|
Add to Interest Profile
Edit Interest Profile
Email This Message
Search
| Jass Singh ji: Basically, you've raised two issues: (i) McLeod's thesis is OK. (ii) Sikh Gurus should have married outside their caste. Both your points are incorrect. As far as McLeod is concerned there are many books that prove him wrong. There is already some information posted on this forum regarding the worth of McLeod's work. When I get time I'll post more. There is no dearth of information. Now, let's go to the main point of contention. Basically these are the following issues: (i) Your premise - that even after one becomes a Sikh (s)he is GOVERNED by caste ideology. (ii) Sikh Gurus did not marry outside their castes. (iii) Since casteism is prevalent in the Sikh community, ie it has not been completely eradicated, it IMPLIES that the Gurus never did enough. In other words because the community has failed to live to the expectations of the Gurus it is somehow an indication that the Gurus were at fault. Regarding (i), your premise of discussion, you need to answer my question in the previous post. The one related to A and not-A. Unless you understand this SIMPLE logic, it will be difficult for anyone to convince you. Personally, I think that the logic is very simple to understand. You may think otherwise. When you choose to give up your past affiliations, you are no longer EXPECTED to work within the old framework. Very simple. Really, very very simple. Regarding (ii) - the Sikh Gurus did not marry outside their caste. Again, you need to understand the logic of non-contradiction (A and not-A can't exist simultaneously). Once a person is Sikh, (s)he leaves the caste behind. I'll get to that momentarily. Basically, you're implying that the Gurus should have married a non-Sikh (not-A, because non-Sikhs followed casteism). My question is why should they have married someone who did not believe in Sikh values when there were exceptional women who were following the Sikh path. Why overlook your own women who have the same value system to marry someone who doesn't believe in that system? It doesn't make sense. Let me elaborate. It's like if a guy says: Well, I admire Sikh values, I follow them and there are some very good single Sikh women but to prove that Sikhism is all embracing I'll marry a non-Sikh who doesn't believe in Sikh values, believes in castes, smokes, etc. Why discriminate against your own women when they have all the qualities and a lot more. I don't think this is an act of most wise man. You may not agree with me. That is your choice. In other words, discriminate against your own women to prove that we're a non-discriminating religion. What kind of logic is this? Lest we forget, charity begins at home. God gave man intelligence so we could use it, not abuse it. It doesn't hurt to exercise it every once in a while. Sikh path is different and our value system is also different. While others practice casteism, rituals, reincarnation of God in human form, etc Sikhism denounces all this. There is no common ground. The Gurus married exceptional women who had strong belief in Sikh values. You can read about them. A case of a Sikh marrying a Sikh. As far as listening to their parents, isn't that what happens in arranged marriages. It was a system that was prevalent then. It is prevalent now, to whatever extent. Obedience does not necessarily imply lesser degree of morals and ethics. You are mistaken. What if the morals and ethics of the parents are as strong as that of their children. Maybe you have a different personal experience. You need to read my previous post. Please read it till you get the logic. We can work on it together. This logic holds the key to our understanding - one cannot be Sikh and non-Sikh at the same time. One cannot believe in Sikh values and simultaneously believe in casteism. It's illogical. A man and a woman who call themselves Sikhs are NOT GOVERNED by caste ideology because it is not prevelant in the Sikh ideology that they PRESENTLY follow. When they marry, they marry as Sikhs, irrespective of what they were when they were not Sikhs. Really, very very simple. Regarding (iii). You are condemning Sikh Gurus because of Sikh community's failure to live as Sikhs. Yes, I feel that there are only very few Sikhs today who live a life that is expected of a Sikh. Most of us fall short. It is our own weakness. We should not be foolish to justify our shortcomings by ridiculing the Gurus. This is not a sign of an intelligent community. This raises another question. Are we an intelligent community. Different people will think differently. Personally, I think we have the potential to being one. The Gurus did not fail the Sikhs. We have failed them and continue to do so out of our arrogance by not accepting our mistakes. In some instances it could be out of ignorance. In others, it's stupidity. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same. The dictionary says this. I agree with it. Now the million dollar question. How is ignorance different from stupidity? This is my explanation: Ignorance can be eliminated in a moment through awareness that comes with knowledge. To gain knowledge one needs the ASSISTANCE of an EXTERNAL AGENT. This agent could be another fellow human, the media or by reading a book. Life's experiences also count because we experience things with others and not in isolation. Stupidity, on the other hand, has this uncanny ability to linger on persistently. Why it does so is because an individual REFUSES to let go of his personal prejudices and/or accept the validity of knowledge. This REFUSAL and non-ACCEPTANCE is a CHOICE (s)he makes KNOWINGLY. This is where the difference lies. Like Tom Hanks says in Forest Gump, 'Stupid is what stupid does.' What would prevent us from acting stupid is the power to THINK. But then, as Russell points out: "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." Regards |
