BhForce

Well, you're advised not to. That said, you can do anything you want. It doesn't say exactly. Guru Granth Sahib ji is not a huge rulebook like the Old Testament or something. The basic principle is that we should accept the will of God. Aging is in his will, and we shouldn't try to be something that we are not. We should not try to pretend to be young, we should simply happily accept old age, and eventually death. They are not "Singhs". They're afraid of someone seeing them with white hairs. They are wimps. They are tankhaiyas (transgressors). Of course, anybody can do anything they want. But they should not claim to be "Singhs" and then tell "non-Singhs" that it's OK to violate the Rehit. That's not why they use dye. The fact that they get grey hair is not why they dye. They dye because they're trying to pretend not to be old. It's like saying, "I get tired, and that's why I use heroin."

That's not what he asked. He asked if just sitting there listening to your breath counts as "meditation".

Just as a clarification, it was 1 million Pakistani Rupees, not dollars. So about $7500 or so. Not nothing, but not a million dollars, either. Still, this is just as silly as the government of Indian Punjab giving awards to the widows of Indian soldiers who die fighting: That's not their responsibility. It's the responsibility of the employers of the soldiers (the Government of India).

SMH

OK. So SHDF is what you would recommend for Sikhs to give money to? Why don't you create a topic to promote greater awareness of it?

Yes, they did look the other way. Or not. There was an article about jihadi brides "managing the household" including newly acquired sex slaves.

I'm sure that radio segment was a bomb.

Yeah, just to clarify I wasn't trying to get into the Pakistan-India debate here, just saying that a soldier, any soldier is employed by a government, which is responsible for that soldier. Does anybody know what Ravi Singh was thinking?

Huh? That was the UK Sikhs, not the US Sikhs.

No kidding. What do we even care for "brave Pakistani soldiers"? This is even nuttier than Khalsa Aid rushing to help Muslims that rich Arabs can't be bothered to help. News flash: soldiers are employed by a state. That state pays them.

Yes, both.

Of course there is, bro. The Europeans, though, are too stupid to recognize and deal with the threat. Swedish city to offer returning Isis fighters housing and benefits in reintegration programme https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-isis-fighters-city-lund-returning-jihadis-housing-job-education-benefits-reintegration-a7371266.html So the jihadis will be giving a free living in order to have their housing, etc., taken care of while they peruse the Koran for inspiration in killing infidels. Head-palm level stupidity.

What you are doing is physically relaxing. That's good for your physical health, but it doesn't do you any spiritual good. Gurbani says to remember God via the Word, not mere meditation (without the Shabad): ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਸਬਦਿ ਅਰਾਧੀਐ ਨਾਮਿ ਰੰਗਿ ਬੈਰਾਗੁ ॥ Through the Word of the Guru's Shabad, I worship and adore the Naam, with love and balanced detachment. p1425 ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬਿੰਦੈ ਤਿਸ ਦਾ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਤੁ ਰਹੈ ਏਕ ਸਬਦਿ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥ The person who focuses his attention through the one Shabad who recognizes God preserves his Brahminism. p649

The question was literally this: The answer is, I would have to say, "Yes". People do use the term Upar Wala. The next question is: Is there anything wrong with that word. It's quite difficult for me to condemn someone using the term Uppar Wala, because the term has Gurbani backing. Whether any specific parcharak may have every used the term, I don't know. But now that the question has been asked, I'm sure I will notice it when someone does. Most Punjabis use the word Rabb for God.

The words a certain person (you?) may have grown up with may be the same or different than the words used in Gurbani. There is nothing wrong in using Gurbani-approved metaphors or words, including Allah, Khuda, Gusain, Swami, Takhur, Parvadgaar, Beethal, mountain, and even the dreaded uppar-vala. The word "uppar-vala" literally means "the one who is above" which is what the line from Gurbani I quoted references. The Guru is above us.

Respectfully, I do not believe I am missing the point of the pangti. The line clearly states that Guru ji stands over (uppar) us. What is the problem if someone calls God uppar-vala? The fact that "most" of Gurbani states that Guru is ang-sang does not negate this particular metaphor. In fact your statement admits that "some" of Gurbani uses some other metaphor. Sikhs can call God or Guru ji uppar-vala (borrowing a metaphor from Gurbani). Or they can call him "sabh ton vadda" (greates of all). Or parbat (mountain). Or malik (lord). And so on.

No, Gurbani clearly states that the Guru stands uppar (over) us: ਸਿਰ ਊਪਰਿ ਠਾਢਾ ਗੁਰੁ ਸੂਰਾ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਤਾ ਕੇ ਕਾਰਜ ਪੂਰਾ ॥੭॥ The Brave and Powerful Guru stands over his head. O Nanak, his efforts are fulfilled. ||7||

Thanks for providing context in your latest news story post.

Yeah, that's the key point. People go around asking, I've been with a guy for five years, and he's so wonderful, I want to get married, what do I do. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what were you doing dating him in the first place?

Also, another point that I was trying to get across to Sukhvirk is that merely seeing and conversing with someone is hardly what Westerners call dating.

No, I accept that there is change, either for the better or the worse, in many areas. But that's like drinking or cutting hair or eating halal whatever. I don't have a problem with whatever somebody wants to do. I'd just have a problem if someone claims that that is the actual Sikh maryada or tradition. I fully realize that there are Sikhs who have taste for kutha, but I'd have a big problem if they tried to claim what they do as the actual Sikh tradition. As it is, I'm have a very interesting conversation with @Sukhvirk1976 to clarify things, including where I might be wrong.

Are you kidding, bro? You mentioned that Japji Sahib discusses free will extensively. I just very politely asked you to post them so we can discuss them, because of course a lot of teekakars have differences of arths on various tuks. It's amazing that you leapt asking for a tuk to calling me an agent of the GOI. FYI, someone asked me for "the tuk" in another thread just yesterday. So I just posted it (even though I had posted it before in the same thread). I did not berate them for daring to ask for a tuk. If everybody already knows everything, then we can just shut down this board, right? And also no need for teekas, because everyone already knows everything.

Frustration in being able to explain a matter to someone else is generally correlated with fuzzy thinking. You do realize that verbalized words are sounds, don't you? I was asking you whether "baby" and "fetus" have semiotic content, or are merely meaningless sounds (like a grunt). In response, you have given what I take to be your definition of the words. Is it really, now? In what medical school or premed, nursing school, or biology course is a baby defined as "a person"? That's a scientific definition? I'd like to know exactly how you mean your definition. Do you mean to say that that all non-persons are fetuses? So your dog is a fetus? How does your statement that "a baby is a person" clarify the debate? Why don't you try again?

Care to share?

No problem, I welcome spirited debate, including getting into the nitty-gritty, but then you also have to be prepared for questioning in return. ਦੇਖਿ ਪਰਾਈਆ ਚੰਗੀਆ ਮਾਵਾਂ ਭੈਣਾਂ ਧੀਆਂ ਜਾਣੈ। Vaar 29, Pauri 11