The Path to a Sikh Renaissance

[Kira]

47 minutes ago, TejS said:

I'll admit that I haven't understood the Dasam Granth in its entirety, so perhaps I should first read through it, understand it from all perspectives, and I would then be in a better position on offering my opinion of it.

But I agree with you that the Sri Charitopakhyan is not only critiquing women, but also men. It's just the wording, which in other parts, such as the tales, can get quite vulgar, and my initial response of certain parts being deemed inappropriate was based off of that. I will, however, definitely make time to go through the Dasam Granth in its entirety, and not only glaze over the controversial passages.

Bro there are passages in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji that basically allude to a sexual nature, in fact its more so than people think. given the analogy of the wife going to the husband's bed. The passages are only vulgar if you see it that way, the tales within the passage are raw and humans certainly don't flower up their sentences. I mean just look at all the western trash on TV to see that, Guru Sahib simply exposed it as it is, humans being vulgar., the point of the bani is simply to bring everything to life, to show everything as it is with no portions missed out, its a sense of realism within it , the moral lessons within the bani are immense. At the end of it Guru Sahib recited Chaupai Sahib and asks God to protect us from all that evil Kaam. 

If we end we up rejecting Sri Charitropakhyan  then we have to reject Chaupai Sahib too, as its ingrained within the bani and was penned as a part of it. 

 

But we're getting off topic, lets stick to the one here. You're free to make another topic with questions and im sure the Sangat is happy to answer them or if you wish you're free to PM me, i can try and help you the best i can.

[Sukhvirk1976]

19 hours ago, TejS said:

However, there are certain issues that our community is currently grappling with, such as Hindu influenced practices, and to rid those we need to apply a far more aggressive, calculated and dogmatic approach - which I personally see nothing wrong with. Remember, religion is dogmatic itself, otherwise you would not have Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims. I think intrinsically humans are attracted towards dogma for a reason, we need them to have an identity and feel defined

Brother what you described is exactly the problem.. You are suggesting that for the sake of the panth we should compromise the principals.. Reading the thread after you comments about dasam Granth is the perfect example of why sikhi can't go down that route.. Where we lose the message.. Sikhi is  Sanji kaum nobody owns it or has the right to define it... None of our Gurus did! 

 

[TejS]

3 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Brother what you described is exactly the problem.. You are suggesting that for the sake of the panth we should compromise the principals.. Reading the thread after you comments about dasam Granth is the perfect example of why sikhi can't go down that route.. Where we lose the message.. Sikhi is  Sanji kaum nobody owns it or has the right to define it... None of our Gurus did! 

 

But our Gurus did ultimately define Sikhi and layed down a dogma for us in the GGS, one that needs to be followed, right? The principals are part of the Sikh dogma, and the dogma preserves the message. Now I could be looking at this from a very narrow-minded perspective, but I'm sorry brother, I'm unable to understand how upholding the dogmas will compromise the principals, when they're interdependent on each other. And yes you're right that Sikhi is sanji, however if you have some people bringing in their own inference to Sikhi, which clearly goes against its principles, such as casteism, and they identify as Sikhs, then I think we as a community must take action and correct those miscreant ways, otherwise those certain inidividuals aren't following the Sikh way of life, which itself is very clearly defined and fleshed out.

[Kira]

15 minutes ago, TejS said:

But our Gurus did ultimately define Sikhi and layed down a dogma for us in the GGS, one that needs to be followed, right? The principals are part of the Sikh dogma, and the dogma preserves the message. Now I could be looking at this from a very narrow-minded perspective, but I'm sorry brother, I'm unable to understand how upholding the dogmas will compromise the principals, when they're interdependent on each other. And yes you're right that Sikhi is sanji, however if you have some people bringing in their own inference to Sikhi, which clearly goes against its principles, such as casteism, and they identify as Sikhs, then I think we as a community must take action and correct those miscreant ways. 

The main issue lies in the uneducated masses who proclaim to know about Sikhi without having gone to the source. Our ancestors and Guru Sahib did define Sikhi and they laid our Rehit for us to follow, Gurbani is for all but what good is doing the Paath if you're going to go out drinking and partying 10 minutes after. 

You're right the defination of a Sikh in terms of Gurbani and Rehit has been defined by Guru Sahib multiple times in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, in Dasam Granth and even in Sarbloh Granth. Granths like Suraj Prakash Granth also define what a sikh was in purtan times, its the ego of this growing trend that recently surfaced where people think all the great Sikh Shaheeds and Mahapurkhs never understood Sikhi till some half wit with next to no knowledge opened up a book written by another wise fool, and suddenly the message is clear. 

The disease of basically radical liberalism has started its curse on Sikhi now too. There are ideologies which conflict greatly with Sikhi, obviously there are overlaps but ultimately these labels always exist. In-fact even during Guru Sahib's time these labels were like a badge of Honour for people. Sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev Ji were happy to proclaim it from the rooftop. The misconception is that Gurbani is for all, anyone can read it and learn from it. But to be a Sikh is much more than that. 

[TejS]

1 hour ago, Kira said:

The main issue lies in the uneducated masses who proclaim to know about Sikhi without having gone to the source. Our ancestors and Guru Sahib did define Sikhi and they laid our Rehit for us to follow, Gurbani is for all but what good is doing the Paath if you're going to go out drinking and partying 10 minutes after. 

You're right the defination of a Sikh in terms of Gurbani and Rehit has been defined by Guru Sahib multiple times in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, in Dasam Granth and even in Sarbloh Granth. Granths like Suraj Prakash Granth also define what a sikh was in purtan times, its the ego of this growing trend that recently surfaced where people think all the great Sikh Shaheeds and Mahapurkhs never understood Sikhi till some half wit with next to no knowledge opened up a book written by another wise fool, and suddenly the message is clear. 

The disease of basically radical liberalism has started its curse on Sikhi now too. There are ideologies which conflict greatly with Sikhi, obviously there are overlaps but ultimately these labels always exist. In-fact even during Guru Sahib's time these labels were like a badge of Honour for people. Sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev Ji were happy to proclaim it from the rooftop. The misconception is that Gurbani is for all, anyone can read it and learn from it. But to be a Sikh is much more than that. 

Exactly what I'm saying. Religion, at the end of the day, is dogma, and it needs to be followed, in order to live the life the religion has entailed. If one doesn't like it, then change your religion, simple. 

I think there are people who don't want to follow religion, and think that reaching God can be done without a set of dogmas, and that is absolutely fine imo, and I am not saying they are worse or better than anyone, but what I'm saying is that if you identify as Sikh, then you will have to follow the dogma. Otherwise, don't identify as Sikh. It's not like the Sanatan Dharma where can you practice anything and everything which sometimes is contradictory in nature and still be considered a part of the community. We have room for interpretation and openness to a certain extent, but we also have certain outlined rules to follow.

[Kira]

8 minutes ago, TejS said:

Exactly what I'm saying. Religion, at the end of the day, is dogma, and it needs to be followed, in order to live the life the religion has entailed. If one doesn't like it, then change your religion, simple. 

I think there are people who don't want to follow religion, and think that reaching God can be done without a set of dogmas, and that is absolutely fine imo, and I am not saying they are worse or better than anyone, or me, but what I'm saying is that if you identify as Sikh, then you will have to follow the dogma. Otherwise, don't identify as Sikh. 

I look at people like the Nanakpanthis who will go against certain Sikh principles and adopt practices they feel are fit for them to reach God. That is a perfectly fine path, but it is never referred to as the path of Sikhi. Similarly, we can educated them on the path of Sikhi, however those who despite having the knowledge do not wish to follow the dogma, can do whatsoever they please, but can't be identified as Sikh. 

Sikhism is not as open or ambigous as the Sanatan Dharma, and the Gurus have not made it as such, so if one needs openness, then Sikhi is not for them.

totally agree. 

[Sukhvirk1976]

Dogma is anathema in sikhi

[Kira]

3 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Dogma is anathema in sikhi

Provide evidence from any religious texts (historical Granths or Scriptures) pre-dating 19th Century to back it up.

[Sukhvirk1976]

1 hour ago, Kira said:

Provide evidence from any religious texts (historical Granths or Scriptures) pre-dating 19th Century to back it up.

To back what up? 

[Kira]

7 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

To back what up? 

Your statement obviously.