The Sikh Society

Lol yeah I'm alright, you?

@raman_17 also the guys voice at 36:10 So beautiful!

I have a question that I asked @cupcakes87 , but I would like to ask it here so I get a pool of honest opinions:

We would all agree God is more eloquent than men. Ignoring what the Gurus contributed to the Granth (since one would argue that what they composed was from God - "As the Lord's Word comes to me, O Lalo, so do I deliver it", if the Granth is truly from God (rather than about God) why does it contain the works of men e.g. Kabir and Farid, when God is far more eloquent than men and can provide more guidance and instruction with His words?

The implications of this would be that it raises the question if Sikhi is a religion that God sent down or if it's just the product of poetic spiritual teachers within a specific socio-political context, with the Granth just being a compilation of poems that they thought could guide people towards God as opposed to being a divinely inspired book from God Himself.

If the Granth is truly from God (rather than about God) why does it contain the works of men e.g. Kabir and Farid, when God is far more eloquent than men and can provide more guidance and instruction with His words?Okay, so, I would begin with saying the 10 Gurus are believed to be made from the same substance as God, I've heard the analogy "the Guru's were the drop from the Ocean of God" so therefore Guru Arjun Dev Ji (who himself is made from the same substance as God) adding the Shabads of Hindu and Muslim Saints, is not man conveying the message of God as you put it, but rather it is God conveying the message of God through men to other men.

I see it this way, say you are a devoted muslim and a a 65 year old Jewish lady who only spoke Yiddish told you that she had the "Word Of God" and the "Complete truth" in her hands (in Yiddish) you would accept her word for it? Most likely not, 1) You would have a problem understanding her 2) You would not accept it since you are already faithful to Islam for example and you have no reason to accept her word for it.

Okay so now, say a 20 year old (around your age), well known,well loved and respected, very intelligent English speaking Christian man came to you and told you he knew the truth about God and wanted to translate it through poetry or a song to you, would you be willing to listen? it's far more likely.

This is how I see those saints, not equal to Gods word own words which he spoke through the Guru's but rather, Gods teachings translated to the laity by men to men.

All of the men share very similar beliefs in humility, simplicity and One true God regardless of their faith and background, so in Sikhism's eyes they are Sikh since they follow those Sikh principles and this would reflect "the universality of thought which underlies the sikh belief in One God" and of course, almost all of them were well known and praised for their work and where respected so that would be more reason to include their words.

It was Guru Arjun Dev ji (a substance of God) who ultimately included their work into the Guru Granth sahib ji which means God saw his truth represented in their words and saw reason for it to be incorporated amongst his own words, it doesn't mean God can't do the same, God himself had already spoken through the Gurus (and had yet to speak which is why blank spaces were left by Guru Arjun Dev Ji).

In my spoiler I've highlighted the Bhagatas (Saints of various faiths) and their similarities with each other, which really conveys my point of them being examples of men who saw the "Truth" that the Guru's spoke and practiced sikh beliefs themselves, and it's clear how their commonality, skill, love and respect with and from ordinary people would help ordinary people experience God and the Complete Truth that Sikhism holds.

Thank you for your lengthy response, I appreciate it

I have a few contentions, one of them being the Gurus were manifestations of God (or part of God), but I will not get into that specific topic here, instead I will just mention the other points.

- Even if we take the Bani to be "God conveying God's word through men to other men", God choosing to include the works of men (Farid, Kabir, Namdev etc) in the Granth is like God saying "I will tell you the purpose of life.... what he said innit". No matter how truthful what these other people say is, it will never ever match the level of absolute truth or wisdom or eloquence that God is capable of, therefore if we assume the compositions of God/the Gurus are like 90% of the Granth, then 10% lacks absolute perfection even if the contents of this 10% is true. It's like going to university to learn Physics and the lecturer whips out an A-Level Physics Revision guide because you are more familiar with it and gives it to you to read rather than educate you with his extensive knowledge - everything you learn will be Physics but it is not what you expect from him. This does not make sense to me, which is why it makes much more logical sense that the Granth is just a collation of spiritual poems as opposed to a book approved by God Himself.

- Although you might say these people have common beliefs, let's take the Muslim ones specifically - their Islamic beliefs (even taking the slack Sufistic beliefs in parts of Pakistan today as a comparison to the Sufi beliefs of these poets) would entail that other authors within the Granth are Kuffar (disbelievers), therefore not "all of the men share very similar beliefs in humility, simplicity and One true God regardless of their faith and background", instead the likes of Farid and Bhikan were just inward looking spiritualists but with defined foundations within Islamic doctrine which still involved a belief in religious supremecy over people who were not Muslims.
The logical answer to this point is that their poetry had a truthful message even if their beliefs were not always agreeable, thus they were included in the Granth, but then this opens another problem of intellectual disingenuity, as the meaning of their poems would be hijacked to support whatever meaning the Gurus would want it to mean rather than the intended meaning of the authors - this concept of hijacking is evident when one notices that additions were made to the Saloks of Sheikh Farid by one of the Gurus - additions which are not in line with the beliefs of Farid himself e.g. "O Nanak, the Unseen Lord cannot be seen; He is revealed only to the Gurmukh".

no problem, thank you also for the long reply but I will have to read it later and reply later. If I forget, please VM me to remind me (please do XD, because I have the memory of a gold fish).

Thank you for your lengthy response, I appreciate it

I have a few contentions, one of them being the Gurus were manifestations of God (or part of God), but I will not get into that specific topic here, instead I will just mention the other points.

- Even if we take the Bani to be "God conveying God's word through men to other men", God choosing to include the works of men (Farid, Kabir, Namdev etc) in the Granth is like God saying "I will tell you the purpose of life.... what he said innit". No matter how truthful what these other people say is, it will never ever match the level of absolute truth or wisdom or eloquence that God is capable of, therefore if we assume the compositions of God/the Gurus are like 90% of the Granth, then 10% lacks absolute perfection even if the contents of this 10% is true. It's like going to university to learn Physics and the lecturer whips out an A-Level Physics Revision guide because you are more familiar with it and gives it to you to read rather than educate you with his extensive knowledge - everything you learn will be Physics but it is not what you expect from him. This does not make sense to me, which is why it makes much more logical sense that the Granth is just a collation of spiritual poems as opposed to a book approved by God Himself.

- Although you might say these people have common beliefs, let's take the Muslim ones specifically - their Islamic beliefs (even taking the slack Sufistic beliefs in parts of Pakistan today as a comparison to the Sufi beliefs of these poets) would entail that other authors within the Granth are Kuffar (disbelievers), therefore not "all of the men share very similar beliefs in humility, simplicity and One true God regardless of their faith and background", instead the likes of Farid and Bhikan were just inward looking spiritualists but with defined foundations within Islamic doctrine which still involved a belief in religious supremecy over people who were not Muslims.
The logical answer to this point is that their poetry had a truthful message even if their beliefs were not always agreeable, thus they were included in the Granth, but then this opens another problem of intellectual disingenuity, as the meaning of their poems would be hijacked to support whatever meaning the Gurus would want it to mean rather than the intended meaning of the authors - this concept of hijacking is evident when one notices that additions were made to the Saloks of Sheikh Farid by one of the Gurus - additions which are not in line with the beliefs of Farid himself e.g. "O Nanak, the Unseen Lord cannot be seen; He is revealed only to the Gurmukh".

The logical answer to this point is that their poetry had a truthful message even if their beliefs were not always agreeable, thus they were included in the Granth, but then this opens another problem of intellectual disingenuity, as the meaning of their poems would be hijacked to support whatever meaning the Gurus would want it to mean rather than the intended meaning of the authors - this concept of hijacking is evident when one notices that additions were made to the Saloks of Sheikh Farid by one of the Gurus - additions which are not in line with the beliefs of Farid himself e.g. "O Nanak, the Unseen Lord cannot be seen; He is revealed only to the Gurmukh".

God choosing to include the works of men (Farid, Kabir, Namdev etc) in the Granth is like God saying "I will tell you the purpose of life.... what he said innit"-I would say that Sikhism is about experiencing God, rather than following word for word to build faith in God. I don't think it's like "I will tell you the purpose of life.... what he said innit", unless you believe everyone on this planet cannot think for themselves. I suppose in a sense, the words of Kabir, Farid and Namdev etc are also experiences of God, showing that what the Guru's have spoken about is true and the rest of us should follow their teachings to experience God.

10% would only lack perfection if you believe in being all humans being born with Sin etc. But regardless of that, I don't think the Guru Granth Sahib ji strives for perfection but more so the "truth". That is what Granth means anyway, it has the ultimate truth inside it.

"It's like going to university to learn Physics and the lecturer whips out an A-Level Physics Revision guide because you are more familiar with it and gives it to you to read rather than educate you with his extensive knowledge - everything you learn will be Physics but it is not what you expect from him."-But God has put forward the truth , it's not like A-level physics is wrong and I would say the lecturer would be helping the new students on a path to higher physics just like the Guru(teacher) is helping people to a path to experience God.

"would entail that other authors within the Granth are Kuffar (disbelievers), therefore not "all of the men share very similar beliefs in humility, simplicity and One true God regardless of their faith and background", instead the likes of Farid and Bhikan were just inward looking spiritualists but with defined foundations within Islamic doctrine which still involved a belief in religious supremecy over people who were not Muslims."- Firstly I would say sikhism doesn't have a specific word or any feelings towards non-believers, so anyone can experience God. Secondly, I would say even if they only had "defined foundations within islamic doctrine" it does not mean they are wrong in Sikhi's eyes, Sikhs believe islam has elements of truth hence a line from a shabad "Awal Allah noor upaya"- "It was Allah( Allah or waheguru, you are still referring to the one creator so it doesn't matter what name you call God by) who first created all mortal beings". But of course the Kabir and Farid etc did follow similar principles to what the Guru's taught and that were true to sikhi.

"The logical answer to this point is that their poetry had a truthful message even if their beliefs were not always agreeable, thus they were included in the Granth, but then this opens another problem of intellectual disingenuity, as the meaning of their poems would be hijacked to support whatever meaning the Gurus would want it to mean rather than the intended meaning of the authors - this concept of hijacking is evident when one notices that additions were made to the Saloks of Sheikh Farid by one of the Gurus - additions which are not in line with the beliefs of Farid himself e.g. "O Nanak, the Unseen Lord cannot be seen; He is revealed only to the Gurmukhi" - please supply me with further evidence of this. But for now I say the Guru's enforced the idea of a universal God, no ones idea of God was truly wrong and all religions had elements of truth within them but the Guru Granth Sahib Ji has the complete truth, therefore I would say if any messages were taken it was with the intention of revealing truth rather than obscuring the primary message however I have not got enough evidence to make any sort of judgement on this yet, please do provide me with more information.

Damn
@Zamestaneh
Back at it again with the stupid questions

Sorry I have to

God's religion has to be both rational and experiential, not just experiential, so what I am trying to determine is how can Sikhi be proven to be true or from God without having to experience the teachings of the Gurus.

My goal is not to refute but to come to a conclusion of what is and isn't truth. Atm I have no reason to reject Islam rationally, so I am assessing other perceived truths to understand why they are perceived to be true beyond experiential or other extremely subjective reasons.

you eat dictionaries?

No - the binding of books is sometimes animal glue, so it wouldn't be veggie That said, in Year 4, whilst everyone else's reading books were stuff like Chip and Biff, I had the Oxford English But that was only a help to me then, not now

Ew
I'm holding a book right now
Are you serious?
Animal glue???
Ewewewewewewewew

LOOL ok
What on earth is chip and biff

Ya old mate
Grand pa.

Older books and hard backs used to have it, I think; I have no idea about nowadays - perhaps they still use it

"What on earth is Chip and Biff"?! You hardly deserve to be considered to have passed through primary school

To realise I started my A-Levels 5 years ago this month really drives home how old I am getting

Edit: I'm so old I forgot it's "Biff and Chip" (not the other way around)

Older books and hard backs used to have it, I think; I have no idea about nowadays - perhaps they still use it

"What on earth is Chip and Biff"?! You hardly deserve to be considered to have passed through primary school

To realise I started my A-Levels 5 years ago this month really drives home how old I am getting

Edit: I'm so old I forgot it's "Biff and Chip" (not the other way around)