Talk:Sikh philosophy

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
	This redirect was last assessed in April 2012.

Sikhism

This redirect is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism articles

Philosophy

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

poor article

this article seems to be about peoples own projections and ideas ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balvinder1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No relations with muslim women?

I don't think this was ever stated in the Guru Granth Sahib, this goes against the very foundations of Sikhism. Someone else either correct me, or remove it completely.

Semantics

The Australian author Bernard Dove invented the words “shi” and “hir” to be used about hermaphroditic beings in his science fiction stories. However, “hy” and “hym” are used about being that can change between male and female. Maybe the “brotherhood” should be referred to as“siblinghood”? I have also made up a religion for a space opera game that speaks about God as “she”. The explanation is that the believers imagine God as being both male and female and such beings are referred to with feminine forms in their largest language.

2007-02-26 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

God's Spirit?

I have a problem with the following paragraph. The implication is that animals are capable of the same level of consciousness as humans. I am not aware of any such belief in Sikhism. The implication is also that Sikhs animal worship. This is not true

#God’s spirit: All creatures have God’s spirits and must be properly respected. Show love for all living things. Mistreatment or harming of any living creature is tabooed and forbidden. Remember, your next birth may be as a different animal.

Sikh's acknowlege that God is within those who are capable of being a Gurmukh, i.e. those capable of higher consciousness, on our planet there is only one creature capable of this, and that is the human.

To the poster of this section:

I don't believe that Sikhs believe that God is only within beings with "higher consciousness." That statement, in fact, defies the foundations of Sikhism. Japji Sahib clearly says:

"hukam rajaa-ee chalnaa naanak likhi-aa naal Says Nanak, By Abiding by the Command of God, which is written along with everyone!"

You are right in implying that Sikhism does not acknowledge that animals are of the same level of consciousness as humans. I don't think that that's what the section that you quoted implies at all, though. What it implies is simply that we must respect all living things. (71.166.8.176 (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Muslim Women

I don't recall a statement that said sikhs cannot touch Muslim women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.244.45 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This statement goes against so many of the foundations of Sikhism. I don't believe I remember reading anywhere that Guru Ji prohibited Sikhs from touching a Muslim woman. If a citation cannot be found, maybe it's best to remove the statement.(71.166.8.176 (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It was an edict from the 10th Sikh Guru preventing Sikh men from having relations with Muslim women. This was more to do with preserving relations with Muslims, who do not allow Muslim women to marru out of thier religion. SH 07:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No merge given no support, uncontested opposition and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Prohibitions in Sikhism, Three pillars of Sikhism, Five Virtues and Five Thieves into this article.

Merge - The content in the Prohibitions in Sikhism, Three pillars of Sikhism, Five Virtues and Five Thieves articles can easily be explained in the context of Sikh philosophy Tindy1986 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Sikh philosophy article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Prohibitions in Sikhism, Three pillars of Sikhism, Five Virtues and Five Thieves will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Tindy1986 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Prohibitions in Sikhism, Three pillars of Sikhism, Five Virtues and Five Thieves contains overlapping material Tindy1986 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Prohibitions in Sikhism, Three pillars of Sikhism, Five Virtues and Five Thieves contains little text if all non-referenced information is removed Tindy1986 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Prohibitions in Sikhism, Three pillars of Sikhism, Five Virtues and Five Thieves as an article on its own requires context of Sikh philosophy to be understood by a novice reader Tindy1986 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It appears all, verifiable, NPOV and relevant material that needs to be transferred to the Sikh philosophy article from Prohibitions in Sikhism, Three pillars of Sikhism, Five Virtues and Five Thieves has been transferred Tindy1986 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge -
Don't merge - I would like time to review the very well phrased proposal to merge. I am partisan to the notion that such things should have their own article, though my grasp of Wikipedian best practice may be dated. I'd like to review, if my views on this yet matter. -SM 07:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.