As someone new to Sikhi, I have a question:
How do Sikhs integrate their history with what they proclaim to be their humanity?
We see this in the life of Sikh Gurus. Guru Hargobind ordered his Sikhs to stay aloof from the intra-Mughal battles plaguing North India and Punjab after the demise of Jahangir. Thousands perished and the Guru never protected them even by sending an army why?
Guru Har Rai helped Dara Sikoh cross Ropar into Lahore and then left him allowing him to be defeated by Aurangzeb and be executed. Why did the Guru not do the humane thing and sacrifice himself for Dara who could have changed the fate of the subcontinent and made it a much better place to live?
Sikhs often say that Guru Tegh Bahadur laid his life for Hindus. But this didn’t stop the persecution of Hindus. I find it very contradictory that while many Sikhs say the Bachittra-Natak and other Granths are not real but somehow they believe this sole claim of these texts. Why?
Guru Gobind Singh Ji never organised any humane efforts for outside Punjab to save innocent Hindu Muslims from Mughals there. Why? Were those people not also human?
Baba Banda Singh allowed the widespread massacre of thousands of Hindu and Muslim elites and the widespread destruction of infrastructure. Why did he not do the humane thing and solely get Wazir Khan assassinated? Why this focus on Khalsa Raaj if people have to be killed to make it?
Nawab Kapur Singh refused to attack Lahore after chota holocaust and save the innocent Hindu women being tortured there. Why did he not do the humane thing and protect them?
The Dal Khalsa only saved Maratha women being ferried across their territories. Why did they not bother saving these women at Panipat beforehand by joining the Marathas or save so many countless women being raped in Delhi?
Maharajah Ranjit Singh used his own mother-in-law to conquer swathes of territory for him, then imprisoned her and divorced her daughter. He would execute conquered Lords after 3 mistakes simply for trying to protect their autonomy; inserted Avitable in Afghanistan who executed Afghans arbitrarily and banned Muslim prayers.
I am sorry if my questions are offensive but the whole of Sikh history seems to fly in the face of the Sikhs modern day claim to humanity. It seems that Sikh forefathers were selective in this humanity and chose to build their own sovereignty rather than aid others. If they were the expressions of humanity, why did they not better what existed rather than causing more misery by destroying it? We have accounts of Sikhs destroying mosques in Delhi like Baghel Singh; banning caste and azaan on the pain of death and destroying villages.
If this is fake propaganda then what antecedents do Sikhs have to prove their history?
If these are not fake but real than why do Sikhs claim to be humanists when their humanity was full of tough love and not the modern secularist version?
Why did Sikh Gurus preach humanity but never put it into practice themselves?
Why do Sikhs try making their history out to be something that it isn’t?
I asked these questions to my Sikh friends but they had no answers. They told me about Bhai Kanihyaa. When I researched further I found explanations that this Bhai Kanihyaa has no historical evidence to his existence.
Can anyone please answer my questions?
Chin-Ning Chu:
I don’t quite understand your entire post or most of the responses but it appears that you are asking why were sikhs not 100% perfect historically? Why did a guru make a well-intentioned error? Why did sikhs fall short of their amazing moral standards?
I’m not a sikh so I don’t know all of the history in your question but I do know a lot about the bigger problem.
It’s called cognitive dissonance. It is found in all religions, all cultures, and all people. So it doesn’t surprise me that the first followers of the Gurus weren’t perfect and that they made well-intentioned, ill-informed mistakes.
Isn’t that the reason for Waheguru’s grace??
For example, sikhism says to treat everyone equally. Christianity says to turn the other cheek. When a sikh girl bullied me and I tried to slap her in the face and then neither of us were living up to our ideals in that moment. This is cognitive dissonance.
“Liberation from bondage comes only by Your Will. No one else has any say in this. If some fool should presume to say that he does, he shall learn, and feel the effects of his folly.”
From the Granth Sahib directly
It’s not based on having a perfectly obedient people or no mistakes made in history. This is true of every religion, be it islam, sikhism, or confucionism.
Dear Chin-Ning Chu,
Thanks for the question. It’s sad to note that you have asked these questions to your Sikh friends, but they had no answers. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks,
Gurpreet Singh GP.
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.
Dear Chin-Ning Chu (I hope you are honest in writing your correct name),
Obviously, every reply will give you ground to answer further questions. And your every argument further proves my point that you are writing with predecided notions, not intending to know. The purpose of my reply is not to convince you, as you are not asking with the intention of understanding. It is for the benefit of other readers.
“If the Sikh Gurus centralized humanism, then why even pursue conflict?”
“why did the 9th Guru have an army”
Gurus never got into conflicts. If someone attacks you, and you defend yourself, this is not pursuing conflict. If you learn martial arts to prepare yourself to defend, this is not pursuing conflict. For this reason, the sword is named Kirpan (for mercy & defend honor). When we teach our children about various warfare or martial arts, is that to “pursue conflict?” Armies are maintained not to pursue conflict but to overcome the conflicts if they are enforced.
“Then the tenth Guru destroyed the whole village of Alsoon”
Fake history. No such thing happened.
“Idol-breaker” is a poetical word which means non-believer of idol-worshiping. If an idol-worshipper discards idol-worshipping after getting into the Sikhi fold, then the Guru, in the poetical sense, can be termed an idol-breaker.
“why the claim to Sarbatt Da Bhalla when Sikhs couldn’t even dispatch any aid to Satnamis.”
What a straw man’s argument! Are you writing just for the sake of arguments? The ninth Guru had just returned from Assam in 1971. Satnami revolt was all dead by 1972. Sikhs were a minuscule army of just 2200. The army increased after the martyrdom of the Ninth Guru. Gurus were preparing a working model of Sikhi that was to be sustained for times to come. Anandpur township was developed sale time. Satnami’s revolt was to grab political power. Similarly many revolts were happening in the country and other parts of the world. Sikh mission had no common ground with this. Had Satnamis consulted Guru Ji before foolishly attacking Delhi? If not, then how can you even mention such a naive expectation?
“Persian source that says the Guru also accompanied Dara to Lahore.” if you believe in this source, then what are you trying to prove? That means Guru did everything as per your demand. Then how can you write “Guru left him.” What was the source of this? That’s why I say you are writing with agenda, not to know.
“Guru died for Hindus and Humanity”
“You say laity but then you say Sikhs….. sacrifice for Sikhs?”
Both versions are correct. Died for Hindus is a situational analysis. But when Guru has infused the virtue of standing for others in the Sikh way of life, it is for Sikhs. I already mentioned that the Gurus’ purpose was developing a Sikhi model that can be sustained for years to come and for all humanity. When I say, Guru infused the virtue of standing for others. Heres’ an example where Sikhs drive their inspiration from the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji. You can find many such examples: https://sabrangindia.in/why-sikhs-are-helping-kashmiris-reach-home-safely/
“SGGS divides humanity into Gurmukhs and Manmukhs and disparages Manmukhs?” It is not a division. It is about imbibing divine virtues. Since you are rightly concerned about humanism. Don’t you think the corrupt, communal, dishonest oppressor is a roadblock to establishing humanism? If Guru is warned against them, then why you call it division? Since you mentioned Manmukh and Gurmukh, you must know it is based on vices and virtues.
“Wouldn’t true humanity denote selfless service without the moniker and label of Sikh which is exclusivist and especially the long hair?” That’s true but selfless service is just one aspect of humanity. The long hair is for Sikhs and is part of the working model to sustain Sikhi.
“To me it seems you yourself are at great pains to justify some of these decisions.” Yes, writing long comments is painful when you know the person’s intention on the other side. But as I said, it is for the benefit of other readers. Hence, it is worth taking the pain.
Obviously, you will find more material to reply to. But, I have served my purpose with respect to other readers. You are free to proceed as per your agenda. I’m not going to reply back.
Thanks.
Gurpreet Singh.
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.
Respected Ching-Ning Chu ji,
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh!
Please be kind to indicate the sources of Sikh history, based on which you have framed the questionnaire. In general, the Sikhs, though being a miniscule minority, at any point of time, have created history, but not written it. It has been written by others, who mostly were biased and not impartial.
To understand Sikhism, you have to understand teachings of Guru Granth Sahib, which are for the entire humanity. Guru Granth Sahib, was first compiled by Fifth Guru Person, Guru Arjun Sahib and then after adding Gurbani of Ninth Guru Person, Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib, it was ordained as ever living Guru of Sikhs by Tenth Guru Person, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib. Therefore, to assess Sikhism, you have to read Gurbani first and then the Sikh history, to have a fair view, because Guru Granth Sahib is an authentic source, whereas you may find different versions of Sikh history.
Hope it helps. If you have any further questions, please do ask. If you find any deficiencies, please point out the same for improvement in future.
Regards,
Your Brother
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?
Respected Brother,
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh!
Thanks for responding and sharing the names of authors, whose books you have read to frame the questionnaire. The undersigned will read all these books again and make an attempt to give you a point -wise reply, but it will take time. So, have patience and we can continue the discussion in a very cool and calm manner.
Regards,
Your Brother
P S. Please be kind to share the titles of the books also. By the way, do you know Punjabi also?
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.
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?
Brother, you are at full liberty to interpret the way you want. Their is no problem whatsoever. Does, according to you, Guru Granth Sahib teach spirituality or not? And what about Dasam Granth? What does it teach?
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.
Brother, what do you say about this? By the way, where do you live?
———————-
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY
A learned man was once asked to explain the difference between Religion and Spirituality. His response was profound:
1. Religion is not just one, there are many.
2. Spirituality is one.
3. Religion is for those who sleep.
4. Spirituality is for those who are awake.
5. Religion is for those who need someone to tell them what to do and want to be guided.
6. Spirituality is for those who pay attention to their inner voice.
7. Religion has a set of dogmatic rules.
8. Spirituality invites us to explore within and get attuned to the Universal Rules.
9. Religion threatens and frightens.
10. Spirituality gives inner peace.
11. Religion speaks of sin and guilt.
12. Spirituality leads us on the path of emancipation!
13. Religion represses everything which it considers false.
14. Spirituality transcends everything, it brings us closer to our Truth!
15. Religion invents.
16 Spirituality helps us to discover.
16. Religion does not tolerate any question.
17. Spirituality encourages searching questions.
18. Religion is human. It is an organization with rules made by men.
19. Spirituality is Divine, without human rules….leads us to the Causeless Cause!
20. Religion divides between us and them.
21. Spirituality unites.
22. Religion feeds on fear.
23. Spirituality feeds on trust and faith.
24. Religion makes us to live in External Reality.
25. Spirituality lives in Inner Consciousness.
26. Religion deals with performing rituals.
26 Spirituality has to do with the Inner Self.
27. Religion feeds on internal ego.
28. Spirituality drives to transcend beyond self.
29. Religion makes us renounce the world to follow a God.
30. Spirituality makes us live in God, without renouncing our existing lives.
31.Religion is a cult.
32. Spirituality is inner meditation.
33. Religion fills us with dreams of glory in paradise.
34. Spirituality makes us live the glory and paradise on earth.
35. Religion lives in the past and in the future.
36. Spirituality lives in the present.
37. Religion creates cloisters in our memory.
38. Spirituality liberates our Consciousness.
We are not human beings, who go through a spiritual experience.
We are spiritual beings, who go through a human experience.
Brother, you are a learned man. The undersigned nowhere said that Sikh History is assertions? If you see the quotes carefully, all quotes are with reference to Guru Granth Sahib. In the list of authors you have read, you had also mentioned Sohan Singh. Is he Sohan Singh Seetal? Also, are you referring to Hira Singh Dard? Further, you had mentioned about Kharak Singh, Gurbaksh Singh and Kulwant Singh. Their books don’t find a mention in your list.
What do you say about spirituality? The undersigned will be interested in knowing your views in this regard. Further, should one be religious or spiritual and is there any connection between history and spirituality? Please be kind to educate the undersigned.
GURU GRANTH SAHIB – SECULAR, MODERN AND UNIVERSAL SCRIPTURE – AS OPINED BY SOME WORLD SCHOLARS, PHOLOSOPHERS & WRITERS.
I have studied the scriptures of the great religions, but I do not find elsewhere the same power of appeal to the heart and mind as I find here in these volumes. They are compact inspite of their length and are a revelation of the vast reach of the human heart, varying from the most noble concept of God to the recognition and indeed the insistence upon the practical needs of human body. There is something strangely modern about these scriptures and this puzzled me until I learned that they are in fact comparatively modern, compiled as late as the 16th century when explorers were beginning to discover that the globe, upon which we all live, is a single entity divided only by arbitrary lines of our own making. Perhaps this sense of unity is the source of power I find in these volumes. They speak to person of any religion or of none. They speak for the human heart and the searching mind.
-Mrs. Pearl S. Buck, Noble laureate
Sikhism is a Universal world faith, has message for all men. This is simply illustrated in the writings of the Gurus. Sikhs must cease to think of their Faith as just another good religion and must begin to think in terms of Sikhism being the religion for this New Age… The religion preached by Guru Nanak is the faith of the New Age. It completely supplants and fulfills all the former dispensations of older religions… Books must be written proving this. The other religions contain the truth but Sikhism contains the fullness of truth… Guru Granth Sahib of all the world religious scriptures, alone states that there are innumerable worlds and universes other than our own. The previous scriptures were all concerned only with this world and its spiritual counterpart. To imply that they spoke of other worlds as does the Guru Granth Sahib is to stretch their obvious meanings out of context. The Sikh religion is truly the answer to the problems of modern man.
-Prof. H. L. Bradshaw
The religion of the Guru Granth is a universal and practical religion… Due to ancient prejudices of the Sikhs it could not spread in the world. The world today needs its message of peace and love.
-Archer
Mankind’s religious future may be obscure; yet one thing can be foreseen. The living higher religions are going to influence each other more than ever before, in the days of increasing communications between all parts of the world and branches of human race. In this coming religious debate, the Sikh religion and its scripture, Guru Granth, will have something special of value to say to the rest of the world.
-Arnold Toynbee
Pure Sikhism (as enshrined in Guru Granth) is far above dependence on Hindu rituals and is capable of distinct position so long as Sikhs maintain their distinctiveness. The religion is also one which could appeal to the occidental mind. It is essentially a practical religion. If judged from the pragmatical stand point which is a favourite point of view in some quarters, it would rank almost first in the world. Of no other religion can it be said that it has made a nation in so short a time. The religion of the Sikhs is one of the most interesting at present existing in India, possibly indeed in the whole world.
-Dorothy Field
For Nanak there was no such thing as a God for the Hindus, a god for the Muhammadans, and a god or gods for the outer heathen. For him there was but one God, not in the likeness of man, like Raman, not a creature of attributes and passions, like the Allah of Muhammad; but one sole, indivisible, self-existent, incomprehensible, timeless, all pervading – to be named, but otherwise indescribable and altogether lovely. Such was Nanak’s idea of the Creator and Sustainer of the phenomenal world, and it was a conception which at once abrogated all petty distinctions of creed, and sect, and dogma, and ceremony. The realisation of such God shatters the sophistries of the theologian and the quibblings of the dialecticians. It clears the brow from the gloom of abstruse ponderings over trifles and leaves the heart free for the exercise of human sympathies.
-Frederic Pincot, British Scholar
The Sikh religion differs as regards the authenticity of its dogmas from other great theological systems. Many of the great teachers the world has known have not left a line of their own composition, and we only know what they taught through tradition or second hand information. We know the teachings of Socrates only through the writings of Plato and Xenophan. Buddha has left no written memorials of his teachings. Kung-fu-zu, known to European as Confucius left no documents in which he detailed the principles of his moral and social system. The Founder of Christianity did not reduce his doctrines to writing and for them we are obliged to trust to the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Arabian Prophet did not himself reduce to writing the chapters of the Quran. They were written or complied by his adherents and followers. But the compositions of the Sikh Gurus are preserved, and we know at firsthand what they taught. They employed the vehicle of verse, which is generally unalterable by copyists, and we even become in time familiar with their different styles. No spurious compositions or extraneous dogmas can, therefore, be represented as theirs… As we shall see hereafter, it would be difficult to point to a religion of greater originality or to a more comprehensive ethical system.
-Max Arthur Macauliffe, British Historian
In Brahmanical Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism generations of teachers and commentators gave new shapes of religions and philosophical doctrines and sometimes changed them beyond recognition. The six schools of Hindu philosophy branched of into different groups of thinkers. The same process divided Jains and Buddhists into different and sometimes warring sects. The history of Islam as also of Christianity presents the same phenomenon of doctrinal disintegration. But Sikhism never succumbed to warring commentators; it preserved intact the heritage which Guru Nanak had left for it. None but a great and far-sighted founder can formulate doctrines capable of surviving the shocks of political and social revolutions for centuries… His humanity is transparent in his verses…
The story of Guru Nanak’s life and achievement has no parallel in the annals of this ancient land. It is not enough to call him the greatest of the sons of Punjab. He must be counted among the greatest of the sons of India. He was the founder of the last of the greatest religions of the world. He planted a poetical sapling which has blossomed into one of the great literatures of India. He laid the foundation of brotherhood which has enriched our national heritage by struggle against religious intolerance, social injustice and denial of political freedom. History must pay homage to one who – in serving God – served his country so well.
-Anil Chandra Banerjee, Professor of Guru Nanak Chair, Yadavpur University, West Bengal.
The more I dug into the pages of Guru Granth the more I fell in love with them… It is enough for us to take as it comes to us, to hear the lovely music in the truths he sang, to try to live the life of inspired service and practical devotion which he taught. For these things the world will always be in debt to Guru Nanak and to those through whom he spoke in the succeeding generations.
-Duncan Greenless, Theosophist from U.S.A.
*****************
Please read these lines of geniuses of the West and think
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)
Sikhism and Sikhs will one day rule this world because it is a mixture of knowledge and wisdom.
Herbert Wells (1846-1946)
How many generations are going to face atrocities and murders until Sikhism is well understood! But the world will one day be inspired by Sikhism. Only on that day will the world become a place for humans to settle and live.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
He (?) Does what the Jews cannot do. He did it with knowledge and energy. But only Sikhism has the power to lead to peace.
Houston Smith (1919)
Sikhism is not more trusting than we have in ourselves.
If we can turn our thoughts and hearts towards Sikhism, it will benefit us.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
I read about Sikhism. I feel that this is the religion of mankind all over the world. Sikhism spread throughout Europe. Many scholars studying Sikhism will appear in Europe. One day the situation will develop where only Sikhs will lead the world.
Costa Loban (1841-1931)
Sikhs only talk about peace and reconciliation. I invite Christians to praise, change and believe in it.
Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
One day this world will accept Sikhism. Refusing to accept the true name of Sikhism will only make one accept its principles. Western nations will surely one day convert to Sikhism. The religion of the learned is equal to that of Sikhism.
Johann Keith(1749-1832)
If not today, one day we will have to accept Sikhism. Because that is the true religion.
**************
I don’t see how these people hold any relevance since they died before I was born.
In lighter vein. Please don’t get offended.
Then why Sikh History is relevant to you since it happened before you were born. Also, Guru Granth Sahib was ordained ever living Guru of Sikhs, before you were born.