MisterrSingh

Compassion & Tolerance Vs Common Sense & Self-preservation

32 posts in this topic

I came across a couple of unfortunate incidents in the news recently that served to get me thinking about issues that i suppose go to the heart of Sikh philosophy. We are instructed not to veer towards extremes; that the correct path is the balanced, considered middle way. Sikhi is as much a faith about standing up for oneself and battling for those who cannot defend themselves, as it is a faith that believes that love and kindness are essential traits if we are to live fruitful lives, and eventually merge with God.

How does one decide which situation merits a particular approach? Some Sikhs would have us believe that the default position must always be the one of tolerance and kindness even in the face of the overwhelming likelihood of serious harm befalling the individual who refuses to be mindful of their own welfare, instead choosing to believe in the goodness of others even when the evidence points to the contrary. 

Is it the right option to "be good" but then suffer terribly as a consequence, or should we be selective with our charitable nature, and only be forthcoming dependent on the situation before us? Which way would bring us closer to God's graces? 

Here's two recent instances that got me thinking. All opinions welcome.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/mother-son-die-triple-stabbing-home/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/white_social_justice_warrior_dies_at_hands_of_black_killer_.html

First: A wealthy family begin providing the local homeless with a roof over their heads by taking them into their own considerably plush home. Yesterday, allegedly, the latest homeless man who was lodging with them went on a rampage, and killed the mother and son of the family. The father was found stabbed and bleeding in the driveway.

Second: A white social activist heavily involved in the liberal scene of upper middle class activism was robbed, stabbed, tortured, and murdered by a black man. She spent most of her days espousing on social media about the evils of whiteness, and that black society was a perpetual victim of the insidiousness of white America. She refused to accept that there could ever be bad apples in the black community. She met her end alone and in an utterly tragic manner. 

Edit: In the case of the American woman, i was initially reluctant to use a right-wing website as the source, but all other sites and reports neglected to mention her political views and opinions that she shared on social media. For some reason they only seemed to highlight her work as an artist but not her beliefs. A lot was glossed over or completely ignored in the case of the lady in question.

 

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One massively important thing to factor in when doing 'good' is other people's mental states. 

Asides from being conscious of the fact that some people's life experiences can be so brutal that it effects their emotional/cognitive abilities - when we do good things (which in essence involves opening ourselves up in a way that isn't a norm in society - at least these days), I believe we can attract natural predators in the shape of sociopaths and psychopaths who would naturally hone onto unwitting people like a bee to a flower. Such predators aren't capable of feeling empathy/remorse like normal people because of their neurobiology and only see others as something to ruthlessly use for some goal (even if this is some twisted sense of fun).

Plus, if your own people have been on the wrong side (like your second example), and you personally decide to try and atone for it, don't think that your one act of 'kindness' will be enough to heal deep wounds and animosity that cut across centuries. 

Personally, I think 'social activism' can be a very important and positive thing, but not for people who have a lulloo idealised perception of human nature. In a nutshell: do good, but make sure your own stance is strong and you are able to identify and defend yourself against people who would abuse your good intentions. 

Edited by dallysingh101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as a community we should have a similar stance to good works and braviary like the ancient Hindu Ksychatrias, (I really wanted to say Sikhs, but apparently we've been repeated the message so much it doesn't stick with us anymore), if you looked at their history, (before their cowardness), they were fighters for what they viewed as Dharam and not only that they provided society laws and structure, (despite technically being bellow Brahmins, they owned all the real power). As a general connection they seem to be a good starting point for a revival for our balance in every way except faith.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

In a nutshell: do good, but make sure your own stance is strong and you are able to identify and defend yourself against people who would abuse your good intentions. 

I'm trying to genuinely get my head around this concept from a Sikh pov, particularly as the kind of world and society we currently occupy seems to bringing these type of issues into sharp focus. 

In an ideal world - without wishing to sound like a wet blanket, lol - i would love everyone and treat them with such kindness and goodwill as i believe God wishes humanity should behave towards each other, but from my own life experiences i just know that isn't possible in any way imaginable. On one hand i admire those who strive to see good in all, but equally I feel most of those people who behave like this - whose goodness is not rooted in a form of true religious altruism but a false sense of attention seeking pride that isn't genuine - are rather naive.

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The path that you are alluding to is one where balance must be struck between compassion and self-preservation.

They may seem be completely contradictory but the almighty in his hukam has created great paradoxes in human nature.

It is often said that those that bite the hand that feeds them often lick the boots that kick them.

Just because one is streetwise and puts oneself first does not mean that that one cannot be compassionate. 

You cannot help others unless you do not put yourself first. Call it enlightened self-interest.

I think where we get confused in Sikhi with our compassion, is that the narrative is constantly about shaheedi, our selfless sacrifice for others.

However, Shaheedi is not something that is taken lightly but I believe that during Purataan times when we were hunted down my Mughals, our forefathers had to put themselves first. They only stuck their necks out to rescue Hindu captives when they were in a position to do so. They only do Shaheedi if it necessary and it would bring further gains.

However, with Contemporary Sikhs, I think we romanticize this and look at this aspect with rose tinted glasses.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I'm trying to genuinely get my head around this concept from a Sikh pov, particularly as the kind of world and society we currently occupy seems to bringing these type of issues into sharp focus. 

In an ideal world - without wishing to sound like a wet blanket, lol - i would love everyone and treat them with such kindness and goodwill as i believe God wishes humanity should behave towards each other, but from my own life experiences i just know that isn't possible in any way imaginable. On one hand i admire those who strive to see good in all, but equally I feel most of those people who behave like this - whose goodness is not rooted in a form of true religious altruism but a false sense of attention seeking pride that isn't genuine - are rather naive.

What I struggle to get my head around is Singhs in the mid 1700s. They didn't seem remotely concerned with this 'universal altruism' people equate Sikhi with. They seemed more concerned with power and land. And VERY aggressively too. How do we explain that? Some of the ones from the later 1700s (like the Bhangi sardars) seem like outright bandits. These sardars pee'd the citizens of Lahore so much that the town essentially begged a young Ranjit Singh to take over and oust them. Rattan Singh Bhangu mentions that they killed the brother of another sardar (Jassa Singh Ramgarhia) to avoid splitting loot from some fort they had stormed. What the.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addition:

 

I should add, in my opinion, the way dasmesh pita has framed life here on earth (in the dasam granth) conceptualising human interactions analogous to those of devtay and daints, explicitly explains (to me anyway) that we aren't supposed to view all other humans with idealised, rose tinted glasses. Humans can be great (devtay-like) or evil as hell (asura-like) and all shades in-between. I think Akal Ustat is also telling us that Waheguru made this diverse world with all sorts too. Simple pendu-minded thinking to the contrary is bound to hurt us. 

The idea is to do as much good as you can under the constraints we have I think. 

Edited by dallysingh101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

What I struggle to get my head around is Singhs in the mid 1700s. They didn't seem remotely concerned with this 'universal altruism' people equate Sikhi with. They seemed more concerned with power and land. And VERY aggressively too. How do we explain that? Some of the ones from the later 1700s (like the Bhangi sardars) seem like outright bandits. These sardars pee'd the citizens of Lahore so much that the town essentially begged a young Ranjit Singh to take over and oust them. Rattan Singh Bhangu mentions that they killed the brother of another sardar (Jassa Singh Ramgarhia) to avoid splitting loot from some fort they had stormed. What the.....

I reckon they saw the potential riches on offer for anyone who had the balls to step up and take their chance, and the Piri went out the window in a majorly drastic fashion, leaving the Miri in its place. Banditry is exactly what it was. Either that or somewhere along the way Sikh history post-1708 has undergone a severe watering down to bring it into line with its spiritual roots. Honestly, i don't think we're calculating enough to carry out a "conspiracy" on that scale the affects of which are in action to this very day. 

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I reckon they saw the potential riches on offer for anyone who had the balls to step up and take their chance, and the Piri went out the window in a majorly drastic fashion, leaving the Miri in its place. Banditry is exactly what it was. Either that or somewhere along the way Sikh history post-1708 has undergone a severe watering down to bring it into line with its spiritual roots. Honestly, i don't think we're calculating enough to carry out a "conspiracy" on that scale the affects of which are in action to this very day. 

I've seen life a fair bit now and I'm telling you, any sort of chaos/uncertainty automatically produces very sharp and ruthless (to varying degrees) opportunists who know exactly how to exploit it to their advantage. I believe a certain section of any population is naturally composed of these types; and the detached way they think makes them leaders - and they don't become leaders for some purely, selfless objective, it's for themselves mainly. If we are lucky they might do some good along the way - if not, they can be cruel tyrants. 

That's why I respect M. Ranjit Singh. Yes, he was exactly the type I'm talking about above, but he did do a hell of a lot of good while he was sitting on the throne (amongst all his shenanigans). 

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dallysingh101 said:

Honestly, i don't think we're calculating enough to carry out a "conspiracy" on that scale the affects of which are in action to this very day. 

I don't get this bit here. What are you trying to say bro? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I don't get this bit here. What are you trying to say bro? 

That we were always a bit ruthless and rough even in the so-called golden days, but the narrative had been airbrushed to make us seem chilled and accommodating, as if every Sikh alive was a potential saint. There was always dodgy people who considered themselves Sikhs, even in the times of the Gurus. I remember reading about a Sikh who came to Dasme Paatshah to complain that his missus had run off with his Muslim neighbour, lol. That's the kind of thing they'll never mention in Gurdwaras. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The path that you are alluding to is one where balance must be struck between compassion and self-preservation.

They may seem be completely contradictory but the almighty in his hukam has created great paradoxes in human nature.

It is often said that those that bite the hand that feeds them often lick the boots that kick them.

Just because one is streetwise and puts oneself first does not mean that that one cannot be compassionate. 

You cannot help others unless you do not put yourself first. Call it enlightened self-interest.

I think where we get confused in Sikhi with our compassion, is that the narrative is constantly about shaheedi, our selfless sacrifice for others.

However, Shaheedi is not something that is taken lightly but I believe that during Purataan times when we were hunted down my Mughals, our forefathers had to put themselves first. They only stuck their necks out to rescue Hindu captives when they were in a position to do so. They only do Shaheedi if it necessary and it would bring further gains.

However, with Contemporary Sikhs, I think we romanticize this and look at this aspect with rose tinted glasses.

Unless I've completely misunderstood the essence of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it's exactly the lack of that sense of pragmatism that i find to be concerning on a personal level. It is beautifully aspirational on a spiritual level, and appeals to our higher selves in a way that makes one frustrated with the contradictions of human nature that make practicing everything in Gurbani such a heartfelt struggle. Is that why Dasam Bani was always in parkash with SGGS Ji back in the day; because it provided a necessary counterpoint and pragmatic balance to the idealistic purity of SGGS Ji? If so, what the heck have we done by removing Dasam Bani from its rightful place?

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MisterrSingh said:

That we were always a bit ruthless and rough even in the so-called golden days, but the narrative had been airbrushed to make us seem chilled and accommodating, as if every Sikh alive was a potential saint. There was always dodgy people who considered themselves Sikhs, even in the times of the Gurus. I remember reading about a Sikh who came to Dasme Paatshah to complain that his missus had run off with his Muslim neighbour, lol. That's the kind of thing they'll never mention in Gurdwaras. 

Bro, there is a real straight forward explanation for this in my opinion  (and I have tried to research it, so it's not just a hunch):

It was the Singh Sabha lehar that changed Sikh literature in this way. If you look at pre-annexation Sikh literature, they don't have any qualms with writing about stuff that we'd find shocking today. Rattan Singh Bhangu's work is a perfect example. I believe that conservative Christian influence on many of the prominent people of the lehar (through their education in British institutes), as well the famously 'repressed' nature of Victorian society (which ruled us at the time) seeped into their psyches, and they became ashamed of a lot of what our ancestors did - and completely wrote it out of their published (and very popular) histories. That's why you have this weird whitewashed conceptualisation of our ancestors which doesn't remotely reflect the nature of our society today and contradicts so many pre-annexation sources.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

If so, what the heck have we done by removing Dasam Bani from its rightful place?

In a nutshell: made ourselves docile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

In a nutshell: made ourselves docile. 

We've shot ourselves in the foot. Cursed ourselves perhaps.

 

16 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Bro, there is a real straight forward explanation for this in my opinion  (and I have tried to research it, so it's not just a hunch):

It was the Singh Sabha lehar that changed Sikh literature in this way. If you look at pre-annexation Sikh literature, they don't have any qualms with writing about stuff that we'd find shocking today. Rattan Singh Bhangu's work is a perfect example. I believe that conservative Christian influence on many of the prominent people of the lehar (through their education in British institutes), as well the famously 'repressed' nature of Victorian society (which ruled us at the time) seeped into their psyches, and they became ashamed of a lot of what our ancestors did - and completely wrote it out of their published (and very popular) histories. That's why you have this weird whitewashed conceptualisation of our ancestors which doesn't remotely reflect the nature of our society today and contradicts so many pre-annexation sources.

That makes sense considering all we know and perceive to be our natural proclivities as Punjabis. It's a shame there's been a considerable mythologising of our history, almost as if what occurred was thousands of years ago in an idealised pre-history akin to the events of Indian mythology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

In a nutshell: made ourselves docile. 

time to embrace pita ji's bani wholeheartedly , the rise of the kalyugi mind is upon us ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

time to embrace pita ji's bani wholeheartedly , the rise of the kalyugi mind is upon us ...

Honestly I think they hate any form of Rass, (Bir or Naam), would they like the Bir Rass shabads from Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? I don't really expect it. Examples of Bir Rass from Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: "ਸਲੋਕ ਕਬੀਰ ॥

Salok Kabeer ||

सलोक कबीर ॥

Shalok, Kabeer:

47474 ਪੰ. ੪ 

 

ਗਗਨ ਦਮਾਮਾ ਬਾਜਿਓ ਪਰਿਓ ਨੀਸਾਨੈ ਘਾਉ ॥

Gagan Dhamaamaa Baajiou Pariou Neesaanai Ghaao ||

गगन दमामा बाजिओ परिओ नीसानै घाउ ॥

The battle-drum beats in the sky of the mind; aim is taken, and the wound is inflicted.

47475 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੪ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir

ਖੇਤੁ ਜੁ ਮਾਂਡਿਓ ਸੂਰਮਾ ਅਬ ਜੂਝਨ ਕੋ ਦਾਉ ॥੧॥

Khaeth J Maanddiou Sooramaa Ab Joojhan Ko Dhaao ||1||

खेतु जु मांडिओ सूरमा अब जूझन को दाउ ॥१॥

The spiritual warriors enter the field of battle; now is the time to fight! ||1||

47476 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੫ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir

ਸੂਰਾ ਸੋ ਪਹਿਚਾਨੀਐ ਜੁ ਲਰੈ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਹੇਤ ॥

Sooraa So Pehichaaneeai J Larai Dheen Kae Haeth ||

सूरा सो पहिचानीऐ जु लरै दीन के हेत ॥

He alone is known as a spiritual hero, who fights in defense of religion.

47477 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੫ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir

ਪੁਰਜਾ ਪੁਰਜਾ ਕਟਿ ਮਰੈ ਕਬਹੂ ਨ ਛਾਡੈ ਖੇਤੁ ॥੨॥੨॥

Purajaa Purajaa Katt Marai Kabehoo N Shhaaddai Khaeth ||2||2||

पुरजा पुरजा कटि मरै कबहू न छाडै खेतु ॥२॥२॥

He may be cut apart, piece by piece, but he never leaves the field of battle. ||2||2||

47478 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੬ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir" (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Ang 1105) (Forgive the copy pasting mistake; used to copy and paste from Srigranth.org but that's temporarily closed and don't have access to a Gurmukhi keyboard though would appreciate if someone showed me one). There are other shabads in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for Bir Rass, don't expect missionaries to read it, so they really are just playing religious politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Honestly I think they hate any form of Rass, (Bir or Naam), would they like the Bir Rass shabads from Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? I don't really expect it. Examples of Bir Rass from Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: "ਸਲੋਕ ਕਬੀਰ ॥

Salok Kabeer ||

सलोक कबीर ॥

Shalok, Kabeer:

47474 ਪੰ. ੪ 

 

ਗਗਨ ਦਮਾਮਾ ਬਾਜਿਓ ਪਰਿਓ ਨੀਸਾਨੈ ਘਾਉ ॥

Gagan Dhamaamaa Baajiou Pariou Neesaanai Ghaao ||

गगन दमामा बाजिओ परिओ नीसानै घाउ ॥

The battle-drum beats in the sky of the mind; aim is taken, and the wound is inflicted.

47475 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੪ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir

ਖੇਤੁ ਜੁ ਮਾਂਡਿਓ ਸੂਰਮਾ ਅਬ ਜੂਝਨ ਕੋ ਦਾਉ ॥੧॥

Khaeth J Maanddiou Sooramaa Ab Joojhan Ko Dhaao ||1||

खेतु जु मांडिओ सूरमा अब जूझन को दाउ ॥१॥

The spiritual warriors enter the field of battle; now is the time to fight! ||1||

47476 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੫ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir

ਸੂਰਾ ਸੋ ਪਹਿਚਾਨੀਐ ਜੁ ਲਰੈ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਹੇਤ ॥

Sooraa So Pehichaaneeai J Larai Dheen Kae Haeth ||

सूरा सो पहिचानीऐ जु लरै दीन के हेत ॥

He alone is known as a spiritual hero, who fights in defense of religion.

47477 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੫ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir

ਪੁਰਜਾ ਪੁਰਜਾ ਕਟਿ ਮਰੈ ਕਬਹੂ ਨ ਛਾਡੈ ਖੇਤੁ ॥੨॥੨॥

Purajaa Purajaa Katt Marai Kabehoo N Shhaaddai Khaeth ||2||2||

पुरजा पुरजा कटि मरै कबहू न छाडै खेतु ॥२॥२॥

He may be cut apart, piece by piece, but he never leaves the field of battle. ||2||2||

47478 ਮਾਰੂ (ਭ. ਕਬੀਰ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੫ ਪੰ. ੬ 
Raag Maaroo Bhagat Kabir" (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Ang 1105) (Forgive the copy pasting mistake; used to copy and paste from Srigranth.org but that's temporarily closed and don't have access to a Gurmukhi keyboard though would appreciate if someone showed me one). There are other shabads in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji for Bir Rass, don't expect missionaries to read it, so they really are just playing religious politics.

this is true , Guru Nanak Dev ji wasn't some weak pious sadhu he was determined sure warrior for the truth. If you Read really read Guru ji constantly tells you to get up, and stay up , fight the good fight, face down evil and oppression within and without. Dasam Bani gives specific ways to fight but the start of the fighting spirit is in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

We've shot ourselves in the foot. Cursed ourselves perhaps.

 

That makes sense considering all we know and perceive to be our natural proclivities as Punjabis. It's a shame there's been a considerable mythologising of our history, almost as if what occurred was thousands of years ago in an idealised pre-history akin to the events of Indian mythology.

It's even simpler than that. Apnay adopted the white Anglo style of 'historiography' over our own 'warts and all' indigenous style. 

They essentially imitated the way Anglos use 'history' as a form of propaganda as opposed to a record of the truth. Anglo values of the time (repressed, conservative, protestant) were used as barometers of what was good and bad behaviour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

this is true , Guru Nanak Dev ji wasn't some weak pious sadhu he was determined sure warrior for the truth. If you Read really read Guru ji constantly tells you to get up, and stay up , fight the good fight, face down evil and oppression within and without. Dasam Bani gives specific ways to fight but the start of the fighting spirit is in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

This needs to be repeated more often. It'll help the likes of me from not labouring under erroneous illusions. 

We really aren't being helped in any way by our parcharaks, are we? What's their purpose if illiterates such as myself only discover certain truths by complete accident? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

This needs to be repeated more often. It'll help the likes of me from not labouring under erroneous illusions. 

We really aren't being helped in any way by our parcharaks, are we? What's their purpose if illiterates such as myself only discover certain truths by complete accident? 

but is it an accident ? whatever you read is Guru ji talking to you , remember that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if these are legit, but someone took pictures of some of Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji's Shastar: 

Shasters of SatGuru Nanak Dev Sahib ji

 (Not doubting that Guru Sahib owned Shastars just confused if these were his)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

We really aren't being helped in any way by our parcharaks, are we? What's their purpose if illiterates such as myself only discover certain truths by complete accident? 

It's a business for Gurdwaras to keep people ignorant, it's been going on since the Singh Sabha Movement and the rise of New Age Pracharks: (3HO and others that aren't Gurmat oriented). With the rise of internet this information is more readily available so there could be a new rise in future generations with this knowledge.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Unless I've completely misunderstood the essence of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it's exactly the lack of that sense of pragmatism that i find to be concerning on a personal level. It is beautifully aspirational on a spiritual level, and appeals to our higher selves in a way that makes one frustrated with the contradictions of human nature that make practicing everything in Gurbani such a heartfelt struggle. Is that why Dasam Bani was always in parkash with SGGS Ji back in the day; because it provided a necessary counterpoint and pragmatic balance to the idealistic purity of SGGS Ji? If so, what the heck have we done by removing Dasam Bani from its rightful place?

I sometimes think we approach bani in the way a Christian looks to the bible or the Muslim looks to the Koran.

Bani is the living guru. What bani does is bring out what exists in you already.

We argue on the forum using quotes from the Guru Granth Sahib to prove our point. In a way we act very abrahamically. 

I think the reason for bani is that some people "don't get it" and need examples over and over again to understand. Others will  "get it " intuitively, ultimately it's all within you.

I do agree with Dally that the British presence has impacted how we see Sikhi and I think that the western mindset is very black and white and they do not get contradictions the way an Eastern mindset understands.

Unfortunately, we have to live the Ghristi Jeevan life, we could make it easy for ourselves and live like monks or hermits but part of mother nature is to ensure that the next batch of sentient life-forms are born through re-production and have the opportunity of gaining mukhti. 

The beauty of  spiritual living is to see how it copes with everyday living with all the fustrations that it entails. To help with that you need the pragmatic understanding of human nature. 

The pragmatism and spiritualism are not mutually exclusive, they work hand in hand. 

The westernised brain would call this duality.  But the reality is if you embrace both sides there is no more duality.

You see it's all part of Maharaj's hukam, and it is all part of larger game that is played. 

Maharaj has a great sense of humour.

I always ask the question as to why Dashmesh Pita wrote the Dasam Bani and why it is a lot less known in contemporary times.

But I think you already as well as other posters have answered that question.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I sometimes think we approach bani in the way a Christian looks to the bible or the Muslim looks to the Koran.

Bani is the living guru. What bani does is bring out what exists in you already.

We argue on the forum using quotes from the Guru Granth Sahib to prove our point. In a way we act very abrahamically. 

I think the reason for bani is that some people "don't get it" and need examples over and over again to understand. Others will  "get it " intuitively, ultimately it's all within you.

I do agree with Dally that the British presence has impacted how we see Sikhi and I think that the western mindset is very black and white and they do not get contradictions the way an Eastern mindset understands.

Unfortunately, we have to live the Ghristi Jeevan life, we could make it easy for ourselves and live like monks or hermits but part of mother nature is to ensure that the next batch of sentient life-forms are born through re-production and have the opportunity of gaining mukhti. 

The beauty of  spiritual living is to see how it copes with everyday living with all the fustrations that it entails. To help with that you need the pragmatic understanding of human nature. 

The pragmatism and spiritualism are not mutually exclusive, they work hand in hand. 

The westernised brain would call this duality.  But the reality is if you embrace both sides there is no more duality.

You see it's all part of Maharaj's hukam, and it is all part of larger game that is played. 

Maharaj has a great sense of humour.

I always ask the question as to why Dashmesh Pita wrote the Dasam Bani and why it is a lot less known in contemporary times.

But I think you already as well as other posters have answered that question.

Thanks, that's a brilliant post that's got me thinking about a lot. 

So basically I've got to de-program and unlearn everything pertaining to this issue, that's been drummed into me since childhood as a result of being born in the West, and then re-learn it from the Eastern perspective? Oh god, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Guest London jwaan
      Akalifauj, you tw*t........
    • Btw, you might be interested in this book. It's in regards to America, but could apply even more to Britain since the percentage of Muslims is so much higher: Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry  https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595552480?tag=nypost-20 The most sinister terrorists won't be sneaking through our borders from the Middle East. They're already here. This is the untold story about the silent, yet extremely dangerous threat from the Muslim establishment in America?an alarming exposé of how Muslims have for years been secretly infiltrating American society, government, and culture, pretending to be peace-loving and patriotic, while supporting violent jihad and working to turn America into an Islamic state. In this powder keg of a book, you'll learn: How radical Muslims have penetrated the U.S. military, the FBI, the Homeland Security Department, and even the White House?where subversive Muslims and Arabs have received top-secret clearance. How they've infiltrated the chaplains program in the federal and state prison systems?a top recruiting ground for al-Qaida. How they've successfully run influence operations against our political system with the help of both Democrats and Republicans, badgering corporate boards into Islamizing the workplace. How we've been utterly duped about what the Quran does and doesn't teach. Sadly, much of anti-Western terrorism is simply Islam in practice, the text of the Quran in action. In a time when religious and political leaders are scrambling to smooth over differences in faith and beliefs, this book gives the terrifying truth abaout the very real, very deadly agenda of Islam and how it has already infiltrated key American institutions with agents, spies, and subversives.  
    • I tried and failed to find any post by user @Commuterist that triggered the socialist party account. Do you have that?
    • First of all, that clash at the Akal Takhat keeps paying us negative dividends again and again. On the one hand, what was the big deal with letting Simranjit Singh Mann address the congregation? He had been doing it for a long time without issue. On the other hand, Mann's peeps did not have to riot, certainly not pulling out kirpans. (Or was that just the SGPC Task Force?)  Stupid. Secondly, it was not religious violence per se. I suppose it would have been if Sikhs and Hindus were going at it. It was a dispute about allowing someone to make a political speech. In that sense, the riots at Berkeley and Middlebury College to prevent speakers from speaking were Christian violence, no? Even if all (most) were Christians even if nominally, that doesn't make the violence Christian violence. 
    • Guest In awe
      Amazing to see His grace inspire satsangat to help our sister from the entrapment of maaya.  Thank you all for such beautiful  Gursikhi support at a time when it was needed. And thank you bhenji for listening to the conscience and not your mind. He is always listening, we just need to find the ears and eyes to recognise Him. Dhan Guru, Dhan Guru Piyare