BhForce

I actually support SIKHISM RELIGION and I think we should water down the Sikh Dharam even more until we just accept Sant Baba Jesus Singh Christ and completely adopt the Abrahamic Framework.  Now you're just babbling incoherently because you've been caught in a lie. I was actually looking forward to what kind of elaborate story you would concoct to keep up the pretense of your following pre-British Sikhi. The fact is any such attempt would have collapsed badly under its own weight, so you have chosen to post irrelevant statements.

Sure. The puratan Singhs were amazing men. One can't praise them enough. All I was doing was reacting to somebody who posted a strange, childish, and dopey response which seemed to imply that I in any way was a proponent of post-British invasion innovations in our faith. By pretending to be a savior of pre-British Sikhism, he opened himself up to questioning. He would have been advised to simply not answer the question. Unfortunately, he's gotten himself into a pickle by claiming to have a 3ft kirpan on his person as viewing this website. Props to you for admitting that you like wearing chola, but aren't able to do it all the time. Better to admit to what you than pretend to be something you're not. Better than 99 to 1 odds that he doesn't drink samundar in a sarb loh bata but rather Starbucks in a plastic/paper cup.

Yes I do I see. You're sitting at your computer wearing a chola with a 3 ft kirpan in your gatra. I'll leave it to the rest of Sikhsangat.com to judge the likeliness of that. Also, do you you wear a chola and 3ft kirpan everywhere you go (high school, college, factory, office, park), or do you submit to the sartorial wishes of the colonial masters against whom you rail? I.e., you only wear a chola and 3ft kirpan when you've sat at your computer and transformed into the savior of pre-British Sikhism?

Stop lying, it was called “Sikhism” by the Guru, that’s what Wikipedia says, so it must be true. Stop trying to change our glorious colonial history you Sanatanist Sikh. SIKHISM is the best RELIGION Very funny. Now let me ask you a question as you attempt to be the savior of pre-British Sikhism: Are you wearing a chola, kurta-pajama, or chadra as you type this? Or any time today? Also, do you have a 3-ft kirpan on you, as the pre-British invasion Sikhs did? Don't lie.

Depends on where the question is coming from. You asked your question in a humble way, and I responded to the best of my ability. It's one thing to say "I believe in the Gurus, and I'm just confused on this one thing, can you help me to understand?". It's another for some jihadi to come up and say "So, why didn't just Guru Nanak do everything? He must not have been powerful enough." Another reason I answered you is that sometimes Christians may ask this very question, since Jesus' ministry was only 3 years. That's not something that we need to worry about. Sikhs of whatever time period followed (and follow) the commands given to them up until that time. That doesn't make the previous Sikhs any less, because they were in full accordance with the hukums at that time. The Khalsa panth continues to evolve new hukums as necessary, and the devout Sikhs continue to obey them. (New hukums, or clarifications, like hukum about the Nirankaris, wedding venues, etc.) In any case, even if we were to assume Guru Nanak Dev ji spent a single lifetime doing parchar, a lifetime is about 70 years. Surely some people must have died in that time. So they would have been "deprived" of some hukum, some Gurbani, or another. You can even apply this to the parchar of Jesus. It was 3 years long. Again, someone died during those 3 years, right? People died before he turned water into wine, cured the lepers, etc. Someone died before the Last Supper, and he said that this wine is my blood, and this bread is my body. And before his death and resurrection. So people who died before that were deprived of the ability to have communion bread, because there was no doctrine of communion. And there was also no doctrine of everlasting life in Jesus, because there hadn't been a resurrection. So don't let Christians make the long period of the Gurus' parchar a point of confusion.

That's neither Gurbani nor from any puratan source, bro. It's just a prevalent religious line. I appreciate you asking it in the form of a question instead of blatantly making a categorical and demonstrably false assertion, as some people do on this forum. Some could consider your question a stupid question, but if you asked the question, I'm sure a bunch of other people may be wondering the same thing. The answer is, yes, it was called Sikhi. Bhai Gurdas ji used the term Gursikhi in his Vaars: ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖੀ ਦਾ ਸਿਖਣਾ ਨਾਦੁ ਨ ਵੇਦ ਨ ਆਖਿ ਵਖਾਣੈ। Gur Sikhee Daa Sikhanaa Naathhu N Vayd N Aakhi Vakhaanai | The discipline of the discipleship of the Guru is ineffable for the Vedas and all the melodies. ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖੀ ਦਾ ਲਿਖਣਾ ਲਖ ਨ ਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਗੁਪਤਿ ਲਿਖਿ ਜਾਣੈ। Gur Sikhee Daa |ikhanaa Lakh N Chitr Gupatilikhi Jaanai | Even Chitragupt, the writer of the accounts of the actions of the people, does not know how to write about the spirit of Sikh life. ਗੁਰਸਿਖੀ ਦਾ ਸਿਮਰਣੋ ਸੇਖ ਅਸੰਖ ਨ ਰੇਖ ਸਿਞਾਣੈ। Gur Sikhee Daa Simaranon Saykh Asankh N Raykh Siaanai | The glory of simaran, remembrance of the name of the Lord, cannot be known by myriad Seanags (thousand hooded mythical snake). ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖੀ ਦਾ ਵਰਤਮਾਨੁ ਵੀਹ ਇਕੀਹ ਉਲੰਘਿ ਪਛਾਣੈ। Gur Sikhee Daa Varatamaanu Veeh Ikeeh Ulaghi Pachhaanai | The conduct of the Sikh spirit can be known only by going beyond the worldly phenomena. ਗੁਰ ਸਿਖੀ ਦਾ ਬੁਝਣਾ ਗਿਆਨ ਧਿਆਨ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਕਿਵ ਆਣੈ। Gur Sikhee Daa Bujhanaa Giaan Dhiaan Andari Kiv Aanai | How can anybody understand the Sikh way of life or Gursikhi through learning and contemplation alone? ਗੁਰ ਪਰਸਾਦੀ ਸਾਧ ਸੰਗਿ ਸਬਦ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਹੋਇ ਮਾਣੁ ਨਿਮਾਣੈ। Gur Prasaathhi Saadhsangi Sabad Surati Hoi Maanu Nimaanai | By the grace of the Guru, in the holy congregation, the gursikh concentrating his consciousness in the Word sheds pride and becomes humble. ਭਾਇ ਭਗਤਿ ਵਿਰਲਾ ਰੰਗੁ ਮਾਣੈ ॥੩॥ Bhaai Bhagati Viralaa Rangu Maanai ||3 || A rare one may enjoy the pleasure of loving devotion. ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੨੮ ਪਉੜੀ ੩ ਪੰ. ੭ Also Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha quotes Suraj Prakash using the term Sikhi: "ਬਿਨ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਤਰਬੋ ਕਹਾਂ ਜਗਸਾਗਰ ਭਾਰਾ." That and other names, like Nanakpanthi. That's like asking who made the term "likhna" (to write) or "likhari" (writer) or "lekhni" (writings). "Sikhna" is just a common Punjabi verb. A "sikh" is someone who learns, or is a follower. As stated in the Mahankosh, "sikhi" literally is just the act of acquiring instruction. This would not be strange to common speakers of the Punjabi language at that time. Gurbani references "Sikh" or "Gursikh" many times. "Sikhi" is just the abstract noun extension of that.

OK. And I apologize if I come off as arrogant. Quite true the Guru Nanak Dev ji was enlightened (they did not "attain" enlightenment), and that they could have recited the entire Guru Granth Sahib to us. However, I want to say that it's so strange that you approach this question accepting the Christian or other mindset as the default, and Sikh history as being strange. Why don't you instead ask why it was only Jesus who promoted what later was called the Christian religion, and that too only for about 3 years? Secondly, when you're God, you don't have to explain yourself to anybody. Gurbani says Guru Nanak ji was God himself manifested in the world. Why would we ever think to question God? Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote that the Khalsa manifested by Kal Purakh's mauj (leisure). So it's God's marzi (choice). He can do whatever he wants. Thirdly, there's a whole lot of stuff the Gurus did. There were five whole Guruships where they lived entirely peacefully. Only after the 5th Guru was martyred did Guru Sahib pick up arms. I think it's a big deal that a whole century was spent peacefully, thereby demonstrating that the Gurus were not warmongers per se. But that can only happen if you have multiple Gurus. And Guru Sahibs interacted with so many people, traveled to many places, did lots of things, it would be difficult to do all in one lifetime. Fourth, if you consider that the Muslims and Christians think of the Prophets as a sequence, then you can sort of consider that they, too, rolled out their religions over many lifetimes. It is a separate matter that the Christians don't believe the older prophets to be one spirit with Jesus, but still the question could be asked, why not just have Jesus dispense all gian? Finally, I think GurjanGnostic is on to something here: By having multiple Gurus, I agree that the idea that there was something internal to the Gurus that was the essence of Guruships (the jot or spirit) was strengthened.

Well, if you're referring to a rehitnama such as Bhai Nand Lal ji which says to do "Jap Jaap" in the morning, I think it would be a very bad idea to interpret that as meaning you don't have to do the other banis. When in bani it talks of "Kam Krodh" are bad, does that mean Lobh Moh Hankar are good? These are banis promoted by the SGPC as Nitnem banis. I would disagree with you about "most Sikhs". In my experience the vast majority of Sikhs who do Nitnem, do all 5 banis in the morning. Only a few hardcore missionary types stick to doing 3 banis. Most of the people who loudly insist there are only 3 banis in the morning, never actually recite those 3 banis in the morning. I've never seen a gurdwara that doesn't do 5 Nitnem banis in the morning. Consequently, those Sikhs who do Nitnem, do 5 banis. Someone explained the need to do 5 banis in the following way: It is accepted by all that Amrit has to be prepared with banis memorized (you can't use a gutka). (If you disagree with that, say so.) So, if the Chaupai and Anand Sahib have to be said during the Amrit ceremony, it's obvious that you should recite it every day, that's the only way to have it memorized. Also, if Guru Sahib found these 5 banis to be of such a level that it was these specific banis that they chose to create Amrit, then Sikhs would automatically assume that those banis would be beneficial to recite every day, too, not just the day of the Amrit ceremony. Which, again, is the reason the vast majority of Sikhs do recite them. Finally, it is the SGPC that promotes 3 banis in the morning. It is said that the Akal Takhat clarified in a Hukumnamma on 28 Apr 1985 that Sikhs should continue to do the 5 banis that they had been. But back to the point which is the question asked by the OP, I think it's an extremely bad idea to encourage new Sikhs to only do 3 banis. To the OP, you probably don't have enough of a background to judge whether it should be 3 or 5 banis. But you should know that if you do 2 less, you'll be in default of the Guru. If you're doing 2 "extra", you won't be punished for that.

It's not bull, bro, it's good advice. People are too fast to take Amrit, they should take their time: ਦਹ ਦਿਸਿ ਸਾਖ ਹਰੀ ਹਰੀਆਵਲ ਸਹਜਿ ਪਕੈ ਸੋ ਮੀਠਾ ॥ Dheh Dhis Saakh Haree Hareeaaval Sehaj Pakai So Meethaa || In all ten directions, the branches are green and alive. That which ripens slowly, is sweet. ਤੁਖਾਰੀ ਬਾਰਹਮਾਹਾ (ਮਃ ੧) ਛੰਤ (੧੧):੫ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੦੯ ਪੰ. ੧ Raag Tukhaari Guru Nanak Dev It's great that you took only 2 months, but we're talking about giving advice to random people. Most of them will be better off taking more time.

I'm glad that you're bringing up topics challenging the jihadis. Hope you keep it up. Well, first of all, as an observation, I would like to share that Maskeen ji once remarked that it's quite strange that all the stuff that's considered haram on Earth, like drinking alcohol and scr*wing like crazy all day is exactly what is considered your reward in "paradise". Maskeen ji took a dim view of that. How much more sublime the concept of Suchkhand is, where the saints sing the praises of God. Secondly, you know how in some martial arts you don't try to directly oppose the opponent's blow? I would take a similar tack in that I wouldn't bother even getting into refuting their garbage. Rather I would bring up the good and unique parts of Sikhism, like bhagti. There's no bhagti in Islam, as it is commonly understood. And without bhagti, life is dry and meaningless.

OK, if that's how you want to define grooming, I will agree with you that he would be grooming the women. It's quite detestable how these people do these sorts of things.

The jihadis have an obsession with either converting Sikhs or pretending to convert Sikhs. The reason is they see us as a threat. We're a religion that comes after Islam. That in itself makes us a target, because supposedly Mohammed is the "seal" of the Prophets, and anybody that comes after him is automatically false. Second, we don't have the problems that a lot of other religions do. No idol worship like Hinduism. No spate of apparent contradictions like in Christianity's creation account. No doctrine of killing non-believers for being non-believers, like Islam. Third, we are highly visible. It's one thing for a Hindu or a Christian to just be walking around. You can't recognize the devout from the non-devout. But it burns them to see a sabat-surat Sikh proudly wearing a turban and kes. Fourth, they hate us for our freedoms. The Gurus banned face veils for Bibis in sangat. The Gurus not only allowed, but also encouraged the use of music in worship. Would you rather listen to a lecture or listen to enchanting keertan? They're jealous and that's why they hate us. Fifth, Guru Gobind Singh ji taught us to be firm like a rock against jihad. Guru Sahib told us not to eat Halal under any circumstance. Halal functions as the spear's edge in Islamic takeover of a society. Guru Sahib taught us not to dishonor our bodies with circumcision. Guru Sahib told us to wear a turban and hold our head high.

While it's not possible to match up every aspect of Sikhism to Lanza, I do think he's on to something when saying that consciousness created the universe. Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins are wrong to say that matter created consciousness, or that consciousness doesn't really exist, it's just an illusion.

That is true, but that's not what she is asking. She is asking if a kachi may be worn in addition to a kachera. That would be like if you had wound on your forehead, and wore a bandage on it, and then tied a turban over it. Good advice. It's OK to the extent that you haven't acted out on those feelings, and have kept them confined to your mind, which is where they should remain. You should not given encouragement to you mind to increase such feelings. It'll lead you astray. You would be well advised to clear your head before you seek Amrit. Also read this thread on Dating and Sikhism: Can you not understand Punjabi? If not, how can you read Bani? If you can't read Bani, how can you do Nitnem, meaningfully? You might want to learn Punjabi/Gurmukhi, learn to read Gurbani, before you ask for Amrit. Banis? In the morning: Japji Sahib Jaap Sahib Sawayay (Sravag Sudh) Chaupai Anand Sahib Evening: Rehras Night: Kirtan Sohila Sometimes people say to do less, but you should still do these, and the vast majority of Amritdharis do do so. If you're confused about this, post again.

Ah, yes, thanks for pointing that out. If he raped somebody, then, yes call the police. But if it's just "some man had sex with my sister", that's not something the police can do anything about. Only the OP knows the exact situation, but I'm puzzled as to why OP would say "There are indications (proof) of a Sikh man in the UK who is involved in emotional, sexual grooming with women from India." First of all, indications is far away from proof. If you have proof, you have proof. If you have indications, you then begin the process of finding proof, or falsifying the assumption. Secondly, to speak of "emotional, sexual grooming" and then speak of sexual violence also seems puzzling. Did the man and the woman (women?) start a sexually charged long-distance relationship, and then the man proceeded to rape her? For most of these sexual long-distance relationship, the women are more than willing to give themselves up voluntarily, as can be seen in the Kiran Bala situation. No need to rape at all. Now, granted, Kiran Bala is a fool, but we have many fools like her among us. There's also another type of fool among us: The one who starts a sexual flirtation, consumates with actual sex, then gets frightened at the consequences or someone finds out, and she yells, Rape! I hope this is not that.

Usually the term grooming is applied to gradually putting the notion into an underaged girl's mind that she would like to have a sexual relationship with a fully grown man. In the case of a fully grown woman, that's not "grooming", it's dating! Now, I agree that dating is not Gurmat, in fact I wrote a whole post about that here: However, you can't "report" dating to the authorities. It's not illegal. What are you going to say? So-and-so is flirting with some woman? They'll laugh you out of the police station.

Good to know. So you're just reading the Gurmukhi along with the transliteration? I recommend learning with a systematic approach as well. Google "muharni Damdami Taksal". Good luck.

BTW, do you know how to read, write, and speak Punjabi? (Which of those?) If so, where did you learn it?

On the one hand, you think you're more intelligent than all the other Sikhs out there. And on the other hand, your intelligence can only allow you to throw up an epithet like idi ot? If you have something to say, then say it. By refuting his statement. Otherwise, you're just showing yourself to be the "ijit".

What is sikhbooks?

You have the freedom of speech in the UK ... to say anything the government allows you to say. Nobody is allowed to question the cancer-industrial complex: First you eat all sorts of processed foods and meats, there are all sorts of chemicals in the environment, then you get cancer, and finally you have to undergo lengthy and expensive (to the taxpayer) treatments.

I guessed that free must mean useless, but it looks like it's legit and @FreshMind13 is on to something. https://letsencrypt.org/ is backed by major corporations like Cisco and Mozilla.

That's great! Now the NSA won't be able to spy on what people post on this forum. (For those that don't know, the NSA--and likely every other intelligence agency--scoops up and records everything that you do on the Internet. Everything insecure, that is--http vs https.)

No, I am not saying that, but I am just saying we should pay attention and pray to god, that's it. Well of course we should pray to God. But I'm trying to work out what you would do and not do. Just like you posted that you don't like bowing to pictures and I agreed with you. And you also posted you don't like that your father walks around Guru Granth Sahib. Posting what your position is allows us to have conversation. So please just answer the questions, and tell us what you would do and what you wouldn't out of matha teking, touching feet, and washing feet.

Well, I guess no. OK, so what part of that do you object to? If you're OK with matha teking to Guru Granth Sahib, I presume you would be OK with matha teking to Guru Nanak Dev ji. But you object to touching Guru Sahib's feet with your hands? Afraid of germs, are we? You would also object to washing Guru Sahib's feet? And this is based, again, on your own personal preferences?