MisterrSingh

2 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

how would they benefit ? 

How have they not benefitted? They played the long game, and see where they are now. Mughals: Brahmins sidled up to them to serve in their administrations. Gave their daughters to Mughals in marriage to maintain relations and strengthen ties. Sikhs: sidled up to Sikhs to serve in their adminstration; very close to power and decision-making. British: sidled up to them to seize high-ranking positions of influence, ensuring when the eventual and inevitable power vacuum arrived, they'd be in prime position to fill the void and assume control of the country. I'd say that's the arch definition of benefitting.

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

It's that 'whirlwind tour' of family members you don't know that ruins it in my opinion. No disrespect to them, but I'd rather soak in the aura of these pavitar places and get some paat and simran in than meet anyone like that. If there was less of that, we'd get more time at these places. 

Yes, I've decided that "chalo chalo" nonsense ruins the serene vibe I'm after. I'm considering a gupt excursion to India just for the sole purpose of trekking around the Gurdware without a family member shooing me out of every Gurughar after 10 mins. 

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

I agree if your good looking you will attract a mate regardless of singh or mona! If your not then you will struggle, there are moneh that struggle so their parents have to take them to India to get married. There are unnatractive Punjabi females who are now in their 30s because no one wants to marry them! Note how a lot of the Punjabi women married to white men are normally not that pretty or dark skinned or in their 30s!  Women get it hard too

I really don't understand this impression that some people create that there are 1000s of singhs queing up struggling to get married. 

It's like every singh is dying unmarried 

I really p1sses me off when some singhs pull out the victim card for everything!  It's like they view everything in a negative way 

I think it's guys my age (in their 30s) who are encountering these issues, probably for reasons of being raised in a fairly strict and buttoned-down family where even innocuous interaction with the opposite sex -- or even general "world" awareness -- was considered to be lucha-punna, which I kind of understand in a way, but it really does stunt a male's emotional development if he isn't allowed to experience the rough and tumble of life however one may choose to interpret it.

I was raised in pretty much that sort of environment, but for various reasons that safety net was pulled from beneath me, and I hard to learn the rules of the world quite fast. But still, I stuck to that stoic, Sikhi-inspired sense of respectability WHILE observing and noting everything that was happening around me. Most simply don't get that "opportunity", and therefore you end up with a situation where our sianah have ended up raising psychologically stunted boys stuck in men's bodies, and when the time for marriage arrives their expectations, knowledge, and desires are totally out of whack to the actual grounded reality of life. It's this host of deep rooted issues that eventually, if the guy gets married, leads to the phenomena where the girl runs rings around him literally from day one (and he simply hasn't the tools, or the knowledge to discern that he needs some tools, lol) and you end up with the wife wearing the pent in the relationship while the guy stumbles around in a stupor for the rest of his life.

I think there's two factors at play. Ultimately, if you're aesthetically pleasing, you're not going to struggle to attract a mate. There's good looking Singhs who have no problem with attracting rishte, while there's ugly moneh who are ignored in the same situation. You don't hear them crying and complaining about Sikh women hating moneh. If you're limiting your search to dodgy newspaper / magazine matrimonial services, then I'm sorry but you're only going to attract a certain type of family who prioritises caste, income, and clean-shaven attributes. It's like going to a church and then complaining that nobody is singing Kirtan, lol. What do you expect?

Secondly, there IS an issue of Singhs being in a second tier of appeal (broadly speaking), but from my observations this trend rears its head when the Singhs are aiming for the type of girl that is undisputably out of their league or they're pushing for a girl who any honourable and decent young man should not "wife-up." That's an unpopular and uncomfortable truth. Too much ego from some Singhs who want the "goods" even though those so-called goods are arguably the worse thing that could ever happen to them. 

31 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Japanese had anakh till the days of samurai I think . Those two nukes by murica destroyed it I think. No wonder it allies with the west with which it bears little semblance than partnering with its immediate neighbors (china and koreas) with whom it shares ancient cultural ties.  I doubt most japanese today even know what a samurai katana (sword) is , let alone wield it . 

When two nuclear bombs are dropped on your head, you tell me how much akhar you've got left, lol! But joking aside, they rebuilt their cities from scratch, making them more successful and beautiful prior to the American attacks. And never do you hear from them, "Boo, hoo, we can't move on because of the nuclear attacks. We may as well go die in a ditch due to the fallout."

18 hours ago, Guest Confused90 said:

Then please share ji for a Papi like me who hasn’t done so!

Do what I did. Read and contemplate. 

9 hours ago, BhForce said:

Huh? What exactly are you referencing, bro? 

Guru Nanak Dev ji's compositions are interpreted by some Sikhs as not anti-meat (different from pro-meat). I'm not saying they are, just that some Sikhs think that.

Bhagat Kabir ji's compositions, on the other hand, are generally held to be anti-meat.

But regardless of how you interpret these compositions, they only address the question of eating meat or not. 

They do not, to my mind, address whether you should go to where meat is being eaten.

Or do they?

You extrapolate what they say about eating meat (either yes or no or it doesn't matter), and then extend those pearls of knowledge to other situations, i.e. "meat eating is / isn't endorsed, so I suppose being situated near meat and meat eaters is / isn't endorsed, too." Which decision you arrive at on the subject depends on yourself (from devotion, compassion, practicality, etc) and where you draw the line... or not.

Sometimes I wonder whether religious individuals would simply be better off with a rule book of do's and don'ts. Anything more than binary is too much to comprehend for our people.

26 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

 My other theory I have had recently is that I think there is something in the air or water. 

No wonder the friggers need incarnations of God to put them right every few centuries, lol. And then they gradually regress to their usual selves over the course of a few more centuries, and the cycle repeats itself.

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The environment they come from in many ways must be like a war zone.

I too assumed that initially at first, but then I looked at their lives and their day-to-day experiences, and they live peaceful, contented lives without wanting for food, clothes, and luxuries. They live on sprawling farms or in kotees; have a number of vehicles at their disposal, and are comparably less stressed and put-upon that those of us who reside overseas, and there's nothing to suggest they've undergone anything approaching psychological trauma or something that would cause that "deadness" behind the eyes. So what is it? 

17 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

It all depends though. If you get a cunning brit that goes over he will not get conned and fall for all this. 

I'd argue that even a chalaakh, braggart (verging on criminal, lol) of a desi Brit would still get schooled by even the average Punjabi over there.

I went to my Nanakeh a few years ago in India after what must've been more than 10 years, and in that time my mum's youngest brother had got married and had kids, etc. So, his children are my first cousins. I'd just turned 30 at the time. I'm a big (not fat, lol), imposing lad who's been through the wars, so to speak, since I was a kid, but you've got these little Punjabi boys barely up to my waist, thinking I'm your typical soft Balaiti. I could see it immediately in the way they interacted with me, almost sizing me up in order to gauge how to get the upper hand with me from the get-go! These are 5 and 9 year old boys, yet even they mistakenly assume someone double their age and size isn't a threat by virtue of me being from a "soft" western country.

It's a very tiny example of how incredibly different the respective mentalities are, and I agree with the points made above that their cunning is rooted in a definite foolishness that is erroneously assumed to be wisdom or smarts. It's not. Once you live a little bit and realise the reality of the world we occupy, it becomes apparent how absolutely ignorant they truly are when it comes to the manner in which they view life. Only in such a broken country with its warped mentality could such people be made. Don't get me wrong, my Nanakeh are angels compared to most in that country, but "their" angels still have a bit of an edge and obvious teeth compared to "ours."

Pehle Paatshah and Bhagat Kabir discuss this particular issue in quite some detail in their respective compositions in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Of course, there'd be no need for these questions if we read our holy scriptures.

For a man it's not even an issue worth devoting more than a couple of minutes of thought. It's, however, something a woman's mind would be preoccupied by for days or even weeks. Falling into the trap of partaking in these barely perceptible micro-aggressions on HER terms is completely unacceptable. She's clocked OP as the type of guy who will indulge her small power plays, and she's wasting no time in establishing control even in what may seem the most inconsequential and innocuous of ways. Even at this early juncture she has completely figured out her husband, and how best to get under his skin. Great for her in the short term and the long run; bad news for OP on all counts.

59 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Forget This gay guy, it's the actions of the other gay guy's family that shock me. How does a family get weird like that? 

Either too much God (in the sense of whatever their perception of religion happens to be) or not enough God, lol.

Took me 30 mins to not see a black screen and post this, lmao. Life's too short for this nonsense. I've tried from my mum's phone and from my computer, but still the same issue. It can't be an issue originating from my ISP, surely. 

37 minutes ago, Big_Tera said:

I think its just you mate. No one else is having issues with their screen. 

Maybe time to upgrade to a decent computer instead of being a cheapskate and using one you bought 10 years ago. 

 

Lol, it's a fairly new tablet. 

I don't know where to post this so it'll go here.

I'm getting a black screen for about 95% of the time I'm on here for the past 10 or so days. I manage to "get through" and read stuff very rarely, otherwise it's a black screen. I don't think it's a problem on my end, because there's I'm not having this problem on any other site.

15 hours ago, puzzled said:

im gnna say it but imagine how great the indian subcontinent would of been if muslims never invaded it and did all the damage they did.  

Greatness in a temporal sense, in part, derives from strength. How "great" were the Indians who couldn't fortify and defend themselves from repeated foreign excursions and invasions, which lead to the embarrassing situation where the Indian mentality is characterized by a weasly, self-interested subservience to various invading administrations over the centuries. You can't erase that type of mealy-mouthed treachery by declaring independence. That stuff remains deep in the collective psyche of certain "leading" Indian communities no matter the hot air exhaled to the contrary. 

One only has to look further east to the Japanese to recognise true anakh, honour, and strength from the perspective of resisting invaders. 

1 hour ago, BhForce said:

I think you're trying to say that they (3HO) perceived us as weak (mentally, morally, and culturally) and simpletons.

I think they're right. What do you think?

Allahu Akbar?

1 minute ago, GuestSingh said:

truth.

any outsider - especially a westerner - will always look to add their own 'masala' to something foreign to em i.e. sikhi since its the complete opposite in so many ways to what their culture already understands and accepts...so they tend to try to compromise and find some sorta 'balance' halfway that suits everyone but it always fails miserably - and its one of the reasons why we so many who are 'dhilla' within the panth today.

Would I be wrong in suggesting that this desire to influence or imprint one's pre-existing mentality and beliefs on the "new" faith occurs mostly when the outsider feels they can get away with doing so? And this behaviour subsequently feeds into the perceived strength of that religion in as much as the newcomer being confident that nobody is going to pull the newcomer to one side and tell them to behave themselves? That "dhilla-puna" on the part of the naturalised (i.e. us) adherents is observed and acted upon by the outsider. Which makes the example of 3HO even more egregious considering it was supposedly one of our own who opened the door, so to speak, and led by example by undermining from within. I'm not sure whether that was his original intention (he may have possessed a noble desire to expose Sikhi to the world), but I struggle to believe someone of his intelligence failed to anticipate the potential consequences of his actions. 

We could very well be the good guys, but the other side has spent thousands of years misinterpreting (deliberately or otherwise) their scriptures in order to convey themselves as the protagonists. For argument's sake if all these prophecies are rooted in truth, I wouldn't be surprised if the people in the know are aware of the reality of who's ultimately on the side of righteousness, and are doing their best to strengthen their position thousands or hundreds of years before the final conflict kicks off. What a coup to rewrite history and mythology to convince the heroes they're actually the villains, and vice versa.

I can't remember the specifics any more, but I recall a Christian prophecy stating the anti-Christ will be a blue-turbanned figure leading his armies across the world. Sounds familiar, lol. I wonder if we're on the wrong side...

Plus, I find it amusing how much of the end-times technological imagery is firmly rooted in the period in which these accounts were written and conceived. There's no mention of fighter jets, bombs, etc., but the leaders of these nations who will participate in these battles are still physically leading their men on horseback on the battlefield. It's these kind of discrepancies with reality that undermine these beliefs.

A lot of it is heavy on the metaphor. The imagery and the symbolism of such accounts usually implies some universal truth or meaning. Of course, some take it as literal truth dependent on how strongly they believe.

I use to think such scriptures and legends held sway over mankind's ultimate fate, but I'm beginning to suspect Man tailors his own destiny to fulfil the conditions of those so-called prophecies; to lend legitimacy to his beliefs and convince others of the truth behind them for various self interests beyond the just and good concepts of religion and belief.

7 hours ago, Guest guest said:

theres law of karma- which is like a law in nature.  

but a saint does not want retribution.  they forgive their enemies ("khima").  they have not bad feeling to any one ("nirvair") and all wellwishers of everyone ("sarbat da bhalla").  saints don't have enemies.    and sainthood is everyone's innate, pure nature.

afterall, if everything is God's will, who you going to hate?

so imo, its about getting rid of one's own ignorance, rather than demanding justice.  

Justice is not retribution or prone to emotion. You've mistakenly conflated two entirely unique concepts. It's a restorative act; a natural reply to the evil of the sin; of restoring balance. There is no emotion in justice. Revenge, yes, but not in justice.

Yes, we may be in no position to demand justice; it's application may be entirely at the discretion of the Creator, but if you're suggesting that it doesn't exist; that all that matters is the salvation of the sinner, then I'm afraid that truly is the definition of an unjust system.

Gangu; the mahants burned alive for stealing the sangat's charaava; the city and the occupants of Sirhind; Indira, etc. Did they not deserve mercy?

15 minutes ago, Amit12 said:

Paji tuhadda DIVINE JUSTICE da concept is very fascinating.

It's a question worth contemplating.

Why is the balance of Sikh philosophy on the subject of karams, divine justice and punished tipped in the favour of the sinner? Are we victim blaming, lol?

6 hours ago, Guest guest said:

i suggest you read SGGS instead of 'giani ji', because this is not what SGGS says from my understanding.  for example, SGGS talks about ones 'account being ripped up'

Akal Purakh is the epitomy of MERCY.  Example- Ajamil lived a life of sin, and was not even calling out for God, but was calling from his son (named Narayan).  Ajamil did not have his 'duration' in hell reduced, he went straight to heaven.

So where's the divine justice? Mercy is all good and well for the sinner, but where's the justice for the aggrieved?

As I said, the translation is very poor. I'm currently looking for a Punjabi version because I'm doubtful about some of the things I'm reading.