God Acceptable to All, But Not gods: ਕੀ ਰੱਬ ਹੈ ? ਜੇ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਕਿੱਥੇ ਹੈ ! (ਭਾਗ 1)
ਕੀ ਰੱਬ ਹੈ ? ਜੇ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਕਿੱਥੇ ਹੈ ! (ਭਾਗ 1)http://www.thekhalsa.org/
http://www.thekhalsa.org/
http://www.emgonline.co.uk/
By Balbir Singh Sooch*, The Sikh Vichar Manch may be wrong in its interpretation of god(s) and God-Waheguru and always subject to correction of its any serious mistake, while expressing the views on the subject.
But everyone individually or collectively are free to interpret the ‘words’ God-Waheguru and god(s) differently and the Sikh Vichar Manch will never averse to the views expressed so, provided there is an attempt to centralize the teachings of all acceptable religions for the well being of humanity, excluding personal life style- way of living, when ‘There is but one God- Waheguru’ for all in the context, interpreted?
It is general belief that the man-made objects are gods, otherwise, all believe that ‘There is but one God- Waheguru’.
Only the differences and the fight among the religions’ could be seen in interpretation of the words by the respective religions separately for the supremacy over the other only by the religious headmen or at instance of the respective governments controlling and misusing the religious headmen since centuries.
All religious headmen of their respective religions interpret that the grace God- Waheguru can be attained only through and by following their specific and particular religion, not otherwise.
Only the differences and the fight among the religions are in the name of God-Waheguru, that’s as how to have His grace?
Why that grace through the specific and the particular religion only?
As already said, why not to be centralized the teachings of all acceptable religions?
“Why not to be centralized the teachings of all acceptable religions and the teachings be interpreted, taught and followed accordingly, for the well being of humanity excluding personal style- way of living, when ‘There is but one God- Waheguru’ for all?
In these days, the teachings of respective religions are being followed and practiced more in violation than in reality. Isn’t?
Are We Near To The Truth?
And are we ready to question ourselves?
Nanak’s Question Ever Be Answered?
As to How I Understood Waheguru and His Will!”
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
An Example for Reference:
To become a Muslim you only have to sincerely believe in
"Ash hadu an la ilaha ill Allah wa ash hadu anna Muhammadar Rasul Allah."
"I declare there is no god but Allah and I declare that Muhammad is
*Chief and Spokesperson, Sikh Vichar Manch
Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM
REACTION
Dear Balbir Singh Sooch Sahib
Sat sari akal
Thank you for your emails I have received for the last few days. I appreciate your broad approach to the question of God where all religions should unite to serve only one God and save us from religious conflicts carried out in the name of God/gods. I assure you that I have my deepest regards to the teachings of Baba Guru Nanak Sahib and his message of lithe Unity of Godhead and human fraternity.
However, I am not a religious person in the sense many of our people are. I do not believe in the existence of One God or many gods at all. I am a humanist and an atheist. Academically, I am a philosopher and have good information about the social anthropology of religions and religious consciousness. I will appreciate if you do not send any such religious messages to me by email and that you will be kind enough cross out my email address..
But we remain as friends and we will continue to defend the rights of all religious and ethnic minorities, struggle against sectarianism, religious hatred and antihuman forces at work in our part of the world. You may find that I cover only socio-political matters in my blog: Nasir
Khan blog:
(http://nasir-khan.blogspot.
With my best regards
Nasir Khan
(Oslo, Norway)
Sikh Advocate endorses Sikh doctrines
http://www.emgonline.co.uk/
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
Respected Nasir Khan Sahib
God may bless you!
Sir,
First, I am very grateful to you for taking into account my humane approach to advance the cause of peace and interfaith relations and your valuable comment in brackets and I take liberty to reproduce those comments in this letter of my thanks to you.
Secondly, you summed up the aim of and defined humanists in a few words saying, “Here I am not sure what you are implying. Standing for human rights and justice is an essential part of what humanism stands for. Despite their own rejection of the idea of any god, they nevertheless defend the rights of other human beings, including their religious beliefs. In England, Europe and America, humanists are in the forefront of the struggle to defend the rights of religious people. I don't know how things are in India'.”
I may also be wrong or immature at this stage of my age and for the reason, I did commit a mistake to assess you through the mirror and linking with the behaviour of so-called human rights activists as to how they act in India.
Thirdly, I feel again it was my immature reaction to write as such to you, “You might have thought that’ Dear Balbir Singh Sooch Sahib‘ has no business to explain the necessity following religion in a particular manner or felt intruding in your philosophical research work.
You replied contrary to expectation and said, “On the contrary, I was very pleased to get your response and your appreciable explanation. But I also would like to point out that unfortunately, I find it difficult to response to good and well-educated people like you because of my work-load. I am an old man and I do feel the pressure!”
Fourthly, I have nothing to say and differ as you rightly said, “I agree with you that believing or worshipping God/gods is a personal matter; I will even say that it should be a personal matter. But in practice, it is not so. In institutionalized religions, god becomes the collective entity around which the whole edifice of religion is built. As a result god is imposed and not many of those who live in traditional societies can reject god and stay safe in their communities. God becomes a symbol of power and a power factor in society. His name and His Decrees (all written by human beings, though!) control human mind and become a shackle on the independent development of mind and free thought. Secondly, I differentiate between personal faith and institutionalized religions and an institutionalized God.”
Thank God! I never felt myself slave of institutionalized religions and an institutionalized God. Here, God is my personal God as I understood from Guru Nanak, not from his so-called followers who institutionalized Sikh religion and similarly an institutionalized God. For the reason, I did not hold any post of profit or otherwise in any institution of Sikh religion where the religion and God are being institutionalized.
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
Now it becomes my duty to note your difficulty as you are much involved in international affairs and other social issues. But, as you said, “A serious discourse or rebuttal on such controversial issues should be welcomed by all, including humanists and atheists. I have also experienced that religious people like to impose their own brand of religious truth on others. When they meet any opposition, they turn hostile and refuse to discuss any such contrary views as 'the rejection of the truth'!”, I could not resist myself to pay my regards to you for your choice of words in brief and differentiating between personal believing and worshipping God/gods and the institutionalized religions. Similarly, you defined in nutshell, but for benefit of all, as to what humanism stands for?
I take your comment proudly like a ‘Good Will Message’ to me as you said, “Dear Balbir Singh Sooch Sahib, Thank you for your response to my earlier letter. I much appreciate your views and your approach to the question of religions and controversies that surround religious matters.
With regards
Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana
REACTION AFTER REACTION
Dear Balbir Singh Sooch Sahib
Thank you for your response to my earlier letter. I much appreciate your views and your approach to the question of religions and controversies that surround religious matters. In fact, I am quite aware of the sensitive nature of the whole topic, and because of my own respectful approach to what followers of all main universal religions believe in and practise, I try not to get involved in such discussions. One reason for this is that I am much involved in international affairs and other social issues.
Luckily, very many people in our part of the world live and think within the framework of their traditional religions, and old religious and social customs. They have quite eloquent spokesmen who can defend and explain all such complex issues to the satisfaction of, what we may call ordinary believers. In the Christian Church they are called 'the flock' who are led by their priests! I think the situation is not much different for such multitudes in other religious denominations under the guidance of their clerics.
In India we have an old and rich cultural heritage around diverse religions. This is all too obvious and there is no dispute about it. We also know that since the ancient times, there have also been a limited number of religious dissenters who rejected all such religious doctrine and claims about the god or any such divine beings. I am sure you know about these things much better than me because my own knowledge about India is sketchy; I have lived almost all my adult life in Europe where access to scholarly literature that is published in India is not so easy to get hold of. Perhaps I should mention Debiprasad Chhatopadhyaya book Lokoyata, which is a scholarly study of the ancient India’s materialist tradition (‘materialist’ here has specific philosophical connotation, and not in the sense many people use it). In other civilisations - especially the Greek and the Roman - a tiny minority of philosophers and writers opposed all the institutionalized religions and rejected gods. Karen Armstrong has thrown some historical light on such matters in her History of God. You may be already familiar with such books; in case, you have not read these, you may find them of some use.
Due to the shortage of time, I will not be able to go into a lengthy discussion of the views you represent. On such matters people have spent their lives and there is an enormous diversity of views and thoughts. In the following letter of yours, I will add a few comments in brackets.
With my best regards
Nasir Khan
CLARIFICATION or REBUTTAL
Respected Dr Nasir Khan Sahib
It was a coincidence that your email is in my emailing list like similar others. I am not as deeply religious as you may be assuming from my religious messages. I personally never felt hurt by religious or non-religious actions of others and believe to convince and reply in a friendly manner only. Sometime, I noticed humanists and atheists feeling hurt from my rebuttal. (Dr. Nasir Khan : A serious discourse or rebuttal on such controversial issues should be welcomed by all, including humanists and atheists. I have also experienced that religious people like to impose their own brand of religious truth on others. When they meet any opposition, they turn hostile and refuse to discuss any such contrary views as 'the rejection of the truth'!) I presume that you are not supposed to be among them being a philosopher. I am really grateful to you for expressing yourself without ambiguity. We find such personalities very rarely. Here question is not whether you are right or wrong in your expression and views?
To my mind, when you say, “However, I am not a religious person in the sense many of our people are. I do not believe in the existence of One God or many gods at all”, I don’t think you can justify or glorify the human rights of such persons, what to talk of defending them whole hearty, may be pretending so being a humanists and atheists. (Dr. Nasir Khan : Here I am not sure what you are implying. Standing for human rights and justice is an essential part of what humanism stands for. Despite their own rejection of the idea of any god, they nevertheless defend the rights of other human beings, including their religious beliefs. In England, Europe and America, humanists are in the forefront of the struggle to defend the rights of religious people. I don't know how things are in India'.)
I personally consider believing or worshiping God-Waheguru or gods is purely a personal matter and directly proportional to the understanding, knowledge, enlightenment and awareness a individual possesses and each individual have faith (You being a philosopher, humanists and atheists incapable to ignore believer in the existence of One God or many gods. Is it not your faith living in the manner? As to how an individual lives can’t be his faith?), may be differently as you have faith in non-existence of One God or many gods at all. (Dr. Nasir Khan : I agree with you that believing or worshipping God/gods is a personal matter; I will even say that it should be a personal matter. But in practice, it is not so. In institutionalized religions, god becomes the collective entity around which the whole edifice of religion is built. As a result god is imposed and not many of those who live in traditional societies can reject god and stay safe in their communities. God becomes a symbol of power and a power factor in society. His name and His Decrees (all written by human beings, though!) control human mind and become a shackle on the independent development of mind and free thought. Secondly, I differentiate between personal faith and institutionalized religions and an institutionalized God.)
It means One God or many gods are bothering you in your life that’s why you are a philosopher on the subject or for the reasons of the subjects being followed by others. Are we victims of such beliefs or is there something contrary to it? You may have your own unquestionable faith about it directly proportional to your understanding, knowledge, enlightenment and awareness. What is the friction and why?
Philosophically, I feel your email coincidently in emailing list and the interaction between us was Will of God- Waheguru. And someone may say it was will of gods.
The purpose of my note ‘God Acceptable to All, But Not gods’ was to bring humanity closer in the name of God minus religious extremism. In no way, the note was to endorse or toe the line of Sikh doctrines only as you or the publisher of article might have narrowly gathered the impression or so projected for other reasons, based on some faith followed individually or collectively.
You might have thought that ‘Dear Balbir Singh Sooch Sahib‘ has no business to explain the necessity following religion in a particular manner or felt intruding in your philosophical research work. (Dr. Nasir Khan : On the contrary, I was very pleased to get your response and your appreciable explanation. But I also would like to point out that unfortunately, I find it difficult to response to good and well-educated people like you because of my work-load. I am an old man and I do feel the pressure! But I have great respect for you and your humane approach to advance the cause of peace and interfaith relations. )
Dear, for me, the interaction was also coincidence and Will of God and it is my faith.
Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana
Chief and Spokesperson, Sikh Vichar Manch
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
Waheguru-God Acceptable to All, But Not gods
and say the following phrase:
the Messenger of Allah."
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/
Waheguru -God Acceptable to All, But Not gods Are We Near To The Truth? ਕੀ ਹੋਇਆ?
Chief and Spokesperson, Sikh Vichar Manch
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/
http://www.facebook.com/#!/