You must login to ask a question.
You must login to ask a question.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Why do Sikhs preach a different message to what their history says?
Dear ਕੁਲਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ I will try answering your questions to the best of my ability. I am hopeful you will not get offended like Mr. Gurpreet below. I see these points as being highly subjective. However: 1. Religion is not just one, there are many. Agreed, however let us remember all religions teach aRead more
Dear ਕੁਲਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ
I will try answering your questions to the best of my ability. I am hopeful you will not get offended like Mr. Gurpreet below. I see these points as being highly subjective. However:
1. Religion is not just one, there are many.
Agreed, however let us remember all religions teach a mutually exclusive message that does not transfer across faiths with different concepts being defined differently. Human disagreement naturally leads to diversity but diversity does not necessarily mean positivity.
2. Spirituality is one.
This depends on who is defining spirituality. There is a standard, fundamental definition that is generic and points us to the right path. Otherwise, at a deeper level even spirituality differs. Sikh spirituality seems to be based on responsibility. Hindu spirituality on meditative asceticism.
3. Religion is for those who sleep.
Depends on the religion. If we take a normal Sikh and tell them your religion is for sleepers do you think they will agree?
4. Spirituality is for those who are awake.
Let us take this further. If spirituality is for the awakened and Sikhism is based on spirituality then was the world asleep before Guru Nanak’s spirituality?
5. Religion is for those who need someone to tell them what to do and want to be guided.
If spirituality is based on intuition and inner conscience then naturally even spirituality tells and guides people. I see no difference.
6. Spirituality is for those who pay attention to their inner voice.
Please see my above points.
7. Religion has a set of dogmatic rules.
Once again, depends on the contextual definition of dogmatic. Sikhs carry the name Singh as a religious rule. Seems very dogmatic.
8. Spirituality invites us to explore within and get attuned to the Universal Rules.
And religion doesn’t? One can propose that the ancient Greek logicians who proposed the scientific method to do the same underscore that science outranks spirituality on that count.
9. Religion threatens and frightens.
Naturally, but every society requires barriers and walls to conducts.
10. Spirituality gives inner peace.
There are accounts of atheistic POWs surviving and thriving after the greatest of tortures who never believed in spirituality. They have inner peace. Can we say that their lack of spirituality is anti-spiritual then?
11. Religion speaks of sin and guilt.
So does the law, only that sin is paraphrased as a crime.
12. Spirituality leads us on the path of emancipation!
Depends on who is saying this.
13. Religion represses everything which it considers false.
And spirituality tolerates falsity?
14. Spirituality transcends everything, it brings us closer to our Truth!
Yes, our subjective truth and not objective reality.
15. Religion invents.
On the same criteria, I can say even spirituality invents.
16 Spirituality helps us to discover.
Alright. But the same can be said of the scientific and rationale method.
16. Religion does not tolerate any question.
This depends on the religion.
17. Spirituality encourages searching questions.
So does rationalism.
18. Religion is human. It is an organization with rules made by men.
Is this a nod to borderline anarchy that we do not require human rules?
19. Spirituality is Divine, without human rules….leads us to the Causeless Cause!
If spirituality does not require human rules then do spiritualists have the mandate to kill and rape?
20. Religion divides between us and them.
In terms of spirituality (and this goes back to my point that Mr. Gurpreet was unable to answer), is the Sikh identity not exclusivist then?
21. Spirituality unites.
Then why the emphasis on a distinct faith such as Sikhism?
22. Religion feeds on fear.
Depends on the religion.
23. Spirituality feeds on trust and faith.
Is this why generally spiritual people are so immersed in the concept of selflessness that they betray themselves for others who would wish them more harm?
24. Religion makes us to live in External Reality.
But isn’t Guru Nanak’s principle of the householder’s life also not the same?
25. Spirituality lives in Inner Consciousness.
Ok.
26. Religion deals with performing rituals.
This again begs the question, isn’t the Sikh identity and many Sikh practices such as taking Amrit ritualistic?
26 Spirituality has to do with the Inner Self.
Ok.
27. Religion feeds on internal ego.
This is very hard to prove.
28. Spirituality drives to transcend beyond self.
If you say so.
29. Religion makes us renounce the world to follow a God.
Other than Hinduism, I do not see this tendency in other religions.
30. Spirituality makes us live in God, without renouncing our existing lives.
Alright.
31.Religion is a cult.
So is the Sikh religion also a cult?
32. Spirituality is inner meditation.
But isn’t this dependent on what you define as meditation?
33. Religion fills us with dreams of glory in paradise.
A few religions do, yes. Not all religions.
34. Spirituality makes us live the glory and paradise on earth.
Alright, if you say so.
35. Religion lives in the past and in the future.
There seems to be some confusion here. Man’s present conduct decides the future.
36. Spirituality lives in the present.
I see no difference here between religion and spirituality then.
37. Religion creates cloisters in our memory.
This is very subjective.
38. Spirituality liberates our Consciousness.
Again, subjective.
We are not human beings, who go through a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings, who go through a human experience.
I repeat, quite subjective. So am I to deduce then that Sikh history is an antithesis of Sikhism as a religion?
See lessWhy do Sikhs preach a different message to what their history says?
I can clearly see you are shaken by my questions and are unfairly accusing me of dishonesty and agenda. I apologise but the world does not revolve around you seeing you are so aggressive. I wish you all the best in resolving the inconsistencies between what Sikhs claim to be their humanity and theirRead more
I can clearly see you are shaken by my questions and are unfairly accusing me of dishonesty and agenda. I apologise but the world does not revolve around you seeing you are so aggressive. I wish you all the best in resolving the inconsistencies between what Sikhs claim to be their humanity and their history of imperialism and dominance.
See lessWhy do Sikhs preach a different message to what their history says?
ਕੁਲਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ I am copy and pasting your name as I am not sure what it is and I am unable to quote you for some reason. This is another Sohan Singh who has written articles on Sikh history as well as Hira Singh and the others. Their works are present in the Institute of Sikh Studies anthology I readRead more
ਕੁਲਵਿੰਦਰ ਸਿੰਘ
I am copy and pasting your name as I am not sure what it is and I am unable to quote you for some reason. This is another Sohan Singh who has written articles on Sikh history as well as Hira Singh and the others. Their works are present in the Institute of Sikh Studies anthology I read at my local Gurudwara.
My understanding of Sikh spirituality is that it is based not on the notion of humanity but foremost responsibility and upholding one’s own dignity and truthfulness. All Sikh material I have read openly states that the Sikh religion informs its history. That is why I am asking, is the history wrong or is there a misinterpretation of the religion by Sikhs themselves? I personally believe there is no disparity between spirituality and history.
See lessWhy do Sikhs preach a different message to what their history says?
What you have provided are quotes that are assertions. History is based on facts unless your are saying Sikh history is only assertion and not facts? Books I read: 'History of the Sikhs' All vols H.R. Gupta. 'The Sikhs in History' Sangat Singh. 'A Short History of the Sikhs' Ganda Singh. 'The SikhsRead more
What you have provided are quotes that are assertions. History is based on facts unless your are saying Sikh history is only assertion and not facts? Books I read:
‘History of the Sikhs’ All vols H.R. Gupta.
‘The Sikhs in History’ Sangat Singh.
‘A Short History of the Sikhs’ Ganda Singh.
‘The Sikhs in the 18th century’ Surjit Singh Gandhi.
‘A History of the Sikhs’ Khushwant Singh.
‘In the Master’s Presence’ Parmjit and Nidar Singh.
‘Warrior-Saints’ Amandeep and Parmjit.
‘Percussions of History’ Jagjit Singh.
‘Sikhism’ Daljit Singh.
‘Sikh Misls’ Bhagat Singh.
‘The Last Sunset’ Amarinder Singh.
‘Sahib-E-Kamal’ Daulat Rai.
I also follow Jvala Singh Sarbloh and read his blogs; Khalsa Chronicle on substack; the Sikh Renaissance on substack and Anchor; Mahvra on substack; Thakur Jan Hari on substack; Sikh book club and Sikh Freedom Movement on substack. Ithiaaskar on twitter. I am not proficient in Punjabi or Gurmukhi but learning.
See lessWhy do Sikhs preach a different message to what their history says?
Dear Mr. Gurpreet, You seem to have taken my question as a personal slight and gone on the offensive. I suppose that's because you feel I am attacking your religion which I am not. However, you have only given me grounds to ask questions further. "However, you mentioned- “Why did Sikh Gurus preach hRead more
Dear Mr. Gurpreet,
You seem to have taken my question as a personal slight and gone on the offensive. I suppose that’s because you feel I am attacking your religion which I am not. However, you have only given me grounds to ask questions further.
“However, you mentioned- “Why did Sikh Gurus preach humanity but never put it into practice themselves?” It appears that you have already decided and are not looking for answers. The answers can be found with the intention of understanding, not with the predecided notions.”
I do not have any predecided notions. I am just highlighting a major difference between what Sikhs preach and their history including the history of their Gurus.
“Your questions suggest you are trying to connect the strategic situational decisions in History with the long-term Sikhi mission with bias. The purpose of the Ten Forms of Guru Nanak was to develop a working model in line with the universal teachings of Gurbani. Gurus did everything to present this model- Khalsa, Guru Granth Sahib, New Townships, Gurumukhi, Sangat-Pangat, etc.”
Every religious mission has taken strategical decisions reflecting its main mission. The Buddhists rarely resorted to conflict and turned the bloodthirsty Mongols into enlightened rulers through peaceful proselytizing. The Prophet Muhammad meanwhile envisioned a theocracy and this is reflected in the conflictual nature of Islam even today. If the Sikh Gurus centralised humanism, then why even pursue conflict? They retained regal paraphernalia and standing armies. Did they and their Sikhs not realise that by answering conflict with conflict they were creating more misery? Or was humanism never the central focus of the religion as Sikhs promote today?
“Getting to war was never a priority by Gurus. All the battles fought by the Sixth & Tenth Gurus are those which were forced upon them. Guru never attacked anyone but defended the attacks by oppressors.”
Ok, so why did the 9th Guru have an army and when Aurangzeb told him to disband it he refused and further gave the emperor grounds to attack him? Then the tenth Guru destroyed the whole village of Alsoon and called himself idol-breaker in Zafarnamah.
“Guru Har Gobind Sahib Ji had to fight Four battles after the demise of Jahangir. You should be aware of the Satnami Rebellion. Satnami won several battles with the Mughals and took control of Narnaul. However, Aurangzeb crushed the rebellion brutally when they tried to capture Delhi. Sikhs themselves were new in warfare. There was no point in getting into intra-Mughal battles. This was neither required nor would made a wise decision.”
So why the claim to Sarbatt Da Bhalla when Sikhs couldn’t even dispatch any aid to Satnamis. Are they not also Sarbatt? If Sikhs are supposed to be selfless then sacrificing themselves for Satnamis would have been very great in assisting the Satnami cause.
“Guru Har Rai helped Dara Shikoh in whatever way the help was demanded. What do you mean by “Guru left him”? Guru was in Kiratpur, while Dara Shikoh was arrested from Lahore. How could the sacrifice of Guru saved Dara Shikoh? ”
Khushwant Singh in his History of the Sikhs vol. i mentions a Persian source that says the Guru also accompanied Dara to Lahore.
“On the other hand, you write that the sacrifice of Guru Tegh Bahadur “didn’t stop the persecution of Hindus.” Then what makes you believe that the sacrifice of Guru Har Rai would have saved Dara Shikoh?”
I am not making these claims. It is Sikhs who say their Guru died for Hindus as if that was some exceptional thing that stopped Aurangzeb. But Guru Har Rai was a warrior with a standing army that could have aided Dara militarily in the long run.
“How would the establishment of Dara Shikoh help the Sikhi mission? Akbar was also a great leader. Has this changed the fate of the subcontinent?”
Akbar got poisoned. Dara got captured. Dara came to Sikhs for aid. Akbar didn’t. Very big difference.
“Now, your question on the sacrifice of Guru Tegh Bahadur. You totally missed the purpose of sacrifice. The purpose of the sacrifice of Gurus was to generate fearlessness among the oppressed class so that the laity could stand against the powerful. In serving the purpose, Guru Tegh Bahadur’s sacrifice was the turning point in Sikh history. Sikhs became fearless and started training themselves at Anandpur for the upcoming challenges. In the testing times, Sikhs always remember the sacrifices of their Gurus and help themselves overcome.”
You say laity but then you say Sikhs. Wouldn’t it make sense that it is an exclusively Sikh sacrifice for Sikhs? This is what Inderjeet Singh writes in his research papers on the Guru’s martyrdom.
“Guru Gobind Singh Ji didn’t authorship any granth named Bachhittar Natak. But there are Sikhs who believe in it. However, there’s no doubt over the superiority of Guru Granth Sahib. Everyone believes that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the Guru of Sikhs.”
I have met Baba Vadhbag Singh Nihang who believe in it and many others. Bachittra-Natak says Guru died for Hindus and Humanity. Sikhs say the same. So why this disagreement?
“Gurus have founded a universal Sikhi model, not limited to Punjab or outside Punjab. Punjab remained the action area (karma bhoomi) for the ten Gurus. However, Sikhi is for the entire Humanity. Hence, you are free to take it anywhere and save Humanity.”
Now isn’t this quite contradictory when SGGS divides humanity into Gurmukhs and Manmukhs and disparages Manmukhs? Wouldn’t true humanity denote selfless service without the moniker and label of Sikh which is exclusivist and especially the long hair?
“Your other questions are on the time period after Gurus. I would not get into the details. But they, too, are written with biases without understanding the strategic importance of the situational decision.”
Thank you for your honesty. To me it seems you yourself are at great pains to justify some of these decisions considering they fly in the face of the SGGS tenets that Sikhs like to point out when explaining their humanity.
See lessWhy do Sikhs preach a different message to what their history says?
I don't see how these people hold any relevance since they died before I was born.
I don’t see how these people hold any relevance since they died before I was born.
See lessWhy do Sikhs preach a different message to what their history says?
I have read Khushwant Singh, HR Gupta, Sangat Singh, Sohan Singh, Surjit Singh Gandhi, Lala Daulat Rai, Kharak Singh, Jagjit Singh, Daljeet Singh, Gurbaksh Singh, Kulwant Singh, Hira Singh. If Sikh history is not impartial than why do Sikhs mention their humanism so much? What if this is not an aspeRead more
I have read Khushwant Singh, HR Gupta, Sangat Singh, Sohan Singh, Surjit Singh Gandhi, Lala Daulat Rai, Kharak Singh, Jagjit Singh, Daljeet Singh, Gurbaksh Singh, Kulwant Singh, Hira Singh. If Sikh history is not impartial than why do Sikhs mention their humanism so much? What if this is not an aspect of their history and it has been fed to them and they are interpreting Gurbani through this false history?
See less