The Sikh Society

x

I really want to rep you but unfortunately i've run out...
Amazing replies - I can never seem to muster up enough willpower to attempt such a long post!

This is very slightly off-topic, but I've often thought about what the Gurus would think of today's Sikhs - they tried to get rid of blind faith and all those meaningless rituals but that is what many Sikhs are doing nowadays! If someone like Guru Nanak Dev ji was born today, would they view Sikhs in the same way that Guru ji viewed the Hindus/Muslims of his time who were blindly following everyone else?

x

Hi Jason

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you do not consider the belief in a supernatural God to be a core tenet of Sikhism. Could you please elaborate on this point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

"We are in
this universe, we are a part of this universe, but perhaps more importantly than
both those facts, the universe is in us." (Neil deGrasse Tyson).

"Some people, when they look up
at the night sky, they feel small. But I feel big, because my atoms came from
those stars. There is a sense of connectivity."

Which part of that
isn't in line with Sikh teachings?

Leaving the debate of whether Dasam Granth is even a reliable source of Sikh philosophy for another day, I will even ignore the fact that none of the points you have just made are actually supported by Guru GRANTH Sahib- our ONLY Guru and eternal guide. Because what you've just stated above is rooted in a deeper issue which has plagued the Panth for generations now, and it needs to be addressed.

The layman will read the Guru Granth Sahib (heck, even Dasam Granth) and probably come to the conclusion that Sikhi is "like a mix of everything" (as we've had users say just a few pages back). Sikhs will hear this and immediately jump to the defence of Sikhi, insisting that it is a separate path, free from Hindu and Muslim influences. These same Sikhs will then turn around and start propagating belief in (traditional) reincarnation and karma (as a supernatural law). You will even get some who think that because the Gurus were referring to Hindu mythology in their poetry, that this means they were also acknowledging their existence and, as a result, begin to believe in them. You also have others who may not believe in the Hindu mythology, but will attempt to elevate the Gurus to an almost demi-God/God-incarnate level, because they don't want the Hindus and Christians to have all the fun in that domain. They will simultaneously profess belief in angels, slightly modified versions of heaven & hell (I've had Sikhs tell me I am going to go to hell before. LMAO I was like LMAO), and their perception of God is EXTREMELY Abrahamic and nothing like what the Gurus had actually said. They attempt to read the SGGS ji as a rule book, take everything literally (as a Muslim may do with the Qur'an), failing to realize that this was not the Granth's intended purpose. Is it any wonder people think that "Sikhism is like a mix of everything" and that "omg it's like all over the place" when Sikhs themselves do such a horrendous job of recognizing the Granth for what it truly is?

Trying to understand the Guru Granth Sahib in the same way a Christian may try to understand the Bible or a Muslim the Qur'an is a recipe for failure. Another forum I occasionally frequent had an individual, not too far back, come onto there and say something about how he/she was trying really hard to follow all the 'rules' needed to be a Sikh because they liked Sikhi a lot and wanted to be a Sikh but were finding it difficult because they had to keep it a secret or weren't getting support from their family/friends, or something along those lines. One of the other users put in a great reply which has stuck with me since and it went like this (I paraphrase): "stop worrying so much about what to eat, what not to eat, how to pray, when to pray, what 'rules' to follow and instead start following the path of the saints, which is extremely similar no matter which religion you choose to be a part of."

That stuck with me and a few weeks ago I was having a discussion about it with another friend. They went even further and said (paraphrase): "if you look closely enough, you'll notice that each of the major religions and pretty much every cultural tradition around the world has at least one mystic breakaway which takes the focus off fasting, ritualism and dogma and places it instead on love, inner peace and individual spirituality (Islam has Sufism, Judaism has Kabblah, Christianity has Christian Mysticism, Hinduism has Bhakhti and Buddhism has Zen). But the really interesting thing is that Sikhi is perhaps the only major religion in the world which does not have one of these mystic break-aways itself, simply because there is no need for one; the faith itself was founded by mystics and their mystical poetry was preserved by themselves in what is now the central text of Sikhi (SGGS ji). There was never any need for later figures to come along and give a more mystical/spiritual spin to the religion because the entire philosophy itself has been mystic, right from the beginning. The message of the GGS ji is universal and can be appreciated/applied by people from every faith and those who have none at all. We also need to realize that mystics from other faith traditions had been spreading a similar message, which is why the Gurus didn't claim exclusivity".
I believe we need to start interpreting SGGS ji from this position of universal spirituality, and it is also the best way to counter dogmatic literalist interpretations of the Bani. It also destroys every argument of how Sikhi is a mix of Islam and Hinduism. Because if we understand SGGS ji from a mystical POV, then it becomes clear that their use of Islamic/Hindu terminology was NOT because they supported those concepts, but because it was the best way of communicating with the (largely) Hindu and Muslim masses. They were simply putting across their message by "speaking the language of the people."

Had the Gurus been from any other part of the world, the underlying message in SGGS ji would have been exactly the same; the only difference would have been the terminology used to put it across.

This manner of interpretation also provides the most internal consistency and satisfies the rule of Occam's razor. It is the simplest, does not depend on the existence of anything supernatural and thus, is almost certainly correct.

You are correct

Here's my take on things....

Yo bro, I came across your spiritual crisis thread. So let's get to the bottom of this. You say you don't believe in God. I'm sure there are others on here (maybe lurkers) who are from Sikh families, have a hard time accepting the existence of a God and thus, feel like they do not belong in the Panth. Any discussion with you will help others as well. Let us begin:What is your understanding of 'God' in the context of Sikh philosophy?

i tend to think about it as God = nature/laws of nature, since words like 'kudrat' are used quite a bit to describe Vaheguru...

Thanks for the thorough response. As someone who's interested in panentheism, I'm quite sympathetic to your viewpoint. NDT is awesome! Check put this video featuring Sagan, Feynman and NDT.

Interestingly, there are some concepts in modern physics which seem to imply that the material world as we know it, may not be the 'ultimate' reality. For example, the mainstream approaches to quantum gravity suggest that space, time and energy may be emergent properties of something even more 'fundamental'. Could this be God/Ek/universal consciousness? We don't know! To quote Feynman: "I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's; She's never going to let us relax".

Hi sorry for the late response, iv been really busy with uni currently

My understanding of god is probably a being or a force thats beyond human, a passive creative force I guess. Yes this does tie in with sikhism very well but not with my current understanding of the universe from a scientific perspective

If I told you that the Ek Oankar of Guru Nanak was simply a reference to nature (without anything supernatural), would you agree or disagree with me?

I would disagree with you, from what the Guru Granth describes its more than nature.

Apologies for the late reply.

This conundrum can actually be resolved quite easily. What is the concept of God in Sikhi based upon? What is the most concise 'description' of God Sikhs have as reference? The answer to both of those is Guru Nanak Sahib's Mool Mantar: Ek Oankar SatNam Karta-Purakh Nirbhau Nirvair Akaal-Moorat Ajoone Saibhang Gurprusad....

In plain English: There is One supreme entity, it is the supreme Truth, it is responsible for everything, beyond fear (i.e. is the highest/most powerful of all), it beyond hatred, beyond birth and death (ever-lasting), self-existent, can be realized by Guru's Grace.

Which part of that does not apply to nature?

In plain English: There is One supreme entity, it is the supreme Truth, it is responsible for everything, beyond fear (i.e. is the highest/most powerful of all), it beyond hatred, beyond birth and death (ever-lasting), self-existent, can be realized by Guru's Grace.

Which part of that does not apply to nature?