Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'peace'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • GENERAL
    • WHAT'S HAPPENING?
    • GURBANI | HISTORY
    • GUPT | ANONYMOUS
  • COMMUNITY
    • POLITICS | LIFESTYLE
    • SAKHIAN | BOOKS
    • CLOSED TOPICS
  • SEWADARS

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Location


Interests

Found 8 results

  1. It seems religion of peace is in full mode in the "holy month" of ramzaan. Spreading peace in that hell hole that passes for a country ! Muslims doing what they do best : converting others to their shitt religion https://www.opindia.com/2020/05/hindu-couple-forcibly-converted-to-islam-in-sindh-region-of-pakistan/
  2. http://gursikhijivan.blogspot.ca/2011/04/q-with-sant-darshan-singh-dhakki.html P.S I should be studying for exam tomorrow but I am doing stuff like this. P.S a beanti- can sangat do ardas for me to do good on exams coming this week.
  3. https://www.facebook.com/BaruSahibHP/photos/a.312356885474161.72764.294820193894497/1211356658907508/?type=3&theater
  4. Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji Ki Fateh, I created a petition for White House to assist Sikhs in Punjab/India for peaceful protests during the recent sad events taking place in India. Please help assist gaining 100,000 signatures for White House to proceed further with this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/contact-republic-india-prime-minister-narendra-modi-assist-minority-group-sikh-citizens-across-india
  5. General News Share: Good to see that governments are taking interest and views of Sikh religion toward world peace. From official Page: https://www.facebook.com/BMZ.Bund/posts/835890306471434 High scholar of Sikh religion in the BMZ Religion matters! Religious representatives in the dialogue. The BMZ is the new lecture series in which representatives of various world religions invites to discuss the potential of religion to sustainable development and peace. This time Dharam Singh Nihang Singh, one of the highest scholars of the Sikh religion. The Sikh religion is a monotheistic religion in the 15th century. She has today some 23 million followers, making it the fifth largest world religion. Religion is very important for over 80 percent of the people in our partner countries. Religion influenced the view of the world, the lifestyle and the dedication of many people. It is a strong political and social creativity. How do we in the development policy thus? How can we better include the potential of religion to sustainable development and peace? This issue is discussed in the dialogue series. More on: www.bmz.de/…/was…/themen/religion-und-entwicklung/index.html About BMZ - Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ministry_of_Economic_Cooperation_and_Development
  6. I took amrit a while before and my life from then has just changed dramatically (for the best)! I became very peaceful, relaxed and happy with whatever Waheguru ji did. The main thing that brought me happiness was that I finally accepted that all my family and friends will eventually fade away and that only wahgeuru ji will be left by my side. It made me so happy and I just felt like I can deal with any problem or sorrow just by remembering this, it even helped me concentrate when I did my nitnem etc. However after having a few family events I feel like i'm getting sucked back into this black hole of maya again, I have very tight connections with my family and a lot of them share their problems with me, although I know its good if I can be of use to someone but I feel like my mind has began going back to its old ways...obviously when people begin sharing their problems along comes nindeya, I remember hearing in the katha its just as bad to listen to nindeya as well as do it so this makes me feel so depressed and annoyed... My minds begun to wonder again and think unnecessarily an its taking away all my peace. I can't concentrate as well as I could. I know I can't find TRUE happiness in my family and relatives but sometimes I find myself in situations where I'm doing my nitnem but thinking of a upcoming get together or something else... This has begun roughly about 2 weeks ago and I feel like it's only going to get worse! basically I just miss my good days with waheguru ji and I want to get back to that moment where I was peaceful!! I've been trying to find inspirational quotes from Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji such as - -Mohi Niragun Anathh Saranee Aeia || I am unworthy and without any master; I seek Your Sanctuary, Lord. -Jinaa Saas Giraas N Visarai Sae Poorae Purakh Paradhhaan || Those who do not forget the Lord, with each and every breath and morsel of food, are the perfect and famous persons. can anyone help please!?! Your help will be appreciated- thank you!
  7. 'Only the just man enjoys peace of mind' - Epicurus This seems true to me. But at the same time, we don't experience peace all the time, it's every now and then. So what does this mean? Like when we feel peace, means we are fair-minded and faultless even though we do something not right (on emotional level) unwantedly, like being rude, keeping distance from the person who you doesn't get along with well as a result of that person's wrong done to us. But all this time, you never wish ill of that person just want to cut ties. Is this right? Please input your views.
  8. Apologies for the long post, please take time to go through it and the references. Please accept my apologies for hurt sentiments and I would be grateful for your observations into my failings or misunderstandings of the teachings. And lastly, this is not about debating the Khalsa (it had to be included in this post for obvious reasons), but rather this is about Peace vs. Violence in Sikhi in a pure theological sense so let us keep comments to that. I'm surprised that this topic has not been debated in greater detail by the Online Sangat. I appreciate that it may be a taboo subject as the Guru Gobind Singh ji has stipulated specific rules on the carrying of a kirpan and there is the long tradition of the Nihangs and violent acts by Guru's orders (therefore the inference that violence is not prohibited), but correct fundamental understanding is very important: "Whoever does not realize the essence of the soul / all his religious actions are hollow and false" The issue at the heart of the matter is not whether or not we should be carrying kirpans and whether this infers that violence is therefore acceptable, but rather, whether Waheguruji Himself condones violence- at all in the context of the perfect nature of his (formless) existence. Now if we look at the only possible source of inspiration in the issue, which is Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji- the everlasting embodiment of the Gurus, there is no reference to condoning violence, indeed we have the contrary, speaking against violence. "The heart is filled with anger and violence, which cause all sense to be forgotten." Where people see weapons and violent actions being mentioned metaphorically, the context is always to highlight why it is wrong or that it is a metaphor for achieving right through spiritual wisdom. The SGGSji is the truth, we cannot choose to ignore any of the specific lines because it conflicts with what we want to interpret. Specifically: "The pursuit of virtue is my bow and arrow, my quiver, sword and scabbard." "You hold in your hands the sword of the Guru's spiritual wisdom; with this destroyer of death, kill the Messenger of Death." "The True Guru has placed the sword of spiritual wisdom in my hands; I have overcome and slain the Messenger of Death." "In His Mercy, God has blessed me with the sword of spiritual wisdom; I have attacked and killed the demons." "From the Guru, I have obtained the supremely powerful sword of spiritual wisdom." And importantly: "Devotional worship of the Lord is the sword and armour of the True Guru; He has killed and cast out Death, the torturer." Threfore a reference such as: "When it pleases You, we wield the sword, and cut off the heads of our enemies" HAS TO BE consistent with what "sword" means as highlighted above. You cannot chose to turn a blind eye towards this. A revealing reference: "You pray for hours to God the Beautiful/ But your gaze is evil, and your nights are wasted in conflict. /You perform daily cleansing rituals, / wear two loin-cloths, perform religious rituals and put only milk in your mouth./ But in your heart, you have drawn out the sword..... You dance, but your consciousness is filled with evil....... You are lewd and depraved - this is such an unrighteous dance!" (abridged, pg 1351). Sikhi is not an Abrahamic religion- A key distinction needs to be made with the fundamental understanding of the soul and Waheguruji's hukam; and practical methods to life in the physical realm. Having established that God never condones violence (against a living being), we move onto the physical realm. We, ourselves create problems for humanity. Hatred, discrimination, slavery and all other causes of violence are entirely man-made. What is a man-made problem, caused by NOT living the way Waheguruji intended us to exist in the physical embodiment, is something Waheguruji will not actively engage in to change- as He does not engage (we strive to engage with him) and he is pure, true and beyond such frivolous material things. It is for man to solve problems by using the teachings of Saints, Gurus and Prophets. Unnerving faith in Waheguruji protects from evil. He creates and destroys (He has the power to do so). It is He alone who can take a life (indirectly). Waheguruji being the ultimate creator or destroyer is a description as to how vast his power is- it is beyond our knowledge or capabilities. Kabir's story of Prahlaad (SGGSji pg 1194) comes to mind in the context of the person who did not give up his devotion: "The king became angry and drew his sword" "Show me your protector now!" "So God emerged out of the pillar, and assumed a mighty form." "He killed Harnaakhash, tearing him apart with his nails..He saves His devotees like Prahlaad over and over again. " There are two significant points regarding this: a) ultimate devotion protects against tyranny b) Kabir's couplet is a story- not to be taken literally (God isn't about to emerge from a pillar in physical form, although He could if He chose to)- it's the moral story that is to be learnt i.e. point (a). © The story could have quite as easily had Prahlaad pull out his kirpan, but this would inconsistent with the message of Waheguruji. There is general consensus in most circumstances where violence should not be used, but there are some who would justify violence under certain circumstances such as protecting the oppressed and innocent/ defending from tyranny and evil etc. Once again the SGGSji is consistent in this matter: "Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal." The bottomline is that violence simply cannot be justified. With those unsatisfied with true devotion (including living as intended) as being sufficient and the only thing that ultimately matters and if you disagree with the line above, we need to address the man-made problem of conflict and violence and how to deal with it practically. This raises the following questions: 1) Are we, as mere mortals commanded by God to directly and physically be involved in the liberation of the oppressed etc? 2) If so, are we commanded to use force and violence to achieve these means I am not aware of any reference in Waheguruji's Hukam (SGGSji) which supports either. "He preserves our soul, our breath of life, body and wealth. By His Grace, He protects our soul." Note the difference in words between preserve our body and protect our soul, which is key. We are but an insignificant speck in the history of the universe and entirely insignificant in the everlasting greater cosmos. Universes and existences have come and gone, that is said, we could be one of an infinite number of spacetime existence to have ever existed and which will exist. The body is preserved, but not protected by Him, and He is all powerful. He therefore is concerned with our souls, which may theoretically always exist as being part of Him. We are concerned with protecting our bodies because of the overwhelming desire to protect Maya. "You fool! Why are you so proud of Maya?" "The animals and the birds frolic and play-they do not see death/ Mankind is also with them, trapped in the net of Maya." "The enticing desire for Maya leads people to become emotionally attached to their children, relatives, households and spouses." "Because of attachment to Maya, the world is bound by the Messenger of Death." And critically: "please save me from Maya, the cause of death." So, given that Maya is the cause of death, theolgically how does one escape from the clutches of Maya? (Rhetorical question) Through more Maya or through remembering Him? (Rhetorical question) Therefore theologically, belief that physical life is supreme is wrong. This I'm afraid would appear to be the uncomfortable truth- Waheguruji does not take notice of what happens in the Maya state and the body does not matter to him to the extent that he will protect it- he will only seek to preserve it to give us an opportunity to release ourselves from the cycle of birth and death. Propagating violence will not break the cycle of birth and death. Unlike in Abrahamic texts such as the Koran which promise rewards for fighting in the name of God for what it views as just actions, we have the benefit of knowing that the cycle of birth and death cannot be broken by these means. The uncomfortable truth is that if a mortal had faith and acted in compliance with His hukam, but in doing so the world as we know it ended, then that is the intended outcome. Worlds and life will continue to be created (or not) as He desires. The uncomfortable truth is that we want to preserve life (defence), and being virtuous, we find it difficult to tolerate oppression, discrimination etc to the point where we are willing to use violence to achieve these goals (even though as far as I'm aware Waheguruji does not command us to do so). "One whose mind is pleased and appeased, has no egotistical pride. Violence and greed are forgotten." Now this throws up some further questions: 1) Let's assume that this is true; that mere devotion and living life as intended is sufficient for our physical forms being preserved ; does this mean that I stand by whilst the innocent are slaughtered? 2) But hold on Veerji, you are forgetting about Guru Gobind Singh ji, he asked us to protect the innocent and weak and gave us the Kirpan and several Gurus engaged in battle and by all accounts, killed other people. Are you saying that that was not consistent with how we should be living our lives? Both of these statements are the same argument essentially. Firstly, we ourselves are not Sat Gurus, we are their disciples (and ultimately of Waheguruji). Guru Nanak dev ji's guru was Waheguruji. He and the other Sat gurus were not necessarily subject to the the rules of Maya which entrap us. With regard to protecting the innocent, opposing tyranny, once again, being Sat gurus, I would say they were obliged to act as they were caught in Maya and therefore concerned with the it's preservation (not protection) whilst they were actively able to. If they used violence it does not mean we are authorised to do so. Their teachings are embodied in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, which are non-violent and will never be able to be violent. They had a specific plan for humanity and they attempted to deliver it on the ground. Instead of the whole human race readily accepting this, the inherent nature of how we exist in Maya meant that that was never to be. They had to go deliver us SGGSji by His command and if that meant by His grace and by His grace only lives had to perish then it was by His grace. Now what of the Khalsa? That's a very interesting question and for me it is easily answered. The ultimate source of inspiration is SGGSji. Guru Gobind Singh ji did not compile his own banis into SGGSji and for very good reason. There is a distinction to be made with SGGSji and the Dasam Granth and ancillary texts, and actually it's in my view a very advanced system for this, compared to other religious texts, where the word of God is intermixed with stories, myths, untruths and Maya-ic elements. SGGSji is purely related to the core theological belief of God realisation. It does not condone violence in any form and for any reason. Sri Dasam granth and ancillary texts have an inherent Maya-ic element and therefore these could not be incorporated into the SGGSji. Indeed Guru Nanak Dev ji and other Gurus were very particular as to which external Saints' and gurus' and historical verses should be accepted as the truth of relating to the core theology. Guru Gobind Singh ji, a Sat Guru in his own right, had every right to have his contribution added to SGGSji, but a lot of it is not purely theological and has Maya-ic elements. Guruji was concerned with the preservation of Sikhi. Maya in Sikhi poses a great paradox; If the religion and the world are not preserved then they both may die out both in the short term and long-term; if Sikhi is not preserved it would die out and if the world is not preserved then fairness and justice will be overwhelmed over time by tyranny and oppression, thereby not allowing the opportunity of souls to escape Maya in this reincarnation of the universe. However Sikhi itself does not condone violence and is entirely free of Maya. Whilst it could be, it is not a perfect world and for the two to co-exist, there have to be rules relating to self-preservation which are inconsistent with what the theological and Ultimate ASPIRATIONS of God'd will is. Well and good you may say, but where does leave me and where does it leave the Khalsa? This is my view on this: 1) The Khalsa was created by the order of the tenth Guru and therfore serves a purpose. Through Gurujis kirpa, the Khalsa is born and it belongs to Waheguru (as does everything). "Waheguru ji ka Khalsa waheguru ji fateh" (But also bear in mind the only mention of Khalsa itself means pure): "Says Kabeer, those humble people become pure - they become Khalsa - who know the Lord's loving devotional worship." Not everyone was intended to be a (warrior style) Khalsa Sikh, even among Sikhs. This again comes out of the fact the Khalsa was not incorporated into SGGSji and that anyone who follows SGGSji will be liberated; anyone is free to do so. Only the most pure can be Khalsa (and therefore Amritdhari as per varying rehats) and they have responsibilities which an ordinary Sikh need not undertake. The Khalsa is a specific path which is a balance of God's true word and the fact that it has to be practiced in an imperfect world. SGGSji is available to one and all to follow and seek liberation. The Khalsa are special and they serve a purpose. Khalsa belongs to Waheguru and only though His kirpa can someone be a Khalsa Sikh (complete with kirpan and licence to kill). Whether the act of violence by a Khalsa Sikh in carrying out his duties as ordered by the tenth Guru will result in delayed liberation from the cycle of birth and death is a question solely for Waheguruji and Waheguruji alone (liberation is never assured- even if one does everything to the letter, it is permissible and probably almost always certain). In my personal view, a Khalsa Sikh, being the most pure and having to balance Guruji's orders of accepting Waheguru's command of peace whilst living preserving life in Maya; a paradoxical state; has a difficult internal battle and it is this internal battle which gives him righteousness. God preserves life, one of his methods may be through the Khalsa. He however protects souls and a true Khalsa should strive to have his soul protected by following Waheguruji's command whilst humbly serving Guruji's orders. The conclusion is thus: Theologically, from the core fundamental principles, Wareguruji does not condone violence; one must always speak out against violence whatever the justification. Violence is a product of Maya. Khalsa is a product of Sikhi and Maya needing to co-exist; a paradoxical state; Khalsa Sikhs may, by Guruji's kirpa be ordered to assist in the preservation of human life for it's continued survival but must always be aware of the eternal word of Waheguruji as per SGGSji. However the entire human race need not be Khalsa, a 'Sikh' (in the literal sense of the word); a truth seeker, can be non-violent person and this will be in accordance with Waheguruji's wishes. Please do not scorn those who reject violence, they are as pure as those following any other path can be. Equally do not scorn the Khalsa, they are truly noble for undertaking the difficult responsibility of supporting a paradoxical state of existence. Apologies for the long post, please take time to go through it and the references. Please accept my apologies for hurt sentiments and I would be grateful for your observations into my failings or misunderstandings of the teachings. And lastly, this is not about debating the Khalsa (it had to be included in this post for obvious reasons), but rather this is about Peace vs. Violence in Sikhi in a pure theological sense so let us keep comments to that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use