BhForce

Good statement. What boggles me is how people are making fun of Sikhs for supposedly "not even talking with girls" and then taking that and equating talking with "friendships". It's one thing to talk with a co-ed or co-worker. It's quite another to have a relationship with them. Also, there are different types of "friends". If by "friend" you mean just being pleasant to people that you see at work, that's fine. If you mean meeting up alone after work, you're on the path to bajjar kurehit (fornication).

There's a vast amount of difference between "talking to another girl" and a "friendship". The Sikh view on this is one which has been posted before on this website. It's simply think of the person of the opposite sex like you would your sister. So if you wouldn't want to get it on with your sister, then don't think of that way with your female co-worker. And be honest, most people's entire reasons for engaging with female co-workers or co-eds is to get it on.

Behead those who say Sikhism is violent! (Just a take on an actual photo where some jihadi is carrying a sign saying "Behead those who say Islam is violent." Lol.)

What I asked is if you would do accounting for free, not teach Sikh music for free. Or plumbing, or doing truck deliveries, or programming, or whatever else it is that people do for money. And granted that people do seva for free, but that's your dasvandh (1/10th). That can obviously never be what your main work is, unless you're a multi-millionaire. If someone teaches music for free, that's wonderful, but that doesn't mean someone who charges for it is immoral. Also, there's no way someone could become a master of 60 raags in his spare time and then keep up his knowledge, too.

That seems to be highly unlikely. "Elders who weren't thinking about any profit"? That would maybe be like some old lady teaching a neighbor kid how to play a shabad or two on a harmonium. I can't imagine how that would apply to a full-fledged ustad who has learned from top ustads and has learned and is teaching 60 raags of Guru Granth Sahib. Sixty. The vast majority of people (even some "ragis") don't even know one. That too on a dilbruba? The vast majority of even professional ragis wouldn't know how to even play sa-re-ga-ma on a dilruba, much less 60 raags. To want someone of that level of learning and accomplishment to work for free is just wrong, I'm sorry. It's disrespect of his scholarship. To the OP: you need to get your life in order. I don't know if you're a student or what, but get a job. Earn money, learn the value of a dollar or a pound, and then give that money with the greatest respect to an accomplished ustad, and you will earn some benefit. Otherwise you're devaluing our musical heritage.

ਗੁਪਤੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਸੰਗਿ ਸੋ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਡਹਕਾਵਏ ਮਨੁਖਾਇ ॥ You may act in secrecy, but God is still with you; you can only deceive other people. ਬਿਸਾਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਬਿਖੈ ਭੋਗਹਿ ਤਪਤ ਥੰਮ ਗਲਿ ਲਾਇ ॥੧॥ Forgetting your Dear Lord, you enjoy corrupt pleasures, and so you shall have to embrace red-hot pillars. ||1|| Page 1001

What's Basics doing these days? Is it taking a liberal bent like Nanak Naam? It's amazing what sort of stuff you can say when you've got a beard.

I think it is extremely naive of you to think that someone should spend their time giving you individual instruction for free. What line of work are you in or are planning to go into? Would you do accounting work for free?

I can't help but say that this may be the case, but how can any of us honestly begrudge accomplished masters their due? I mean, we all (or our parents) are engineers, doctors, lawyers, shopkeepers, businessowners, etc., earning a lot of money. If someone among us takes the time to learn dozens of raags and the fine points of playing stringed instruments, how can we expect them to spend their time on us for free? After all, ustad work doesn't have a retirement plan.

Well, we could have. I mean, if the close-to-failing jihadi state of Pakistan can have basically nuclear parity with India, we certainly could have had a space program if we hadn't lost the Sikh Raj. Israel does.

I think we need to be careful. If we are to grow, it will naturally entail nonPanjabis becoming Sikhs - I think it is dangerous to equate this to the issue you are referring to (which is an important, but a separate one). Clarification to both @dallysingh101 and @MisterrSingh: I didn't mean to say that you can't have non-Punjabis among Punj Piyare. That's fine. What I was making fun of was the thought among leftists (adopted by apne) that you have to have mandatory quotas among every group. So it's OK to have a non-Punjabi in the Punj Piyare. It's not OK to look around for non-Punjabis just for the sake of it, perhaps forgetting the selection criteria (hopefully faithfulness to Parmatma) along the way. I was also mocking the difficult mathematics involved in getting 3 "women", and 2 "men", some possibly homosexual, others transitioned, maybe one intersex all the while also trying to get the racial diversity "right" as well. The way the left is currently going, we won't even be able to have a requirement for speaking the 5 banis, much less have them memorized, because that would discriminate against the mute. If we were to follow along those lines, we would find ourselves in the position of the Church of England: no followers, empty churches, except as tourist curiosities.

hypocrite. the living guru is jus an 'it' to u now? I don't think that's what he meant. I think he just mean "it" in the way it's commonly used in English. "It" doesn't refer to anything, it's just the way you construct the sentence in English. I.e., It's raining. What's raining? Nothing. "Read books. It'll help your English". It doesn't refer to books because books is plural, it is singular. Rather it refers to "reading." Or "Call your Mom. It'll help you." Here "it" refers to "calling". Similarly, "it will help you" refers to the act of reading Guru Granth Sahib ji. "it" does not refer to Guru Granth Sahib.

Yes. And the Sikh panth will be like the Christian denominations who hilariously don't believe in really anything anymore, other than whatever the latest idea of the day is from the "hip" intellectuals. If you're only a year or so behind the curve, you're a racist, you're an able-ist, a homophobe, transphobe, etc. This, by the way, is in itself a good idea to keep sex-segregated seating in Gurdwaras, because it underlines the idea of two sexes. You will see a push for mixed seating for exactly this reason (that otherwise people have to make a binary choice). Also, you'll see people questioning Guru Gobind Singh ji's decision to make a binary split on sex naming his Khalsa members "Singh" or "Kaur". Since these explicitly split up Sikhs into male and female, that'll be the 1st thing on the chopping block. Mixed Panj Piyare. It'll be like a diversity parade. Every Punj Piyare will have to have 3 "women" and 2 "men", 1 of them, of course, transitioned to something, or nothing. 1 of them African, 1 white, 1 Indian, 1 Pacific Islander, maybe 1 Punjabi. 1 of them, at least, disabled. So they won't be able to sit in bir asan, of course. They'll have chairs in front of the Amrit bata. And so will the sangat. 1 of them will not even be able to speak, so they'll just use a voice synthesizer--Steven Hawkins-style.

Sure. It's just strange that merely not wanting to go down the road Westerners have gone down (free sex, pre-marital sex, not marrying, bathhouse homosexual culture, becoming a female from a man and then back again whenever you feel like it) is considered "oppression" by Satpal Singh.

It's one thing to say, "here's a video, I'm linking to it but not endorsing it whatsoever." It's quite another to say "Well done to the makers of this show." "I always have and always will support a person's right to live as they wish to without hatred and oppression." What hatred and oppression? Like @dallysingh101 pointed out, we don't throw gays off buildings. That's an Muslim specialty. All we're saying is don't present homosexuality as a favored lifestyle. Because young people who are unsure of themselves are attracted towards that kind of stuff. "Another person may may agree or understand with it, but Gurmat values have demonstrated in the past that the duty of spiritually aligned people is to defend the rights of others towards freedom of expression, with no exceptions." With no exceptions? Really? Such a blunt and uncompromising statement? Who is the extremist here? "Please watch with an open-mind." Does he have a mind open to the possibility that going down the same road as Westerners will also lead to failed marriages and declining population, leading to national suicide? "P.S. I won't be entering into any lengthy discussions in the comments section." OK, so I guess he reserves the right to make snarky 1-line comments accusing people of "homophobia" but not any "lengthy" discussions in which he'd have to defend his position?

Good point. The marketing departments of big corporations and ad agencies are dominated by women (and homosexuals in the mix). I don't if I want to say "it's only natural" that they would portray men as idiots, but that's what they are in fact doing.

Is that right? Do you have a link so something about that? Sikhri has done some good stuff, but also some very controversial and divisive stuff. Well, he wears a round turban and has a big beard, so I guess that's good enough for some people to think he must have authority from God. Does he wear neela bana, too? Could you please post a link?

Every one of your points is great. Who are you? Get a free account and keep posting. Please.

Don't shame him for asking a quesiton, bro. Plenty of Sikh kids in the West (and India!) think Sikhi is just some minor religion, and maybe Christianity is the real deal because the Christians never cease to remind us that Jesus is "the way, the truth and the light." It's better for him to ask and get an answer out there that someone reading this board can learn from than to not ask the question. As for the "singhni's pic", it's a made-up painting (of Mata Bhago ji?). It's not like it's someone he secretly took a picture of in college. Agreed.

Your quotes are appreciated, but please don't post larivar (unbroken) Gurbani. The people on this site are learners, if they already knew enough Gurbani to read in in larivar, they wouldn't need to ask questions.

I would have to disagree with you there. Granted that there is no mention of "homosexuality". But I don't think that's the point. Sikhism is not concerned merely with the divine and supernatural. It is also concerned with the worldly and temporal, because we exist in the physical world. Also not mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib is weapons, war, politics, and so on. Saying that "Sikhism doesn't give two hoots about anyone's sexuality" is simply wrong. Religion is something that people turn to for advice in life. Sikhism recommends that people marry and have children. What you're saying is what Westerners believe in the 21st century. And they have 50% divorce rates, and their fertility rates are below population replacement, meaning their nations will die. What you're promoting for Sikhism is national suicide for the Sikh panth. Agree here. We should neither throw homosexuals off buildings like the Muslims do, nor should we promote it like Westerners are doing. We should merely tolerate them.

No, I'm not playing. I'm just asking you to sketch out what we should be doing in relation to miri (temporal aspect of Sikhism) without leading to more fights in the Gurdwara, thereby alienating more young people. I do agree that miri should have a place in the Gurdwara.

Well, what else? I mean we have the food thing pretty well covered with langar. Help with doing your taxes at the end of the fiscal year? Help with kakkars at work? I think we have Sikh Coalition and such for that. Anything else? I do think marriage counseling is a big one.

Woul that not be problematic? I mean we have enough religious fights as it is. What if you added to that Giani ji opining on Brexit being good or bad? Or what the tax rate is supposed to be in whatever country you live in? Lol. I assume you're talking about Sant Dhadrianwale?

I think what you're saying is if you don't want to live in hukum regarding sexuality, it doesn't make sense to live in hukum regarding your hair. We should always be wary of men (and perhaps women too) interacting with kids in closed spaces without supervision or people passing by.