Question

[Jai Tegang!]

bye bye :TH:

[Jai Tegang!]

p.s. premkranti: i don't mind if YOU call me a fanatic, feels like a compliment coming from you....but can you please use "Guru" prefix infront of the names of our Gurus, i find it hurtful that you would call them by just "Nanak" and "Gobind SIngh" and at the same time sign your name with Singh Khalsa.

it's just common courtesy.

[>Bikramjit Singh<]

Isn't that always the case. If a Sikh can't stand the Nindya of the Guru then he is a fanatic but if he follows the 'long haired lover from liverpool..or is it rajneeshpuram' and thinks that by my man Osho saying in Amritsar that he is the Sikhs' 11th Guru and that only Guru Nanak was a Guru and the other nine weren't then he's being shown some sublime truth then that Sikh is a true Sikh. Just disputing my man Osho seems to earn one the distinction of being called a fanatic and being equated with Aurangzeb. FYI Mr. Premkranti, buddhism died out in India because there was no one with the guts to fight for what they believed in. Same Buddhism died out in Indonesia and Malaysia. It only exists in some countries because the rulers were prepared to fight for their religion. Btw isn't a buddhist defined by non-violence? So what about the bloody history of China, Japan, Burma and Thailand? Were these people buddhists who were violently invading other countries? Never seen a fanatic buddhist?? You should get out more often, what about those Japanese soldiers who invaded China and raped millions of women in China in the 1930's. Oh and then there's the small matter of the anti-tamil riots by the buddhist sinhalese in 1983. Similar to the way the Sikhs were massacred in Delhi in 1984. I suppose you also think there is no such thing as a fanatic Hindu as well??

[Sinister]

to Premakranti,

man was designed to practice monogamy (read my first reply)...if you want a logical explanation why!

I dont believe theirs any fanatics here but youll have to learn to take criticism from sikh conservatives and liberals alike if you come forth with such claims without proof. I do agree however with the fact that many on this site are conservatives, but the conservative reaction is to counterbalance your awkward and utopian veiw of life!

Your veiws have nothing to do with the initial question? Free sex? no marriage? what nonsense is this? you cant fight a tradition of marriage that has been present since the beginning of civilization and that too with unworldly claims (especially the gurduwara story, i dunno about that).

I do however agree with you that Guru Gobind Singh had more than one wife (as all great people of the past had.....and as ACCURATELY stated by his biographers), and what most people on this site claim is a silly coverup story that also lacks proof, Guru ji was a human (a great one...for that matter) that was embedded into the social structure of his time. In order to fit in amongst the elite they had to act and behave as authoritative nobles of their time (mimicry if you might call it, their actions must mimic other authoritative figures of their time so that people would take them seriously).

so does that mean we should practice polygamy....NO....its not part of our social system thus polygamy has no part in our lives.

As sikhs should we accept the fact that guru ji had more than on wife?...yes

But also along with it understand for what reasons?

the question was initially wether its ok to deeply care about someone?

and any rational person would say yes.

LOVE IS NOT ALWAYS FOLLOWED BY SEXUAL DESIRE, MANY PEOPLE ON THIS SITE NEED TO GET THAT OUT OF THEIR HEADS.

[Kharkoo4Life]

Fateh,

To Premakranti and Sinister bros,

I welcome your views as anyone elses, and i also agree with ur sentiments that many on this site are staunch conservatives who often get engrossed in emotions rather than letting discerning intellect guide their reason. At the same time tho, as you say we must be open to hearing all viewpoints. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) if we disagree with the other views, it will force us to share and express our own views which in turn will strengthen and reinforce our own base and 2) if the others are right, then it will force us to admit our mistakes and learn from others. So please keep this in mind when reading this reply, for just like you guys i am for open logical discussion and not out to bash anyone.

Firstly, with regards to premakranti, you seem like an intelligent person who has obviously spent great deal of time reading and reflecting about the true meaning of spirituality. There are many points you make that i agree with, for instance about the majority of Sikh leaders (particularly in Amritsar) being polluted with corrupt selfish people with no true care or love for sikhi, that gurdwaras have become a place for display of political and social prestige and place almost zero value on the spread of Truth, that many people within the sikh panth (for whatever reasons) have been exposed to such distorted views of Sikhi for so long that it has become permanently ingrained in their minds and any attempt to make them open up and think for themselves is felt by them as a direct attack on them. The current problems within the Sikh panth, and for that matter society in general, are growing everyday and discussing them here wud be tiring. However, just because a few bad apples are found in the basket doesnt mean one shud discard the entire batch. Even if the majority of apples are rotten there may still be a few fresh, ripe sweet apples amongst the midst so one shud not just blindly abandon that batch. SImilarly, in the Sikh panth today yes, it is overwelmingly infested with useless rituals, selfish politics and mindless arguments but it does not mean we should just abandon the faith. It is our duty as Sikhs to stand up and fight for and spread the message of Truth and to try and bring about reform to the present situation thru action, and not just simply criticize it and leave it at that.

Brother, while the above points of yours i agree with there are many others i strongly disagree with. You seem to have only a superficial understanding of Sikhi. You say you are not for SIkhi or Gurmat that you are only for the person. Well i do not doubt ur sincerity and genuine concern for people however u must at the same time understand that if you are for someone who adheres to the Sikh Faith then you must realize that for that person EVERY BREATH OF THEIR LIFE IS CENTERED ON THE GURUS WORD (GURBANI/GURMAT). For u to appreciate the importance of this in a Sikhs life you must first be able to comprehend gurbani. And thus far it seems apart for some misquoted tuks from GUru Granth Sahib your knowledge base of gurbani is quite minimal. (if i am wrong than please feel free to show me otherwise).

Secondly, as stated earlier this is an open discussion forum, and it is impossible that everyone will agree with everyone elses viewpoitns. We are all bound to have differing viewpoints which we should respect and if we feel they are seroulsy wrong then we should aim to show them the truth thru reason, tolerance, and patience. Therefore i take grave offense when you go and label a few individuals of being the equivalent of Aurengzeb and make them out to be the enemies of the Sikh Panth. Even if these individual may me confused/mistaken in their reasoning we should show them tolerance and try to educate them thru love and udnerstanding, not by ostracizing them and making them feel dejected.

WIth regards to your references about GUru Nanak, you claim that he was only enlightened at age 36 and that all other accounts are mere fabrications to present him as some 'messiah'. Couple of things, Sikhi does not support theory of any mortal prophets/messiahs. The only messiah has been shabad-roop gyaan, and this is constant amongst all faiths during their conception, tho most have strayed far from this truth over time. Also you state guru being enlightend at young age is just false stories with no proof, well please do share with me how u were able to learn that Guru Nanak only attained the gyaan at age 36. Did u not also read this in a story or hear it based on stories others told u? Seems to me like ur only grounds for accepting 'stories' as true or not is wether u agree with them, otherwise u reject them as fakes. Lastly, the point that Guru Nanak being enlightend as a child is a farfetched concoction of historians let me remind you that 5 of the 10 gurus attained the spiritual gyaan (enabling them to the status of guru) at ages below 18, and two of them were only 5 and 9 years old respectively. So why is it so farfetched that the ACTUAL FOUNDER of this movement could not have attained this gyan at a smilar age?

Your points about him not meeting his wife, or only crossing bak to see his mother are all baseless facts which can be considered jokingly at best. Granted if we go by ur logic that the first guru was forced to marriage and didnt realize that marraige was wrong UNTIL AFTER he beacme guru at age 36 then do u not think he would pass on this knowledge to each succedding guru, who wud do the same to the next and so on? They passed on so much gyaan to the successor so did they someohow accidently forget bout this small little topic of marriage? And furthermore, some of the gurus became guru at very young ages as stated earlier, and got married many years after so did they still knowingly say yes to marriage when they knew it was wrong? This would make the GUrus open hypocrites who preached one thing yet themselves didnt follow it. HOw ludicrous is that!!

[Kharkoo4Life]

Fateh,

Sinister bro,

i agree with many of ur points, eg. marriage being an essential component of society, and that many here are rigid conservatives with little room for outside discussion which challenges their mindsets. HOwever i disagree with u on one major point:

I do however agree with you that Guru Gobind Singh had more than one wife (as all great people of the past had.....and as ACCURATELY stated by his biographers), and what most people on this site claim is a silly coverup story that also lacks proof, Guru ji was a human (a great one...for that matter) that was embedded into the social structure of his time.

THese comments of yours seem rather misplaced. You say biographies ACCURATELY depict him as having multiple wives yet those which state he had only one are false. On what logical reasoning did u arrive to this conclusion? Simply that most kings/nobles of that time had multiple wives? That is a very novice approach to critical analysis of history.

You state here that polygamy amongst the elite was embedded into the social structure of that time so the GUru followed it, yet u urself in earlier posts had stated that the GUrus made people wake up and challenge the very exisiting social norms of that time. It is a fact that Gurus challenged the custom of satti, the prohibiton against remarriage/divorce, the resittance to alloweing girls to study and take on positions of high regard, particularly in religoius settings. The gurus made over one third of the intial masands women (ppl in charged of local sikh sangats n spreading of gurbani to them). Even many generals within Sikh army were women. On every stance the Gurus promoted equality of women, both in theory and practice, so why would the gurus be so hypocritcal on the stance of marriage??

In order to fit in amongst the elite they had to act and behave as authoritative nobles of their time (mimicry if you might call it, their actions must mimic other authoritative figures of their time so that people would take them seriously).

Again you seem to be grossly confused about the lives of teh Gurus. How can you even put forth the suggestion that the gurus had to "mimic" other kings of their times so that ppl wud take them seriusly? Is silently protesting against the tyranical rules of other kings openly to their face without any army behind u "mimicing" other kings of that time? Is criticizing the heartless leaders in their own courts to the point where they face inhumane tortures "mimicing" the actions of typical elite figures of that time? How many kings, nobles of that time engaged in such actions and sacrificed their lives simply to uphold the freedom of choice as Guru Tegh Bahadur?

Every action of the gurus, from time of Guru Nanak WAS AGAINST THE VERY RULING AUTHORITY of that time. Why would the on the one hand spend their entire lives protesting, fighting against the immoral and unjust actions of the kings, while at the same times in their private lives "copy" the actions of the same kings? Just to gain popularity amongst the ppl? If the gurus wanted popularity they cud of just said that any person can become part of khalsa and that hair, n rest of kakaar are unecssary. Im sure the number of ppl embracing SIkhi might be manyfold greater, but the gurus didnt do such. THEY NEVER COMPROMISED THEIR BELIEFS EVEN WHEN FACED WITH DEATH. So why would they compromise them on such a relatively small issue as marriage??

so does that mean we should practice polygamy....NO....its not part of our social system thus polygamy has no part in our lives.

hehe...this agains seem rather absurd. You say we shudnt practice it, because its not part of our social system, yet you say its ok for the gurus to do it. Were the gurus beyond the same system of morality which we live by? Were they free to walk, talk and do as they like simply cuz they were "elite" leaders? If so, then what difference remains between GUru Gobind Singh and any modern day leader/king?

As sikhs should we accept the fact that guru ji had more than on wife?...yes

But also along with it understand for what reasons?

What one wished to accept is entirely upto that person. And yes we should have sound reasons for accepting it. But at the same time, if we apply the technique of critical analysis to this subject matter then your argument my friend fails on all fronts. If u choose to accept that guru ji was an open propoent of polygamy then why would you even call such a man your guru? whatever the gurus did in their lives, was an examply for Sikhs to copy and live by, so either this means that it is ok for all sikhs to have multiple wives or it means that the gurus were hypocrites and did what they wanted to for selfish gains (popularity, acceptance) yet prohibited their followers from doing the same. EIther way u look at it bro, it makes no sense.

Hopefully this reasoning has made you reevaluate your stance on this extremely dangerous fabricated myth about Guru Gobind Singh. Pleaser read closely and decide for urself.

[Jai Tegang!]

Kharkoo veer,

I don’t wish to take this thread off course, but I have to disagree with your point on Guruji and their wives. Not all Guru sahibaan had more than one mahal, but I believe Guru Arjan Dev ji, Guru Hargobind ji, Guru HarRai ji, and Guru Gobind Singh ji did.

I think because of European influences on our thinking, both during the Singh Sabha lahir, and presently, we have begun to view polygamy as a roadblock to our perception of equality. Yes, to the western feminist thinking, polygamy is a horrendous act, but we aren’t feminists are we?

Most traditional Sikh schools of thought accept Guru sahibaan having more than one wife. It seems far fetched that so much could simply be ‘made up’. If it was only one Guru sahibaan, then perhaps we could question whether it was an error in recording history, but how can we simply wish away this when nearly half of the Guru shibaan had more than one mahal.

I’m not arguing whether we should practice polygamy or not.

I’m not too good at memorizing gurbani lines, but I believe there is a shabad which says something to the effect that a Sikh shouldn’t try copying the Guru, implying that as a Sikh we are to follow what the Guru teaches us, not copy what he does, because there are certain actions which are refined to only the Guru (for example, when Guruji killed certain animals to give them mukti. Clearly we ordinary Sikhs can’t take that to mean that it’s open season for hunting wild game).

So in conclusion, I would say there are many Sikhs today who do hold firm to the belief that several Guru Sahibaan had more than one mahal, and we see nothing wrong with this according to Gurmat.

[Sinister]

To kharkoo,

Why did the guru's all come in the form of MALES!

TO MIMIC AN AUTHORITATIVE FIGURE---NO ONE WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED A FEMALE. do not insult your reason and intellect.

Do not elevate the gurus to non-human mystical and perfect entities, despite their wisdom they were limited to dealing with us, humans. Thus the faith had to act and mimic our society in order to successfully deliver its message (to some extent of course)! (read: evil the author of Sikhi...a post on this site)

I do not worship the gurus, I worship what they taught!!!!!! for the people that havent figured that out already!

Jai tenang is on his mark: WE CANNOT REWRITE HISTORY AS YOU ARE TRYING TO DO!

regards

sinister

[JagoBhai]

I think we should preserve history as it is .

Views of sinister veer looked honest and sincere.

[Kharkoo4Life]

Sinister,

Firstly i agree that a sikh is not to worship the guru, they worship only the Supreme Creator.

Secondly, it is a weakness of our own social conditioning that we want to view everything with our eyes, and analyze it based on definable physical constructs. Anyone with a deeper understanding of Gurmat will come to realize that the GURU WAS NEVER A PHYSICAL BEING. Guru refers to the GYAAN which resided INSIDE the person. That is why today we follow the teachings contained within that gyaan, as given to us in the form of GUru Granth Sahib.

Thirdly, with regards to why the guru came only in physical form, we must realize that no guru or sikh for that matter during their time ever worshiped or regarded the physical body as the guru. It was always the shabad-roopi gyaan inside that they regarded as their guru. This is proven countless times in gurbani. Nowhere in gurbani will u see a reference to a physical body as the guru. To ask why the gurus came in phys forms, is a result of failing to truly understand who/what a guru is. Yes during that time, the shabad-roopi gyaan was shared with us via the human vessel. As to why only male vessels were used and not female is irrelevent to the essence of Sikhi. We can argue for all time why only males were employed by God in this task but we can never arrive at a conclusive answer for only God knows the true answer. Yes we can question it, and if we do want to search for a partial answer than that can be provided only by the guru (i.e. Gurbani). All other debate/discussion on this mattter not derived from gurbani is without merit.

And there is no need for me to 'elevate the gurus to non-human perfect entities' for they already were that. THE GURU WAS NOT THE BODY BUT THE GYAAN WITHIN THAT BODY. And this gyaan has no limited form, especially one which is so simple and temporary as the human body. That is why all 10 gurus tho each having different physical vessels were considered as one. This is not only an understanding amongst the sikhs of that time, but also some well known muslim historians who wer contemporaries of the GUrus also often referred to the succesive gurus as a roop of nanak. This also related to why no guru allowed pics to be made, cuz this wud further deteriorate to the point where we would start to view the gurus as 10 separate people when in fact they were the same jot/gyaan which merely transferred into diff vessels. Sadly, we ignored this instruction of the Guru and the result is evident today. We have countless paintings not only in homes but in gurdwaras defining each guru along physical lines.

It is understandable that this notion of physical vs non-physical enitity can be confusing and difficult to grasp. This can lead to many questions related to the guru, amongst which is the one u posed above, as to why the gurus were all seen in male forms. Lemme give u an example that may perhaps help clear this confusion somewhat.

We are all human beings, with physical bodies and like any living physical body it requires regular nourishment to sustain its survival. Now consider that the only fuel source our body needed was water. One day you go to someones house and are offered water in a regular glass cup. The next day you go to a different friends house and are given water in a steel cup. And the next day in a plastic cup at another friends house. Now in each case what u were drinking was the same water. The cup (vessel) in which u were served that water only changed. Now tell me, how important is it queston and worry about why we were served water in different types of cups, or maybe perhaps only in one type of cup. The cup is not what your body needs, it is the water within it that it needs. That is what gives the cup its value, for without that water inside, the cup is just an empty vessel.

Similarly, besides being physical beings we are also spiritual beings. And this spiritual being of ours (our souls) also require nourishment to sustain its survival, and the only fuel source for it is gyaan. (note-gyaan does not merely mean knowledge, but rather something far beyond just academic knowledge and understanding. It implies knowledge and understanding about God, his virtues, and his manifestation throughout his creation. THus it is this type of gyaan which makes one highly spiritual and possessor of all the noble virtues which go along with such a person). ANyways, this fuel source called gyaan which our souls need can be delivered to us in many ways. For a sikh, it was given to him in the form of shabad-roop. This shabad-roop gyaan was contained in the 10 vessels we call Nanak to Gobind Singh and ultimately when it was seen that the people had become understanding and self-sufficent enought to maintain this understanding on their own there was no need for the vessel anymore and thus only the shabad-roop of that gyaan was left with us, i.e. Guru Granth Sahib. Thus like the case of why the water was only given to us in particular cup, questioning and worrying why the gyaan was shared with us only in male vessels will only serve to waste ones time and deter them from the real purpose which is to take in that fuel source (gyaan).

And trust me sinister, as u take in more and more of this gyaan everything regarding gurbani, gurmat, guru will all become much more clearer. Your continued persistent questioning will be replaced by a deeper understanding and appreciation of sikhi which will ultimately serve u greater purpose in life.

Jai Tegang,

brother while you seem to claim that i am a victim of euro-centric brainwashing i would have to counter that and claim outright that you seem to be a product of cunning trickery carried out by numerous groups, all with their roots tracing back to brahmnical influnces.

To support the theory that gurus practiced polygamy is absurd. This is saying that the Gurus condoned polygamy and felt it was permissible. No guru ever engaged in any act which they themselves did not support so if u argue that they practiced polygamy then it means they supported it. And everything that the guru supported they taught that to their disciples. So if they taught so many other things, why would they not teach this practice as well? Did they consider the sikhs as inferior to them and regard them as only subjects? Were they infested with some sort of egotistical mindset that they cud do what they wanted to but their sikhs couldnt? THus you will have to agree that going by your logic polygamy for a sikh is also acceptable.

Which brings me to another point u made, u say polygamy is horrendous only to western feminist thinking, and obviously from ur words you are nto a feminist, and thus dont support their views. SO tell me this, how would u feel (if not already married) if your wife kept multiple husbands/partners? WOuld u still feel the same sense of self-respect and comfortabliity around her if she returns to you only on random nights after having spent the previous nights with her other male husbands? Which man alive today would be happy with such an arrangement?? So why do you think that it is ok for a man to behave in such a way with a woman?

As to relationship between sikhs and guru, it must be understood that once a sikh realizes and incorporates the message of the guru in his/her own life then no difference remains between them and the guru. The two become one. Was Bhai lehna not an ordinary sikh first before he became guru angad? Was Bhai Jetha not a regular sikh before he became Guru Ram Das? Obviously this does not imply that sikhs should go around parading themselves as the next guru. For part of becoming a true sikh is having the utmost humility and realizng that the shabad-roop gyaan which enabled them to rise to the same spiritual status as a guru is not something that belongs to them and they shud use to sell themselves but rather they appreciate it as a blessing from GOd and only focus on sharing that gyaan of theirs with those around them.

gurU isKu isKu gurU hY eyko gur aupdysu clwey ]

The Guru's Sikh, and the Sikh's Guru, are one and the same; both spread the Guru's Teachings

This notion that the sikh and the guru is a difficult concept to grasp to the novice on the path of sikhi. This similarity and oneness is not along physical terms but rather on spiritual terms. Just as mans soul can unite and becoem one with god, same way a sikhs soul can become one and the same as the guru. And this happens through undersstanding and following the teachings of the guru.

ibrKhuM Pl Pl qy ibrK gurisK isK gurmMqR suhylw]

As from tree the fruit and from fruit (seed) again the tree is grown i.e. (tree and fruit are the same), so is the simple philosophy that the Guru and the Sikh are the same.

THis process can continue on endlessly, and is the process by which each succesive guru came to be. That is why GUru Gobind SIngh after seeing that the seeds of Sikhi were grown and well spread he entrusted the SIkhs with full authority to continue this process under the guidance of the original seed "Shabad" (guru Granth sahib).

So as to ur last point which says that a sikh should follow the teachings of guru only in word but not in practice makes no sense. SIkhi is a complete lifestyle, and not jus a collecetion of doctrines and philosophy to keep on the bookshelf and read every so often. Everything the Guru teaches us is to be adopted in our physical lives. Otherwise a Sikh is no different than the mystics and saadhus who sit around reading the mantars yet never carry out any meaningful physical actions which benefit those around them.

This seed known as the shabad is not jus somethign we put in a plastic bag and leave on our shelves. It is something that we plant into every action that we carry out. Every step that we take, action that we make should be rooted in the seeds of gurbani, otherwise that seed of gurbani is pointless.

Amlu kir DrqI bIju sbdo kir sc kI Awb inq dyih pwxI ]

Make good deeds the soil, and let the Word of the Shabad be the seed; irrigate it continually with the water of Truth.

Finaly with regards to your reference about Guru Sahib kiling certain animals to give them mukhti, these too also owe their origins to the brahmnical influence and infestation which is so rampant in Sikhi today. IF it was so important to free these souls of the poor animals do u not think the Gurus would have done a lot more work on this front? Would they not have felt sympathy for these animals and also encouraged their sikhs to work alongside them to helping out these helpless animals? SUch stories have no basis when viewed from reference point of Gurmat. They are all merely concoctions of a clever bunch to confuse the masses and distort and devalue the Gurus into some sort of mystical superheros. Such people want to group the guru sahibaan in the same line as other mystics, saadhs, sants who engaged in miracles and feats of impossiblity to show that the gurus were not any different from them. NO GURU EVERY SUPPORTED ANY ACT OF MIRACLE AND NOR DID THEY COMMIT ANY.

SO i encourage you to read gurbani, strengthen your understanding of it and thus make yourself able to challenge and defend the truth of Sikhi against any outside attempst to distort or devalue it.