Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by pedrorizzo

  1. I am not attacking anyone my friend. I can get a bit rough sometimes though when i debate and i apologise for that. However, I dont like being ranted at or preached at, when I express my opinion. I agree that I have realist thinking. I do have some spiritual thinking as well, but when talking about worldly subjects such as leadership and politics, which are not really anyting to do with spirituality and jeevan, therefore, I will approach these subjects from a realist or worldly perspective because that is the most sensible thing to do. Regarding materialism, I do not really understand where that comes from. I think that you have chosen the wrong word. It does not really have any relevance here, unless you can explain why. Regarding fooling myself, and not accepting the bitter truth etc, again that is pretty irrelevant because in theory I could just turn around and say the same thing to you. Just because you have convinced yourself that you know the truth does not make it right. Conversely, the same thing goes for me as well
  2. There are no mistakes just different perspectives. I understand Sikhi and I understand you and where you are coming from. I have met people with similar views such as yourself both in the Gurdwara, at camps and at University. However I do not accept your version of Sikhi and I do not accept your version of political events and I do not accept, more relevantly, to this topic, your definitions and criteria of subjectivity, objectivity, and what defines a good leader. Your strong points are practice of Sikhi and preaching about Sikhi. However, you dont really seem to understand anything else unless it is viewed through that lens. Make no mistake, I understand you and where you are coming from. However, that does not mean that I like it or agree with it.
  3. Like I said before you and I are on completely different wavelengths and have completely different views. I have heard you repeat yourself numerous times and I have this kind of thinking from many other people such as yourself. It is basically narrow minded and I dont agree with it. You have completely convinced yourself with your own nonsense and I'm glad that you think you have won the argument and I congratulate you on your victory. I dont really have anything else to say that I havent said already. I'm not gonna post anymore on this thread because we are just going round in circles. Might catch you a different thread sometime. Goodnight.
  4. In that case you should definitely contest the SGPC election. You are clearly leadership material and will do great things....
  5. hahaha. And maybe you will find the truth about me being an RSS agent and find enough evidence to prosecute me for that as well. You are so totally in love with yourself and your unquestionable authority... Have you ever applied for the job of being an admin on this site or something like that? I think you would make an excellent sheriff in the internet Sikh police force!
  6. Well clearly you dont have any powers of self reflection and are completely unable to see how you may have caused offence. Unfortunately, I am not surprised as I have met lots of people like yourself who see themselves as high and mighty and look down on others and jump on them if they try to have a bit of a joke. You enjoy the role of being everyones baba/bebe and correcting everybody like some kind of supreme authority. Well one thing I have learnt about you, is that you are to be avoided, in the same way that I avoid other people like you. I will save my 'jokes' for less uptight and self-righteous people.
  7. You and I will never agree, because we have fundamental differences in what we class as subjective and objective. I have already defined to you what I regard to be subjective and objective in my other posts but you see it differently and have used a different criteria to define it. Actually, I am not here to challenge peoples' practice and experience of Sikhi in a subjective sense. To me, someones practice of Sikhi, their jeevan and their Sikhi viewpoint is all subjective. By that I mean that noone can look inside another persons soul or mind and tell you what their spiritual experience is. My posts relating to this topic actually have very little to do with spirituality. I am simply judging leaders using the criteria that leaders should be judged by and by looking at the circumstances that are relevant to the emergence of a leader. To me, their subjective practice of Sikhi doesnt necessarily have much relevance to their ability to be a leader. For example, someone could be a great Sikh, a great bhagat etc but may not be a very good political leader. Someone else may be a great political leader but actually have a pretty rubbish jeevan as a Sikh, like Maharajah Ranjit Singh did. So in answer to your question about using the correct test for the correct circumstances, I feel that I am doing a better job than you are because I feel that I am judging people by the correct qualities for a person in that particular role. To translate that in your language, I am using a 'worldly criteria' in order to judge a persons 'worldly qualities'. I am not however using a 'worldly criteria' to judge their 'sikhi qualities' because that would indeed be impossible and irrelevant because the wrong test has been used. Regarding your point about insults, I am not mad with you and you havent upset me. However, I do think that your views are narrow-minded because you judge everything through a purely spiritual lens and do not seem to acknowledge that for worldly things, a worldly criteria must be used.
  8. Well you yourself have been less than respectful with your own insults and attacks. Perhaps you yourself need to come off your high horse and treat other people how you would like to be treated yourself. Do you find your beliefs being challenged as scary? That could be the only reason that you could consider alternative views being expressed as scare mongering.
  9. Regarding the point about matrimoinals, I think that the Gurdwara has to point out differences and preferences. Regardless of whether or not they are in keeping with Sikhi, these differences and preferences are important to the Community itself, hence the reason that they have been highlighted in the first place. Plus, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, people should be allowed to make the choices they want. It also avoids problems and misunderstandings later down the line when the families and/or individuals meet.
  10. The above is the most sensible point of the debate. You cant control the attraction switches in a female or blame them for feeling attracted to whatever they are... nor can you expect them to be attracted to sardars out of a sense of duty. The responsibility lies with sardars to make themselves attractive, both inwardly and outwardly. The fact is, alot of sardars are not. Globally, our attractiveness as a group of people is actually pretty low... alot of this is associated with the behaivour and attributes associated with our brand. We have to take responsiblity for this ourselves.
  11. I dont know where this whole idea of secularism and scholars have come from. Never once have I stated that I am a secularist and never once have I stated that I am a scholar. You clearly have very strong and passionate views about Sikhi and about Sikh history. Some of your stuff I agree with and some of it I dont agree with. Your tone seems like your trying to convince me how great Sikhs are, how great Sikhi is and how great Sikhi history is. Well if that is what you are trying to do, you dont need to because I know how great it all is. I was simply trying to give an objective analysis on how I think leadership can emerge in the Sikh community. Does that make me a scholar or a secularist, not really. However I do like to try and be, as far as possible, objective. That means weighing up the good and the bad. Objectivity, is something lacking in our community at the moment. If we could step out of our own shoes, for a second, we might actually be able to understand the things that are happening to us a bit better and solve our problems. At the moment, we just keeping having the same problems again and again.... fake babeh, attacks on Sikhi, beadbi, traitors in the Panth etc.... dont you want to try and solve some of these problems? You seem to have the wrong idea about what I am trying to say... as if I have come here to try and challenge your Sikhi views. Its as if as soon as someone talks about objectivity, they must be some dodgey scholar like Kala Afghana or Dilgeer or someone like that.
  12. I agree that there is no such thing as true objectivity because of natural bias or a persons own environment and experience. It is an interesting point. However, the difference between you and I, is that I am willing to step out of the Sikhi lens to try and understand a situation and you are not. You are of the belief that understanding is lost, I am of the belief that understanding is gained. In some ways, its good that you are so unflinching in your Sikhi views. In other ways, I find it a bit scary to be honest. It demonstrates a lack of ability to empathise and understand things from other peoples point of view. To me, it is the true definition of narrow-mindedness.
  13. When I use the words subjective and objective, I am referring to the art of looking at things through a Sikh lens and a non-Sikh lens. Because we are ourselves Sikhs, looking at something through a Sikh lens is subjective and looking through a non-Sikh lens could be but is not necessarily, if you want to be technical, objective. It would be objective if one were to be neutral. However, if were to look at the situation through say an RSS hindu lens, yes it is a non-Sikh perspective, but it is not neutral, hence it cannot be objective. There is no insult here, either intentional or unintentional. What I am talking about here is the ability to step out of our own shoes and view the situation by being neutral and attempt to improve our understanding of a situation. Thanks bhenji.
  14. Sorry bhenji, I dont speak Gujerati I'm afraid... On that night, I wish you and all the rest of the Sikhsangat Panth a happy goodnight. Always a pleasure. Night xxx I meant note *
  15. Well you should treat people how you want to be treated then. If you speak to me respectfully, then I'll reply respectfully.
  16. Well since your the nutjob robot, I am surprised and actually quite impressed that you know what a debate is. Congratulations. I dont have too many problems at the moment but I will be sure to sort them out. Thank your for showing your concern. No wasnt referring to you at all. I actually like alot of your posts, the way that you think and approach topics on the forum anyway Ok cool. Fair enough. I hope we understand better where each other is coming from anyway.
  17. I have just that dharam, should not be disregarded but should be given the highest level of importance. However the problem with you people is that you have turned this into the usual dharam verus scholars debate. How many times do I need to say that I believe that both are important and both have their place.
  18. So basically you have just continued with your flippant tone and just repeated the point that I made earlier on anyway. 'This is the objectivity which you and your so called non Sikh intellectuals should be aware of.' The thrust of my whole argument has been about objectivity so I am well aware of it but thankyou very much anyway.
  19. Bro, there is plenty of space in this world for both schools of thought. If you consider the scholars to be stubborn or egotistical, are the spiritualists and/or parchariks any less? I am no scholar and I am no parcharik. However, I acknowledge the importance of both in their own respective roles. I wish that you could just see that. There is no need to fear academia or scholars, in fact it should be embraced. So should dharam. I believe in embracing everything.
  20. I agree that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was special and Daduwal is no comparison. What you said about 'The person lacking dharma will say Sant ji had a certain style and ways to use words to pull people or the circumstance was the reason'.... I can see where you are coming from because I am a Sikh and have a little bit of dharam in me. However objectively, a non-Sikh or someone who did not follow Jarnail Singh would see it the way that I have described it. I prefer to remain objective on alot of these matters because I think that it wouldnt not be sensible to discard the role that style, charisma and circumstances played in the rise and emergence of Jarnail Singh. After all, it played a role in the emergence of other powerful great leaders in history and in the present day, so why could they not apply to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale?
  21. I'm pretty certain that Satguru doesnt discourage this kind of thinking. After all, if we all agreed with your view point, we would all be living in caves, wearing nothing and throwing spears. I can appreciate that 'worldly knowledge' is of no importance to you and that it is not really your thing. I havent got a problem with that. However, attempting to stop progress by not allowing people who want to think creatively to do their thing is just downright ridiculous. Everyone has their place and role within the panth... we need parchariks, soldiers, sewadars, politicans, thinkers, doctors... we need everybody. Like I said, if you yourself prefer to just do your paath and focus inwardly on your jeevan, then I give you props. However, if you think that this is all that is required for the panth, and broadly speaking for the rest of the world to survive, then I would say that you are pretty deluded.
  22. Despite your flippant tone, I will try and answer your question, and help you understand where I am coming from, though I suspect that I will struggle. Regarding my views on this topic, just read my initial post, there is not really a lot for me to add on there. When I use the word 'comic' I dont mean 'comical' as in funny. I mean that Sikh history/politics/history and even religion to a certain extent always seem to be taught in a very simplistic and over-glorified manner. I feel that the problem with this is that whilst it might make us feel good/confident etc, in the same way as say listening to dhadi does, it is not always the most in-depth way of understanding ourselves and our experience. It actually becomes a hindrance for true analysis to take place. In order to do that we have to keep a level of objectivity and attempt to understand how other communities or a non-Sikh would view us. Only then can we make progress. I feel that Sikhs as a community keep falling into the same cycles over and over again throughout history. Unless we try the process that I am suggesting, I think that we will continue to have the same problems. We were talking earlier about leadership. What I was trying to explain in my posts was how Sikh power and leadership had emerged in the past and how it may emerge in the future, realistically. Some people will be content with the spiritual explanation that all 'great leaders' are simply sent by Akal Purakh when the time is right. I dont have a problem with this and ultimately, Gurbani teaches this to be true. Me personally, I like to try and think laterally, and see how this might manifest itself in the flesh and/or in reality. I appreciate that many of the guys on this forum are deeply spiritual/religious people and maybe dont like academics or academic style explanations. You yourself may just dismiss me as a coconut/gorafied etc.. but in all honesty, I am just trying to help and raise the intellectual level of the debate.
  23. I dont really understand the points that you are trying to make. I dont feel like I have dissed either of these two great Sikhs. All I have done is given my own opinion on what leadership/power is, and how that may, in a real world apply to Sikhs. You may also one day learn that there is more at play than your own simplistic comic book version of events. At the end of the day you and I are approaching this topic form two totally different viewpoints. I dont really have a problem with you having your opinion, after all this is a forum, and that is what debate is supposed to be all about.
  24. Sorry bruv, dont mean to be rude but your englis not good is very, so I cants reads it properlys innit.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use