BhForce

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

Well, then. You seem to think that the way of marriage of every Sikh before the advent of dating is, as you put it, "interesting". You seem to have put the entire thrust of your argument on whether I saw my wife before marriage or not. (By the way, Guru Nanak ji did not, just in case you think they were weird, too.) And also, I think you're problem is not with me, but rather with Bhai Gurdas ji and Guru Sahib and their faithful Sikhs who don't go bar-crawling for sexual partners. Anyway, let me ask: 1) according to you, does the Sikh philosophy of treating women only stand if I didn't see my wife before marriage? 2) or does it still stand if certain Sikhs (like during the time of the 10 Gurus) didn't date. 3) and if #1 or #2 are accepted, then will you accept the Gurmat view of treating women? If you won't accept #3, then why even ask?

Look, bro, I did not ask you a personal question (about whether you would date your sister). It was a general question. I don't know if you even have a sister, or are a male in the first place, nor did I ask. I asked if you would. I responded similarly to your question. I have already responded, and you have no need to browbeat me for personal information (i.e., whether I have a wife in the first place or am male, or whatever). It would be different if you were sitting right in front of me. I don't know and can't know if you are a Sikh, a Muslim, or whatever. It's really strange for you to say that presenting a Gurmat doctrine from an actual tuk is being "holier than thou." So let me ask you, do think the same of every single Sikh and Guru from Guru Nanak Dev ji onward?

Oh, really? 1. It's ਸਿੱਖੀ, not Sikhi. What is Sikhi?? 2. Do tell what the definition of Sikhi is. 3. Please give the definition of "ism"

Right. It's just that people (who didn't have scientific knowledge) took that to be the first sign of life. And then, without any basis, they then took it to be the point where the soul enters the body. Which is something that they can believe in if they want. The problem comes about when Yogi Bhajan picks up that piece of superstition and passes it off to his followers as some kind of legitimate Sikh belief.

OK, well the late Bhai Jagraj Singh served in the UK Army and apparently it was a good experience for him, so you might want to consider it. Good luck.

Well, I'm not you, so I don't know what level of Sikhism you are at. Just whatever it is that you do (go to the Gurdwara once a year, or once a month, do Japji Sahib once in a while or do Nitnem everyday, drink or eat meat or not), ask her whether she would be OK with that.

Which country?

Look, I just wanted to say that I realized that this all might seem totally new to you, just because of your background. Maybe nobody ever told you that Sikhs aren't supposed to date, and that's why you think it's "interesting" what I stated. I assure you that I'm not making anything up, and there are multiple other tuks where that one came from. It's a well accepted a spect of our religion. I accept that you have a desire to firmly know the basis for a belief, too, and that's fine. Do please answer these questions that I asked above (they are not personal): 1. You surely accept the concept of dating is Western, do you not? 2. If not, go ahead and tell us the Punjabi word for dating. 3. State whether you are arguing from from Sikh tradition or Western mores.

No, I didn't mean that "you" as in @Akalifauj can't understand free will through discussions. I meant that "you" as in "one" or anyone (including me) cannot understand free will merely through discussions. The entire point to my posting the Gurbani lines was to provide support to your statement: The first line is basically your sentence, only in Gurbani terms: ਇਕਿ ਆਪੇ ਉਝੜਿ ਪਾਇਅਨੁ ਇਕਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਲਾਇਅਨੁ ॥ Some, He causes to wander in the wilderness, while others are committed to His devotional worship The second line says that only those people understand who are given understanding by God: ਜਿਸੁ ਆਪਿ ਬੁਝਾਏ ਸੋ ਬੁਝਸੀ ਆਪੇ ਨਾਇ ਲਾਈਅਨੁ ॥ He alone understands, whom the Lord causes to understand; He Himself attaches mortals to His Name. By saying that "you can't understand free will through discussions" I didn't mean to take a hard position on whether free will exists or not, merely to state that the full understanding whether we have free will and to what extent can only be known when God causes us to understand (ਜਿਸੁ ਆਪਿ ਬੁਝਾਏ ਸੋ ਬੁਝਸੀ).

Go ahead and post those news articles or stories, please.

Right. It's important to keep that in mind. A new city was being planned, and religious places were built for various groups. It's not like Guru Sahib had any special love for the Muslims.

OK, that context makes sense, thanks.

What are you even doing, bro? I made an entirely uncontroversial statement that dating is not allowed in Sikhism. Now you want to ask me if I ever so much as said hello to my wife (if i have one) before the conclusion of the 4 lavan and ardas?? Talk about moving the goalposts! Also, I already answered your question. Why do you feel a need to ask a second time?

OK, that's fine, but it would have been good to note some context.