Talk:Sikhism

Confusing sentence.

"After the death of the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, became the literal embodiment of the eternal, impersonal Guru, where the scripture's word serves as the spiritual guide for Sikhs." This seems to say that "Guru Granth Sahib" is the title of a Sikh scripture. I want to make sense of this statement, but am unable to. Could somebody clear this up?77Mike77 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In other words, most western people think of a "Guru" as a spiritually wise person, not as an inanimate book. Is this article saying that inanimate books are called "Gurus"?77Mike77 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And that's not unusual; the Bible and the Quran have the same function. So, maybe your understanding of "most western people" is not accurate? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. My question concerned the use of the word "Guru" to refer to a collection of pieces of paper marked with symbols. In common usage, for those familiar with the English language, which apparently excudes you, a "Guru" is a person, not a book. An English-speaking person reading the sentence I quoted would be baffled by it, because (tutorial time for you) the word "Guru" is not commonly understood to refer to pieces of paper. So, to improve the article, I suggest that it conform to standard English. I realize that there are always people who reject making wikipedia into something other than the laughably incoherent gibberish that it is widely derided as, so if you want this article to continue to be incoherent crud, that's fine. You deserve the reputation you have earned, and I don't really care. Sorry for trying to help.77Mike77 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone of my response, though comments like "for those familiar with the English language, which apparently excudes you" are not very constructive. Nevertheless, the word guru may, for most western people, refer to to a living person, but in the Indian culture it can also refer to objects, like a book as explained here, or to a sacred object like Arunachala. What's more, the Bible and the Quran have the same function in the west: they are not just a bunch of stories, but the embodiment of the sacred, and can guide the faithfull. So, I don't see how we can improve the article by making it "conform to standard English", which would actually mean 'get rid of the facts and relevant info, and reinforce my view of the world'. Being baffled is not a good reason to step over the facts. If that, for you, is "laughably incoherent gibberish" and "incoherent crud," then you may need to do some study, and learn about hermeneutics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@77Mike77: To add to what @Joshua Jonathan writes, yes, the scripture is the eternal Guru in Sikhism. They, and many in Indian traditions, see a Guru as one with guidance, ideas, values, counsel, etc. For this article, we need to rely on WP:RS. See page 133 of The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. It reads, sixth last line onwards, "It is no wonder that ritual purity is observed in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib. One is actually in the presence of the eternal Guru when one is engaging with the text of the Guru Granth Sahib: to see, to touch and to hear it". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch might be onto something constructive, and appreciate her response. I haven't read the text of Guru Granth Sahib. I could not become a Sikh myself, because there is cultural baggage that comes with it (as in all religions), such as wearing turbans, but it seems to me that the spiritual core of Sikhism, stripped of the cultural baggage, is very similar to the teachings of Jesus.77Mike77 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The knee-jerk response to any constructive suggestion on wikipedia is often to defend the status quo like an agressive dog defending a bone, so I did not react as politely as normal to that response. My objection nevertheless stands. If this article is being written only for Sikhs, who already know the content and the vocabulary, then it is essentially pointless. If, on the other hand, it is being written as part of an English-language encyclopedia, for a readership that includes non-Sikhs, then the sentence I objected to is poorly written, as I originally stated. To the non-Sikh majority of readers, a "guru" is a person, not a book, and said majority would therefore find the quoted sentence to be meaningless, and would likely stop reading at that point. If it is the desire of wikipedia to encourage ignorance about the Sikh religion by driving readers away with sentences that make no sense, then congratulations on your success. If, on the other hand, you would like readers to become more informed about Sikhism, then the sentence I quoted must be changed so as to explicitly state that Guru Granth Sahib is a book, perhaps adding parenthetically that in the language of Sikhs, unlike English, the word "guru" can mean either a person or a book. As it now stands, this is an article designed so that Sikhs can read about themselves, and is of no value to non-Sikhs wishing to learn about the religion. (PS. At no point in Christianity did anyone ever say, "Fred, I'd like you to meet a very wise friend of mine, named The Bible; The Bible, meet Fred," - then Fred and The Bible shake hands. Yet it is written above, "What's more, the Bible and the Quran have the same function in the west." The Bible is not a guru. A book and a person are two different things, in the English language.) 77Mike77 (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should speak for yourself when you don't understand something, instead of making assertions on behalf of "the majority of the readers". Regarding "the sentence I quoted must be changed so as to explicitly state that Guru Granth Sahib is a book," the sentence in questions says "After the death of the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, became the literal embodiment of the eternal, impersonal Guru, where the scripture's word serves as the spiritual guide for Sikhs." So, you would like to add that a scripture is a book, and repeat that this specific scripture serves as a guru? I'd guess that most readers who understand English will perfectly understand this sentence, both the part on the Guru Granth Sahib being a book, and the part on the Guru Granth Sahib serving as a guru or guide for the Sikhs. And personally, when I don't understand something, I try to find out more, instead of insulting others and commanding them to obey my wishes. See, for example, Kristina Myrvold (2016), Making the Scripture a Person: Reinventing Death Rituals of Guri Grant Sahib in Sikhism, in Kristina Myrvold (2016), The Death of Sacred Texts: Ritual Disposal and Renovation of Texts in World Religions, Routledge. Which, by the way, also gives a lot of info on how other religions treat their sacred scriptures. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Have a look in the mirror. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I read English perfectly. The fact that you can't understand why the sentence I quoted is poorly written indicates a failing on your part. Your comments are much more insulting than mine, and it is obvious that you are indeed defending the status quo - i.e. the badly written sentence - with the possessiveness of a dog defending a bone from being taken away, and there is no point in trying to reason with a person such as yourself, and I have already found other far superior internet info on Sikhism elsewhere, and don't really care that this article is poorly written. (By the way if the man and his book are both called "guru", then you have man-book-man-book-man-book-...etc., so the tenth guru in the sequence would be the fifth book, and therefore the eleventh guru would be a man, not a book.....unless one of the man-gurus forgot to write a book-guru somewhere along the way. Do the math.77Mike77 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua. I can't get the image to show. Click link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Blond_infinite_relections.jpg&oldid=764246497 77Mike77 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Blond_infinite_relections.jpg

I see this has been touched upon before (with much toxicity) but that is a seriously confusing sentence (even for an Asian Buddhist, just to head off any toxicity, yikes). Compounded upon by the fact that 'guru' doesn't have that secondary meaning outside of the Sikh world (wiki:Guru vaguely mentions how 'guru' is conceptualized differently, while wiki:Sikh_Gurus doesn't mention it at all, and Merriam-Webster only defines it as teacher). For the sake of readability (of a major religion..) can we not find a different way to word this?.. How about:

Hopefully that doesn't trip up any of the religion's subtleties, and eventually a more readable version can be put in to place AiSard (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@AiSard. Excellent suggestion for conveying the same information in a readable sentence, although (unsurprisingly) no one acted on it. I'd do it, except that I'm sure that it would soon be reverted to the currently incoherent status quo. Apparently, I was right about it being protected "as is" out of sheer possessiveness, as "toxic" as that may sound.77Mike77 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• AiSard's wording is definitely clearer than what's there right now. @Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch: --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• RP: The last clause feels unnecessary. How about, "The Tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, named the Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib as his successor, terminating the line of human Gurus and making the scripture the eternal, impersonal spiritual guide for Sikhs"? This seems supported by the cited sources. Allow me to ignore 77Mike77's other comments above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict when I started to report that there was consensus and I had imlemented the proposal. Since then we have had a modification to the proposal. I support the new version proposed by Ms Sarah Welch. Apuldram (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sikhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ik13.com/online_library.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101102058/https://old.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html to http://old.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hemkunt2.org/PDF/The%20Sikh%20Review%2C%20August%202013.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/tankah.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sgpc.net/sikhism/anand-sanskar.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://allaboutsikhs.com/mansukh/123.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sgpc.net/sikhism/antam-sanskar.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Allegation by User:RegentsPark that recent edit regarding Amrit-chakkah Sikhs not consuming meat

Hi,

I am merely creating this section because User:RegentsPark made the half-hearted excuse that the edit summary was allegedly not neutral.

However, what User:RegentsPark is conveniently ignoring is the facts regarding society's evolution, and how this evolution has impacted the availability of multiple types of sustenance around the world.

Thus, the previous edit summary was merely stating a fact: that modern-day Sikhs who allege to be Amrith-chakkah, and use the literature's non-explicit mention of meat consumption to justify their lust, are not Amrit-chakkah at all.

It's obvious that Guru Nanak's lack of explicit forbidding regarding meat consumption was related to the conditions of Sikhs at the time, who have often faced difficult circumstances.

• In light of these circumstances, Guru Nanak's phrase could not be more true then as it is today: that Sikhs who quarrel over meat consumption or lack of it, are missing the point.

• There was no need to mention meat consumption as there were likely many situations where no other forms of nourishment were not available, thereby limiting what he could say on the matter as a diet "choice" (which is why his quote is so great).

Clearly feeding/diet were affected by the surrounding environment of the Sikhs, and that environment was much more hostile hundreds of years ago than it is today.

An example of this improved environment is again, my earlier reference to multiple non-meat alternatives for nourishment that were not present in an uncivilised Punjab.

• This salient line is still useful today, as any perceived quarrel over self-declared (meat-eating) Amrit-chakkah Sikhs who believe they are holy when there are many non-meat alternatives that would sufficiently feed them, are using it to justify there behaviour when in reality, there are multiple other options (unlike hundreds of years ago).

More on this point, the added sources are all secondary and all very good. Eleanor Nesbitt has been working with Sikh communities for multiple decades, and much of her work echoes what many legitimate Sikhs have themselves experienced regarding lack of meat-eating for Amrit chakkah.

• This fact is understood by multiple communities and not one "small sect" as the previous version tried to suggest. As shown with the multiple sources, this fact or belief exists in multiple communities regardless of Guru Granth Sahib's lack of explicit mention.

I find it tasteless on User:RegentsPark's behalf to represent the edit as anything but factual and reliably sourced. In fact, it felt like s/he only read the summary and decided to revert instead of logically evaluating what the summary was stating.

Best. 23.28.108.225 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, in a bit of a follow up I want to state I am a meat-eating, vain (hair-shearing), Sikh.

Even so, I feel it is incumbent upon me to protect the culture and ethnoreligious ties that I am indebted to, as they were central my upbringing and eventual acquisition of discipline through the examples set by people from my community.

I did not appreciate or understand what the term "phoolka" style meant when my Surinder pooaji would make our ethnic food, but I do now. Rest in peace Pooajis Surinder and Maninder.

With that stated, I just want to emphasise that Guru Nanak's statement regarding quarrels over meat still holds today, as there are still many Sikhs living in difficult conditions.

• I just want to state that, for those Sikhs living in poverty, Amrit-chakkah should not be on the priority list unless the food can be acquired within existing means. And this brings me to the example I wanted to share

Clearly we can conjure moral dilemma after another, challenging the concept of ahimsa as central to Sikhism and the abstinence of consuming meat.

• For example, there may very well be devout Sikhs in North America living below the poverty line who can only afford 2 dollar Burger King chicken nuggets instead of a 5 dollar vegetarian meal.

• What do they do?

*Eat meat and save money so they can continue to survive (and presumably still thrive mentally)?

*Go hungry (assuming they cannot just "spend more" via credit)?

In the above moral dilemma, it would be hard to fault a devout Sikh for trying to live within their means, whilst ensuring their ability to thrive to sustain (or improve) the living conditions, if they ate the chicken nuggets.

• Again, this is purely hypothetical but I want to stress why Guru Nanak's quote is so poignant and important.

The moral dilemmas one can conjure with respect to the diet, in particular how our living conditions affect our moral decisions surrounding it, are limitless.

It is hoped that the philosophy that is instilled in us as youth can be supplemented with Critical thinking skills provided by Public education so the youngsters are able to thrive.

Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.108.225 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

References

@23.28.108.*: Thank you for the contribution, but your post above seconds the concern of RegentsPark. Please see WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:WWIN guidelines for content, and WP:FORUM for the talk page. Further, we can't begin a sidetrack discussion of Kabir in this article. We must also ignore non-RS blogs and websites, but you also added the Nesbitt source which is reliable and scholarly. The article already mentions the kutha meat restrictions, so what specifically would you suggest that we add / emphasize / revise in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: hello. I do not think the sources I provided were WP:OR, or blogs. Given how small our community is, it is hard to find scholarly work that would meet the high barriers that I am sure are imposed for other scholarly articles.

That said, there needs to be clarity with respect to those who undertake the (extremely large) responsibility of Amrit-chakkah.

• That is, while the original structure was "okay" for non-baptised Sikhs, that interpretation is not admissible for Amrit-chakkah as the multiple sources reflect (nor would the Sikh Community accept it).

• The sources I provided also support the original form prior to the edit in the sense of its literal interpretation.

• That is, while neither Guru Nanak or Guru Gobind ever made explicit declarations regarding the consumption of meat, the communal consensus reflects an expectatino of those who undertake baptism: that no meat is to be consumed.

Additionally, about Kabir, yes you are right we can really get into the philosophy which would detract from the main focus regarding consumption of meat.

However, it can be argued rather easily that Kabir's belief in ahimsa is itself the prototypical/personification of what Amrit Chakkah is supposed to be, which is why I provided that source.

• In fact, I am hoping that you can use many of the sources I have given as they all state what Mrs. Nesbitt has stated regarding Amrit chakkah: it is a communal consensus that abstinence from consuming meat is a core tenet of Amrit Chakka, which is embodied by the concept of ahimsa first explicitly stated by Kabir (arguably the prototypical sant-soldier, as he is the one being spoken to throughout the text)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.187.148 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017‎ (UTC)

Long Introduction

I find the introduction, especially the last paragraph referencing the bhakti movement to be too long and detailed. I would appreciate if someone could work on making it a more brief overview and perhaps moving the more specific info to another section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.171.86 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sikhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217172839/http://www.sikhawards.com/Default.aspx to http://www.sikhawards.com/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)