tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2160623360319672192.post4084636283843912456..comments2014-04-03T02:13:02.668-05:00Comments on vismad: Unity or Uniformity - What Do We Really Seek?Gaurav Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16858016618669788346noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2160623360319672192.post-49978400111942567602012-01-10T23:10:46.909-06:002012-01-10T23:10:46.909-06:00Facing the reality of the Gurduare and Sikh instit...Facing the reality of the Gurduare and Sikh institutions across the world, and raising one’s voice to combat censorship and narrow-mindedness is not Dhaindi Kala. Let us deal with the world As It Is, if we wish to address the issues of oppression and domination. More importantly, pretending that the issue does not exist should never be confused with Charhdi Kala.<br /><br />Lastly, Murakh is a person who is inflexible, inconsiderate and holds fast to his/her notions (usually borrowed). In Panjabi, a Murakh is one who puts his/her mouth before good sense. Guru Sahib is advising that we not get into a protracted struggle trying to convince an inflexible and inconsiderate "believer". Lujhai is to be stuck and invested in changing this person's mind. That regularly proves futile.<br /><br />So, what is the problem? Time!<br /><br />No one is a Murakh as a permanent state of being. Whatever we are, we are so in the moment. And in the next moment we may be different. This is one of the implications of Akal.<br /><br />We are to live in the now, and not in the past or the future. In fact, that is the only time in which one can truly live. But our commitment to live anywhere but in the here and now consistently leads us to trouble.<br /><br />So, barring someone because they are a Murakh is an assumption. It is prevention and not preemption.<br /><br />Please note the difference. Preemption arises from a guarantee or known fact, while prevention is an assumption and an oppressive act. To assume that we know another is to live in the past and to shut our mind to the possibility of another's transformation in the only time there is - now.<br /><br />Furthermore, to act to prevent another from expressing their views or to bar them because we disagree with them is to ratchet up our unreality. It is actually unfair and analogous with Dhaindi Kala. Don't you think?<br /><br />In fact, it is akin to putting our mouth before good sense, which would make the preventer the Murakh. A'int that a mess?Gaurav Singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16858016618669788346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2160623360319672192.post-39670578815460733052012-01-10T23:05:24.591-06:002012-01-10T23:05:24.591-06:00Izhaarbir Singh ji,
Thank you for your taking the...Izhaarbir Singh ji,<br /><br />Thank you for your taking the time to engage. I disagree with your take on censorship as a value derived from Gurmat.<br /><br />First, if I choose to give a speech or to write a book I will obviously decide what to say and what not to say, and I will endorse some and disagree with other ideas. However, that is in no way equivalent to my preventing an individual, with whom I disagree, from speaking/writing. The former is my sovereignty in action and my shunning the latter is born from my respect for another's sovereignty. That is on an individual level.<br /><br />On a larger note, a center of learning is a marketplace of ideas. The best way is to allow ideas to flow and if they cannot stand, then they will fall or be accepted in modified form, etc. But it is critical to have open debate where nothing is off limits.<br /><br />Second, Guru Sahib's insertions in Bhagat Kabir's or another's Bani is not an act of censorship. It is to bring clarity, and done to prevent the reader from misunderstanding the Gur. Again, censorship connotes control or suppression of the behavior of others, usually on moral grounds. By definition, control or suppression is against individual sovereignty and devalues the individual. Therefore, it is fundamentally inimical to Gurmat.<br /><br />Gurmat is about breaking bonds of external control. And the purpose of SatSangat is to engage each other; it is to be unattached to our little sense of self, and when faced with the opportunity, to identify with a universal principle (SatGur).<br /><br />When discussing, it is fruitful to engage the idea, and not to allow our opinion about the individual (espousing the idea) to devalue the idea. It does not matter who the person is. The idea must stand on its own, if we seek to benefit from the engagement. If I simply dismiss the individual and his/her ideas offhand because I have labeled him/her a Murakh, then at that moment it is I who is being a Murakh.<br /><br />In fact, you have misunderstood censorship and related it with Gurmat; also, you have misunderstood the part of the Paurhi (you have quoted) related to Murakh. Let me explain it via a couple of examples.<br /><br />Back in the 1990s, Kuldip Nayar spoke at the Sikh Religious Society of Chicago in, what would be construed as a, defense of the Gov't of India's actions. Mind you, he was not barred from speaking. But in response to his speech, Dr. Amarjit Singh from DC took the stage and made an extemporaneous case on behalf of Sikhs, in a response to Nayar. His speech was powerful and blew people away. The marketplace of ideas was in session and Dr. Amarjit Singh's ideas had a great impact.<br /><br />Please note that one reason that speech was so powerful was because it was in response to Nayar's. In the absence of Nayar, that same speech would not be nearly as powerful. In fact, I have heard similar speeches year after year, and it is an individual preaching to the choir.<br /><br />Another example of censorship is the case of Prof. Darshan Singh Khalsa, an individual with a wealth of knowledge and value for Sikhs worldwide. How has the Panth been served ever since he has been barred from taking the stage in Gurduare across the world?<br /><br />Do you see now that the problem is who decides whether someone is a Murakh or a Manmukh or anti-Panth? And these decisions can be very harmful to the Panth, because they limit the marketplace of ideas.<br /><br />…continued belowGaurav Singhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16858016618669788346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2160623360319672192.post-11689838854977029032012-01-09T14:00:46.701-06:002012-01-09T14:00:46.701-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04545136904013515628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2160623360319672192.post-32408552314056588592012-01-09T13:59:12.056-06:002012-01-09T13:59:12.056-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04545136904013515628noreply@blogger.com