning it into an Abrahamic mess of rules, rigidity, bigotry, guilt-tripping, mindless offence-taking at everything. When did we become catholics?

The first line in Guru Sahib is 'Ik Onkar'. That contains all the knowledge you need to know. There is only one. There is no 'you' or 'me', all 'creation' is illusion. A tree or a bucket or a dog or a human; ultimately there is no difference. There is only one.

If you think you exist as an individual, that is duality/manmat. Thinking that there is a separate God is duality/manmat. Thinking like the church tells you to that you are a 'sinner' is duality/manmat.

Newsflash - SIKHS ARE NEITHER MUSLIM, NOR HINDU, NOR CHRISTIAN. Educate yourselves.

Cases in point:

Generated randomly by Sikhitothemax

Read a Random Shabad
This Shabad is by Guru Nanak Dev Ji in Raag Maaroo on Pannaa 1092
slok mÚ 1 ] salok ma 1 || Salok, First Mehla: hau mY krI qW qU nwhI qU hovih hau nwih ] ho mai karee thaa(n) thoo naahee thoo hovehi ho naahi || When one acts in egotism, then You are not there, Lord. Wherever You are, there is no ego.

Where is this 'Lord' coming from? Is there a lord mentioned in the original? No.

kwnVw mhlw 5 ] kaanarraa mehalaa 5 || Kaanraa, Fifth Mehla: AhM qoro muKu joro ] aha(n) thoro mukh joro || Give up your ego, and turn your face to God.

Where is this 'God' coming from?

qy bYrwgI khw smwey ] thae bairaagee kehaa samaaeae || Where is that detached soul now contained? iqsu ibnu quhI duhyrI rI ]1] rhwau ] this bin thuhee dhuhaeree ree ||1|| rehaao || Without it, you are miserable. ||1||Pause||

What is this 'soul'?

ivxu BY pieAY Bgiq n hoeI ] vin bhai paeiai bhagath n hoee ||

Without the Fear of God, there is no devotional worship.

What??

Edited December 11, 2014 by ragnarok

[dalsingh101]

This is a big topic: the nature of translations.

Translations are important as at least an entry point to Sikhi - but translating is a process fraught with difficulties, some of which you mention above.

There is a lot of academic discussion on these topics now, and some people have started to try and create translations that don't do the obvious slip ups:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teachings-Sikh-Gurus-Selections-Scriptures/dp/0415266041

That being said, hordes of Sikhs in the diaspora struggle with speaking modern Panjabi let alone comprehending the words and meanings in original Sikh form (which will be perceived as archaic).

Until we get our own linguistic specialists to create translations that don't subtly incorporate western/semitic concepts, most translations will suffer from this. But more and more people (though not enough) are becoming aware of these issues which is positive.

As someone who periodically attempts to translate brief Panjabi extracts into English, I know that it can often be difficult to avoid introducing constructs from English/Semitic faiths within. But once people become aware of this issue, they should be in a better position to evaluate any translation they do read.

The other thing is the misuse of texts for narrow political purposes: this lends itself to the aforementioned dogmatic/abrahamic style kutturh interpretations.

[Koi]

What about using puraatan Steeks , faridkot, ameer bhandar etc?

[ragnarok]

This translation of Ahtavakra Gita is excellent.

Ashtavakra-Gita-ebook.pdf

[dalsingh101]

What about using puraatan Steeks , faridkot, ameer bhandar etc?

That is a great idea but is a challenge in itself. If we wanted to translate it truly, not only would we have to have an exhaustive understanding of the background knowledge of the authors, we'd have to get into their worldview and mindsets to have ANY chance of truly extracting the meanings they intended. Given how modern Sikhs have broken away from a lot of the 'traditional learning' that forms the worldviews of the authors - translating these texts would probably be a lifetimes work.

It's a lot more than simply exchanging words from one language to another - we have to draw out the subtle nuances.

Edited December 13, 2014 by dalsingh101

[ragnarok]

Which is difficult enough by itself without idiots adding their own words to push an agenda.

[gdskler]

Sikhs today are obsessed with inserting abrahamic-style dogma into Sikhism. Discuss.

People are always going on about 'right & wrong', using 'where is it written' as an argument, our translations are all pushing an agenda by adding words that were not there in the original text, speaking of 'Lord & God' and referring to this 'God' in the context of 'His' being an imaginary buffoon in the sky interfering with and involved with our everyday lives yet separate from us á la Christianity and Islam.

Why the ignorance? Why the obsession with using misleading words which only work in an Abrahamic context? Those of us who understand the original word can fill in the gaps but the uneducated 'yoof' can read only the english and can understand only in an Abrahamic context. Essentially could they even be considered to be Sikhs? They're not learning or following the original teaching so what are they? Who is their Guru? The translator at Sikhitothemax?

All over this forum people talk about God in an abrahamic context, people talk of God giving you things, of God as an exogenous creator of the universe, as God as a punisher and judge.

The real truth contained in Sikhism comes from the emphasis on formlessness and lack of dogma so why are the western Sikhs obsessed with turning it into an Abrahamic mess of rules, rigidity, bigotry, guilt-tripping, mindless offence-taking at everything. When did we become catholics?

The first line in Guru Sahib is 'Ik Onkar'. That contains all the knowledge you need to know. There is only one. There is no 'you' or 'me', all 'creation' is illusion. A tree or a bucket or a dog or a human; ultimately there is no difference. There is only one.

If you think you exist as an individual, that is duality/manmat. Thinking that there is a separate God is duality/manmat. Thinking like the church tells you to that you are a 'sinner' is duality/manmat.

Newsflash - SIKHS ARE NEITHER MUSLIM, NOR HINDU, NOR CHRISTIAN. Educate yourselves.

Cases in point:

Generated randomly by Sikhitothemax

Where is this 'Lord' coming from? Is there a lord mentioned in the original? No.

Where is this 'God' coming from?

What is this 'soul'?

What??

Sikhs today are obsessed with inserting abrahamic-style dogma into Sikhism. Discuss.

People are always going on about 'right & wrong', using 'where is it written' as an argument, our translations are all pushing an agenda by adding words that were not there in the original text, speaking of 'Lord & God' and referring to this 'God' in the context of 'His' being an imaginary buffoon in the sky interfering with and involved with our everyday lives yet separate from us á la Christianity and Islam.

Why the ignorance? Why the obsession with using misleading words which only work in an Abrahamic context? Those of us who understand the original word can fill in the gaps but the uneducated 'yoof' can read only the english and can understand only in an Abrahamic context. Essentially could they even be considered to be Sikhs? They're not learning or following the original teaching so what are they? Who is their Guru? The translator at Sikhitothemax?

All over this forum people talk about God in an abrahamic context, people talk of God giving you things, of God as an exogenous creator of the universe, as God as a punisher and judge.

The real truth contained in Sikhism comes from the emphasis on formlessness and lack of dogma so why are the western Sikhs obsessed with turning it into an Abrahamic mess of rules, rigidity, bigotry, guilt-tripping, mindless offence-taking at everything. When did we become catholics?

If you think you exist as an individual, that is duality/manmat. Thinking that there is a separate God is duality/manmat. Thinking like the church tells you to that you are a 'sinner' is duality/manmat.

Newsflash - SIKHS ARE NEITHER MUSLIM, NOR HINDU, NOR CHRISTIAN. Educate yourselves.

Cases in point:

Generated randomly by Sikhitothemax

Where is this 'Lord' coming from? Is there a lord mentioned in the original? No.

Where is this 'God' coming from?

What is this 'soul'?

What??

RagnarokJi, I agree with you on this debate. I had difficult time in interpreting gurbani shabads. I used to reads gurbani and it english translation eg from Manmohan Singh's version. The word like 'Lord and Master" do confused a beginner like me then. I was looking at gurbani on waheguru attributes from the english version of translation to understand my gurbani. Why can't we use the word Waheguru for the english translation instead of Lord Master.

Case in point is there is difference in interpretation of the word "ALLAH" among the Muslim and the Christian in Malaysia.

a Very Brief Factual Background

it has been sometimes now that the the non-Muslim in Malaysia cannot uses the word 'Allah". Meanwhile the Christian are upset about it as they are using the word "Allah" in their malay- language bible for the local who can't speak other language ie. chinese, tamil or english. Malay is an official language for Malaysia and majority of them who speak this language are malay who are muslim. However there are other indigenous people from the state of Sabah and Sarawak (Borneo) who are christian but speak malay language.

The Christian Church prepares bible and other publication in malay and refer to God as 'Allah". (actual malay word for God is "Tuhan").

The Muslim objected on this matter. The Government have siezed the bibles and had banned publication of christian journals as it contained the word "Allah".

The Christian are upset and told the authorities that the word Allah had been used by the Christians in Arab for thousand of years and both in Indonesia and Malaysia for many years.

However, the Muslim on the other hand argued among others that the word Allah used by the Muslim refer to one Supreme God. When a Muslim pray to Allah he think of that One Allah with all the attributes as in Quran and Hadith. However for Christian, the Muslim argued, their concept of God is trinity, that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that is not as same as the Muslim interpretation of Allah. It is simply Allah. the meaning "Lord" in Christian world refer to Jesus and Allah is not Jesus but prophet. Thus if allow by the Christian to do so it will cause confusion among the muslim.

Back to our Topic:

the reason I brought up the above facts is to illustrate as what mentioned by Ragnarok:-

Sikhs today are obsessed with inserting abrahamic-style dogma into Sikhism. Discuss.

People are always going on about 'right & wrong', using 'where is it written' as an argument, our translations are all pushing an agenda by adding words that were not there in the original text, speaking of 'Lord & God' and referring to this 'God' in the context of 'His' being an imaginary buffoon in the sky interfering with and involved with our everyday lives yet separate from us á la Christianity and Islam.

Why the ignorance? Why the obsession with using misleading words which only work in an Abrahamic context? Those of us who understand the original word can fill in the gaps but the uneducated 'yoof' can read only the english and can understand only in an Abrahamic context.

Case in point the translation and the meaning of "Waheguru". Many times I have seen that many Sikhs' writers try his best to explain the meaning of Waheguru. Their explanation or translation accommodating and pleasing the readers of different faiths. If the writer is in western world his definition and translation will be tend to lean more to Abrahamic way of interpretation eg Lord and Master. If he is in India then the translation of the word will be more toward hindunazation such as Parbrahams, Parmathma etc.

Why can we introduced the word Waheguru or Ek Ong kaar as meaning of God as stated by Ragnarok

" The first line in Guru Sahib is 'Ik Onkar'. That contains all the knowledge you need to know. There is only one. There is no 'you' or 'me', all 'creation' is illusion. A tree or a bucket or a dog or a human; ultimately there is no difference. There is only one.

this bring back to my topic on interpretation of "Allah" as by the Muslim. They are very strict that the word Allah must be uttered and used by Muslim. This because only Muslim knew the actual interpretation of the Allah from Quran and Hadidt. The christian just corrupt the word Allah into trinity. Similarly as Sikh we just translate as how a Sikh understand from the meaning as explain by Guru ji in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and others Granths. Be srtict as how Muslim insist to use the word God with Allah in their interpretation and translation.

Otherwise the Sikh child whose exposure to western understanding of Christianity or hinduism from India will interpret banies from Christian or hinduism point of view to understand gurbani.

).

[dalsingh101]

Sometimes though, it might be accurate to use 'Lord', like when Gurbani uses the shabad 'sahib'??

Saacha Sahib = True Lord?

[BhagatSingh]

Lord, God and Soul all have their punjabi versions.

Lord = Sahib, also Prabhu

God = Brahmn (Brahman)

Soul = Atman

Now one Christian friend corrected me saying that Soul actually means intelligence/intellect whereas Spirit means something like Atman. Still I think majority of the people use Soul and Spirit interchangeably.

All over this forum people talk about God in an abrahamic context, people talk of God giving you things, of God as an exogenous creator of the universe, as God as a punisher and judge.

This is all in SGGS. He punishes, judges, forgives (ਬਖਸਨਹਾਰ comes to mind), gives (ਦਾਤਾਰ another common word) protects etc.

The real truth contained in Sikhism comes from the emphasis on formlessness and lack of dogma

There is a plenty of dogma in Sikhism. Any belief system is based on dogma. If you think you've found one without dogma, you haven't.

The first line in Guru Sahib is 'Ik Onkar'. That contains all the knowledge you need to know. There is only one. There is no 'you' or 'me', all 'creation' is illusion. A tree or a bucket or a dog or a human; ultimately there is no difference. There is only one.

You say that but have you experienced it?

Thinking that there is a separate God is duality/manmat.

No duality is not automatically manmat. Duality is a law of the world. You will always see God as separate from the Atma except in certain cases of spiritual experiences and during moments of hyper awareness.

The regular Waking State of Consciousness (jagriti) always perceives God to be separate from the Soul. Only when one achieves the Deep State Pure Consciousness(turiya) (hyper awareness) does that duality collapse into Oneness.

The Lotus Analogy comes to mind. Duality is like Mud. And Soul is a like a Lotus. The soul is to live in duality without being affected by it, the way a lotus lives in the mud, unaffected.

Without the Fear of God, there is no devotional worship.

What??

What does it mean to fear something? What does it mean to fear God? How does it feel? You must ask yourself such questions before jumping to conclusions about the nature of translations.

I know the translations are sometimes faulty but you have to also account for how much you actually understand. What I am sensing from your post is mostly a lack of understanding rather than a problem with the translations.

[ragnarok]

Your post is an exercise in duality. Duality may be the law of the world but the point of Sikhi is to transcend duality. One who sees the truth cannot suffer from duality.

You will always see God as separate from the Atma except in certain cases of spiritual experiences and during moments of hyper awareness."

Disagree. An enlightened one is always in this state, the unenlightened should make a conscious effort to remember Oneness as truth. It is the whole point of simran.

This is all in SGGS. He punishes, judges, forgives (ਬਖਸਨਹਾਰ comes to mind), gives (ਦਾਤਾਰ another common word) protects etc.

Show me. Your mindset is emblematic of what my post is about. You're an Abrahamic and don't even know it. You believe in the idea of a separate 'god' floating about and meddling in day to day affairs of people with only a loose appreciation of the possibility of one-ness.

[BhagatSingh]

Your post is an exercise in duality. Duality may be the law of the world but the point of Sikhi is to transcend duality. One who sees the truth cannot suffer from duality.

Disagree. An enlightened one is always in this state, the unenlightened should make a conscious effort to remember Oneness as truth. It is the whole point of simran.

This is all in SGGS. He punishes, judges, forgives (ਬਖਸਨਹਾਰ comes to mind), gives (ਦਾਤਾਰ another common word) protects etc.

Show me. Your mindset is emblematic of what my post is about. You're an Abrahamic and don't even know it. You believe in the idea of a separate 'god' floating about and meddling in day to day affairs of people with only a loose appreciation of the possibility of one-ness.

I'd like to have this conversation but I don't like your tone.

If your preferred style of conversation involves-

-not listening

-not paying attention to what is being said

-ignoring questions

-and making demands irreverently

then frankly, I am not interested.

[dalsingh101]

I'd like to have this conversation but I don't like your tone.

Don't be a b1tch man. Engage.

Don't run off at the first sign of strong words man!! Engage! Debate!

[BhagatSingh]

Lol Dally Sensai, he didn't even read my p....

I shall do as you say. I won't hold back.

*touches right fist to left palm*

*takes a bow*

*looks at post to reply to*

K Ragnarok you are dead. (metaphorically speaking)

Your post is an exercise in duality. Duality may be the law of the world but the point of Sikhi is to transcend duality. One who sees the truth cannot suffer from duality.

Every post is an exercise in duality. Duality is everything that is. It is fundamental lens through which we perceive the world. It is the world!

Yes the goal of Sikhi is to transcend duality. Yes one who sees the truth cannot suffer from duality. I should f***ing know because I experienced that shiet and then I said it!

Hence the f***ing metaphor of Lotus! The mud is the duality and the lotus is consciousness. Our consciousness is to rise from this duality the way the lotus rises out of mud.

BUT

It still lives in the f***ing mud! The mud is the world!

How do you rise above the mud while living in it?

You go into the state of Pure Consciousness through strict meditation (naam simran) or rarely by a lucky stroke of His Kirpa. Often both.

Disagree. An enlightened one is always in this state,

Shut the f*** up.

You are not enlightened. If you are then you should have answered my question right at the start instead of giving me crap. So stop making shiet up that you have not experienced.

the unenlightened should make a conscious effort to remember Oneness as truth. It is the whole point of simran.

Yes it is! You are right. But what the f*** is Oneness? have you even tasted it?

How can you blab about something you don't know of?

Oneness is everything. It INCLUDES duality!

It's all inclusive. There is nothing outside of oneness, not even duality or ignorance. It's all part of the game (leela).

I should f***ing know cuz I f***ing saw that shiet with my own eyes and then I described it to you!

Are you keeping up?

Show me.

Why should I show you? Why don't you look it up?

Learn to f***ing Google shiet. This is the 21st century. If you can go on a forum, you can damn well read Sri Granth.

srigranth.org

Copy- paste ਬਖਸਨਹਾਰ and ਦਾਤਾਰ. It won't break your fingers. I promise.

Your mindset is emblematic of what my post is about. You're an Abrahamic and don't even know it. You believe in the idea of a separate 'god' floating about and meddling in day to day affairs of people with only a loose appreciation of the possibility of one-ness.

Oneness includes the Ambrahamic God. It includes everything! It even includes you!

But you wouldn't even know what is an Abrahamic God. You are too busy criticizing and pre-judge ... prejudice ... pre-judging other people who are trying to help you.

And the language you are using is an Abrahamic one! English is not an Indian language. It has words derived from Sanskrit and other Indian languages but it's an Abrahamic language with concepts and words that use Abrahamic Mythology as their basis.

Why the f*** are you speaking in English if you want to run away from Abrahamic beliefs so much?

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਬੋਲ! ਮੈਂ ਤੈਨੂੰ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ 'ਚ ਸਮਝਾ ਦੇਨਾ

ਬਕਸ਼ਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਬਕਸ਼ਨਹਾਰ

ਦਾਤਾਂ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਦਾਤਾਰ

Why is it that you could not even recognize Gurmukhi words and yet recognize English words so easily?

[ragnarok]

Dear HaumaiSingh, find answers in red below

Lol Dally Sensai, he didn't even read my p....

I shall do as you say. I won't hold back.

*touches right fist to left palm*

*takes a bow*

*looks at post to reply to*

K Ragnarok you are dead. (metaphorically speaking)

Every post is an exercise in duality. Duality is everything that is. It is fundamental lens through which we perceive the world. It is the world!

And the world is not truth.

Yes the goal of Sikhi is to transcend duality. Yes one who sees the truth cannot suffer from duality. I should f***ing know because I experienced that shiet and then I said it!

You also said

Which is all lies. I do not believe that someone who has seen truth even for an instant can speak such lies. Once you have a certain avastha you can see Oneness constantly. It is not even the highest avastha.

Hence the f***ing metaphor of Lotus! The mud is the duality and the lotus is consciousness. Our consciousness is to rise from this duality the way the lotus rises out of mud.

BUT

It still lives in the f***ing mud! The mud is the world!

And what is the world? Is it real? Is it separate from the one? No.

How do you rise above the mud while living in it?

You go into the state of Pure Consciousness through strict meditation (naam simran) or rarely by a lucky stroke of His Kirpa. Often both.

Shut the f*** up.

No. You speak like this and you claim to have seen the truth? You are nothing but an apologist for living in delusion.

You are not enlightened. If you are then you should have answered my question right at the start instead of giving me crap. So stop making shiet up that you have not experienced.

Please tell me what I have experienced.

Yes it is! You are right. But what the f*** is Oneness? have you even tasted it?

Constantly.

How can you blab about something you don't know of?

See above.

Oneness is everything. It INCLUDES duality!

Indeed.

It's all inclusive. There is nothing outside of oneness, not even duality or ignorance. It's all part of the game (leela).

I should f***ing know cuz I f***ing saw that shiet with my own eyes and then I described it to you!

See what I said about delusion. You have seen nothing and it is evident from your tone.

Are you keeping up?

Why should I show you? Why don't you look it up?

Learn to f***ing Google shiet. This is the 21st century. If you can go on a forum, you can damn well read Sri Granth.

srigranth.org

Copy- paste ਬਖਸਨਹਾਰ and ਦਾਤਾਰ. It won't break your fingers. I promise.

Oneness includes the Ambrahamic God. It includes everything! It even includes you!

The Abrahamic concept of god is delusion. it is not real. It is part of the play of maya. The definition of the Christian god since Constantine has been a lie; it has nothing to do with Jesus.

But you wouldn't even know what is an Abrahamic God. You are too busy criticizing and pre-judge ... prejudice ... pre-judging other people who are trying to help you.

And the language you are using is an Abrahamic one! English is not an Indian language. It has words derived from Sanskrit and other Indian languages but it's an Abrahamic language with concepts and words that use Abrahamic Mythology as their basis.

1. English is not Abrahamic. It predates Christianity and is not from the middle east. Educate yourself, boy. 2. Point is that translations cannot be made properly into English as the right words do not exist. 3. Just because I speak a language does not mean I must subscribe to the mythology of the culture that spawned the language. The original culture behind English is pagan, not christian.

Why the f*** are you speaking in English if you want to run away from Abrahamic beliefs so much?

Speaking a language is not a belief.

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਬੋਲ! ਮੈਂ ਤੈਨੂੰ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ 'ਚ ਸਮਝਾ ਦੇਨਾ

ਬਕਸ਼ਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਬਕਸ਼ਨਹਾਰ

ਦਾਤਾਂ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਦਾਤਾਰ

Why is it that you could not even recognize Gurmukhi words and yet recognize English words so easily?

Where are you getting this? And you speak of prejudice? The ego present in your demeanour is astounding, as for your so called experience of the truth it is evident that this is nothing but a lie you told yourself and your peers in order to feed your out of control ego.

eyk qUhI eyk quhI

iDRgu jIvxu dohwgxI muTI dUjY Bwie

Edited December 17, 2014 by ragnarok

[BhagatSingh]

Dear Enlightened One,

If you cannot recognize a garden from a different angle, you don't know the garden as well as you think. When I changed the words I used, you thought I was talking about something completely different and lashed out. Recognize that you are enlightened, then observe that light from different angles.

(Hint: I just changed the words again)

I only responded because a friend asked. Until he wants me to respond again... see ya.

Yours truly,

Haumai

[Guest]

This is very important topic.

[Kuttabanda2]

"Show me. Your mindset is emblematic of what my post is about. You're an Abrahamic and don't even know it. You believe in the idea of a separate 'god' floating about and meddling in day to day affairs of people with only a loose appreciation of the possibility of one-ness."

Your're misusing the word Abrahamic, yeah there is a trait that we've borrowed from the Abrahamic faiths due to Adaption, translating our texts, influence and adoption of western philosophy, precepts, universal methods of thinking, and Theos, but that doesn't make anyone "Abrahamic".

Some of the people on this site need to stop stamping Singh Sabha school of thought as Protestant, Catholic, Islamic, Christian, Abrahamic, Semetic, etc. because it's stupid and openly displays one's ignorance and lack of importance towards words and their definitions.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Kuttabanda2