sikhphilosophy Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Please discuss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 ok 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikhphilosophy Posted August 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 For a discussion to start you need to introduce it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sikhphilosophy Posted August 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Okkkkkkkk. Take it easy !! A muslim fellow said that according to Islam... "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not superior over a non Arab nor a non Arab is superior over an Arab; also a white is not superior over a black nor a black is superior over a white except by piety and good action." We all stand equal. But a non believer is not the same as a believer... Ok !! I also reffered a Gurbani Verse ... Avval Allah Noor Upaya, Kudrat Kae Sabb Bandae, Aek Noor Tae Sab Jag Upjaeya, Kon Palae Ko Mandae || Now, one of my newly found friends in another forum described this concept like this... I am reproducing it in its entirity... The verse quoted by sikhphiloosophy from Adi Guru Granth Sahib refers to the fact that we are all in essence bearers of what Goether would call "der goetliche Funken". As such when we came into existence we were all pure. Guru Arjan Dev Ji explains in his Sukhmani Sahib that this world was created for the remembrance of the Divine. As souls wandering in this world our final aim is to return to the Divine (we come from God and we return to God). In order to do so dhikr/simran of the Divine is necessary: it is what defines our lives. We can either turn our faces towards the Divine (gurmukh/mu'min) or we can refuse to look in that direction and worship the world (manmukh/kafir). In the Sikh perspective all those, irrespective of their religion, whose life has remembrance of the Divine as their qibla are gurmukhs/mu'min. Those who chose to refuse God's call of love (manmukh/kafir) create suffering for themselves. Another way of interpreting this verse is to apply this to those beings who have emerged out of Allah's Nur i.e. prophets, imams, avatars, Gurus etc.. It is Sikh doctrine that all the Sikh Gurus are one jot/nur/light in ten bodies in the same way as the 14 Masumeen are one light manifested in 14 beings. It is then to be understood for Sikhs as a warning not to place any hierarchy between the 10 Gurus. For Shi'as this would mean that the 14 Masumeen should be viewed as such. But then again each one of the Gurus/Imams had a different function. That is precisely why one should not confuse the concepts of "sameness" and "equality". Although, it makes sense to me but still i would like to hear your views... So, my query is... Is a Gurmukh in Sikhism a Momin in Islam ? Is a Manmukh in Sikhism a Kafir in Islam ? Thence, Is a Gurmuch Superior to a Manmukh in the eyes of Allah or Waheguru... Are these concepts really identical ? Please keep the discussion clean. thanks. Best Regards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 I think it would be better to have another angle. The question is not how does Akal Purakh see manmukh or gurmukh. Being pure love and being nirvair the Divine is the one who put the choice to each soul: Am I the aim of your existence or am I second? Manmukhs just punish themselves by willingly staying away from Akal Purakh's love. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 ^^ beautiful! i agree with that. especially the last line... however, at the same time, we as "non-manmukhs", if we have the right to call ourselves that, shouldn't look as manmukhs as bad, either.. e.g if you can't see god in all, you can't see god at all i know i don't follow my following theory fully, myself.. but it is something i wanna practise on, that's for sure: manmukhs, as per the above statement, are simply not bestopwed the fortunate karma that would allow them, or guide them to follow religion.. any religion... in order to follow a path to meet God.. Akaal.. Allah.. Rab... whatever you wish to call Him... see, i don't know enough about islam to finalize my following comment, but this is why reincarnation to me does make sense: the souls in afirca who suffer so much... they only suffer from their karma, in my opinion.. it is their past lives that have resulted them to live in the conditions they live in now... to me, the concept of nirvair would also mean that God would not willingly put any of his creations into that situation and that condition... whereas karma, it is in a sense "beyond God's control" (kinda) as to what happens to you in your next lives... sorry, i know i swayedf rom the topic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Well if you are a gurmukh (i.e. the one who has his face in the direction of the Guru) you simply don't pay attention to the manmukh for all you see is Akal Purakh. Anyway the concept of nirvair also implies that there is no reality outside Akal Purakh because for there to be anyone to be hated there would have to be another entity/reality which is not the case. This is again confirmed by the fact that EkOmkar does not allow duality at all. It is the Divine who manifests Himself through this universe and contemplates His own beauty through his creatures who themselves contemplate the Divine through the Guru who is the Face of the Divine, the eye through which Akal Purakh sees the world and through which the world perceives the Divine. Unity of Existence...EkOmkar Vahiguru Vahiguru Vahiguru Vahiguru Vahiguru 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 so then it's very possible that Akal is severely distorted, yet still properly represented in the wide varieties that he is worshipped.... whether it be inter or intra religions.. e.g, this ongoing battle between pro-niddar anti-niddar.... personally, i don't think what he's doing is right, but hell, i'm not knowledgable to know the difference.. at the same time, those who are pro-niddar sometimes portray the feeling that whatever anyone else does is wrong... yet... both could be right.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 Akal cannot be distorted! There is no pro- and anti-Niddar Singh controversy: tehre is only people who refuse to admit Sikh history and tradition and prefer to live in Disneyland Sikhi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 but that's the thing see.. that's exactly what i'm saying.. there's absolutely no wish for people to say "you know what.. that method of practising sikhi is right, yet so is mine, but they're different". not meant to be slanderous, so don't take it that way: you are a prime example... through years of education and knowledge, there is one thing that still keeps you blind to people who practise sikhi in a way that you don't.... faith... even though they don't practise sikhi the way you do, they still have faith. they still respect all attributes of God, still have faith in God, and still believe in Hukam and everything... at the same time, "they" (being those who don't pracitse sikhi as you do) feel the same way about you, meaning, they also let their education and knowledge get the better of them and don't look at any good.... it's chicken and egg.. what came first, your refusal of their ways, or their refusal of your ways? point being, they believe in their method of practising sikhi, but very few of them allow their minds to accept your method of sikhi, and the same thing happens with people who believe in their own method and what not... i know that last paragraph was kinda jumbled, but i think it made sense.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 If faith was the only criteria for a Panth to exist it would anarchy. This is not about my or other people's interpretation of SIkhi! It's about facts and the facts are: 1. Some of our Gurus did hunt! 2. Some of our Gurus did have more than one wife 3. Kirtan is to played in raag! Now some groups don't wish to admit these FACTS (not interpretations) in the first place and call those who acknowledge these facts sinners. that is the problem 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.