Sikh Past, Future And Present

[dalsingh101]

People who know me will know I love the study of our history passionately, but I have an (on the surface) simple question I'd like to throw out there for everyone. I had an interesting discussion with someone about this (a nonSikh) the other day and I'd like to hear the sangat's opinion on it, if they would be so kind.

Now it's natural for a community to dissect their pasts to try and understand them better, more so with religious communities as it can provide both context and doctrinal clarification for today. However, does an emphasis on retrospective analysis sometimes compromise exploring new ideas and forming (and implementing) flexible, dynamic plans to deal with the challenges of today and tomorrow? This isn't to suggest any discarding of heritage, but rather a shift of focus to now and the future. Someone suggested that Sikhs not doing this well often leads to them stumbling from one problem to another? What do you, the sangat, think of this?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter if you so feel inclined. Please keep any comments civil.

[VanHelsingh]

There are mischievous elements (with admittedly honourable intentions) who prevent people from asking questions, as its considered - in their opinion - as blasphemy. I personally feel Sikhi can easily stand-up to scrutiny, especially the peerless teachings of our Gurus. From my limited knowledge (at this moment in time) of what our Gurus preached, I honestly cannot see any contradictions or mistakes in their words.

Those Sikhs who shut-down debate and discussion are behaving as if the faith has got something to hide and fear. By doing so its almost an admission that we have no confidence in our faith, and even the slightest probing or investigation might cause the whole thing to collapse like a house of cards - which is so far from the truth.

Our Gurus words, teachings and proclamations = gospel (in my opinion).

[gurdssingh]

All ive got to say is when reading history do so without any prejudice. Dont read what yoy want too but all facts, having done so dont only tell half the story or the.bits you want too, to naive youngsters

[VanHelsingh]

Another point I wanted to make in my previous post was how I also understood the other side of the coin, in regards to this issue.

No doubt, there will be those who will strive to undertake all analysis and investigation with a pure heart & nothing but respect. But how can you compensate for those who will "infiltrate" proceedings for the sole purpose of creating confusion and causing disputes?

That's why I also appreciate the point of view of those Sikhs who say "Leave Well Alone" because it would be like opening Pandora's Box. Everyone will be able to have a pop, and that's something we can't reverse if we 'open our doors' as it were.

How will we know which person has honest intentions and which person is there to cause fractures and sow the seeds of doubt?

[dalsingh101]

Going on from what has been posted so far:

Are we being unbelievably naive if we subscribe to the notion that history is ever written as a neutral discipline? Is history EVER written in this way or does it, in truth, always contain some utilitarian purpose on part of the writer(s) in relation to a group they identify with and its agenda/aspirations, even when they loudly claim 'subjectivity'?

In short are all histories 'slanted' towards the politics and beliefs of the personalities of the authors and/or the institutes they are affiliated with? (For example Oxford University Press, who publish most of the McLeodian school of Sikh studies).

No doubt, there will be those who will strive to undertake all analysis and investigation with a pure heart & nothing but respect. But how can you compensate for those who will "infiltrate" proceedings for the sole purpose of creating confusion and causing disputes?

Good point. Maybe by being more astute as regards to motives without engaging in schizophrenic style witch hunts? But yes, as Sikhs, I think we do seem to suffer from attacks of the kind you mention coming from academically 'reputable' sources/institutes. But how long has this been going on with us anyway? Has this been some sort of strategy directed towards controlling us by pigeon holing since the days of annexation from Anglocentric sources? In short have we been stuck in the middle of this type of stuff for ages?

[VanHelsingh]

Going on from what has been posted so far:

Are we being unbelievably naive if we subscribe to the notion that history is ever written as a neutral discipline? Is history EVER written in this way or does it, in truth, always contain some utilitarian purpose on part of the writer(s) in relation to a group they identify with and its agenda/aspirations, even when they loudly claim 'subjectivity'?

In short are all histories 'slanted' towards the politics and beliefs of the personalities of the authors and/or the institutes they are affiliated with? (For example Oxford University Press, who publish most of the McLeodian school of Sikh studies).

There is that famous saying "History is written by the victors" and I'm inclined to believe that's true. On a broader scale, much of what we are taught as part of history (especially modern history) is, in my opinion, presented to support a particular agenda or a certain way of thinking. I'm not saying events have been recorded incorrectly or that true facts are being supressed at every opportunity. But there is a certain air-brushing of the positives if you know what I mean.

Whilst I'll be careful to prevent this discussion from slipping into conspiracy-theory territory, I take everything I read - from an academic view - with a pinch of salt. Everyone has an agenda, whatever it's ultimate purpose. The problem is that unless one has access to an alternative viewpoint / evidence, you'll be shouted down as a madman or ignorant. Mix the aforementioned elements with a bit of over-zealous religious fervour and those willing to kill for the cause, and then you're in trouble.

Of course, anyone with aspirations to be taken seriously doesn't want to be labelled in such a way, and some people just let themselves be taken along with the flow. Sometimes its better not to rock the boat. Although 'better' for whom is debatable.

[Mehtab Singh]

Now I have a question as a response - What changes do people want Sikhs to accommodate? How do they want us to change so as to adapt whatever they expect us to adapt? Please specify.

[11Gurus1Jot]

The problem is that unless one has access to an alternative viewpoint / evidence, you'll be shouted down as a madman or ignorant.

Yes I am going to get all the other alternative view points too. Although you can only compare somebody else's view point to your own if you know your own view point first. If you check out other viewpoints or religion first then your really just following, or checking out, their religion, or view point, and not comparing because you've got nothing to compare

Remember that ickle thread when we were saying that a lot of the theologians don't have any knowledge of, or even acknowledge Sikhi at all!!! So why would we possbly want to get 'hooked' by them, if we hadn't read our own history and religion first.

I am going to study all religions and view points, after, I have studing my own. So first, I'd like to understand my Guru Ji, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. This would involve reading, and listening to, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and actually trying to understand the shabad as well. All 1430 pages. Ideally, I like to read Dasam Granth first as it helps you understand Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Oh, and there also Bhai Gurdass Ji diya Vara to read which are also known as the Keys to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

As soon as I've done that then I'll start reading the Bible and Koran, as some Christians and Muslims have urged me to do, as then I would be able to compare them to the religion my Guru Ji. If I don't understand my own religion how can I make a comparison.

By the way, how long do you think it will take me to read, and understand, Bhai Gurdass diya Vara, Dasam Granth, and Siri Guru Granth Sahib JI? as then I'll have something to compare!

[VanHelsingh]

@ 11Gurus1Jot - I was referring to broader, historical, non-Sikhi events rather than theological debate in the particular instance you've quoted above. As I made clear in my first post in this thread, nothing compares to the teachings of our Gurus, and by extension Sikhi.

Are you suggesting I'm querying the validity of Guru Granth Sahib Ji? I can't tell whether you're making general points in the post above, or you're having a go at me. Clear up any confusion please.

[dalsingh101]

By the way, how long do you think it will take me to read, and understand, Bhai Gurdass diya Vara, Dasam Granth, and Siri Guru Granth Sahib JI? as then I'll have something to compare!

These things have depth like an ocean. One can easily spend one's whole life studying them and still have plenty to learn. But I do get your point about learning your own heritage before exploring others. Some of the converts to other faiths from our quarter often appear to be hideously ill informed about their inherited faith, which presumably makes them more susceptible to conversion. Of course this is a gross simplification of why people do switch but I've always thought people without a strong sense of self and identity are most prone to get converted by the zealous!

My thoughts are that one could possibly be in a position to study other faiths after a few years of seriously studying your own. Seeing as our own faith directs us to constantly seek and learn from our scripture and literature, most of us will never ever get to 'complete' this like it was some task with a set end objective. Unless we become a brahm gianis!

Personally I think studying other faiths is an excellent way to get to understand ones own in more depth through contrast and comparison. This can help a person grasp what makes their own faith unique compared to others. As someone once said to me, an important part of knowing who/what you are involves knowing who/what you aren't.