MisterrSingh

That's an estrogen cocktail for lowering testosterone. Not good for a man. Yes, it's a considerable amount of protein but at what cost?

This is a good approach to take for a young person who seems to be becoming blase about the frankly complex spiritual side of things. Getting practical about Sikhi sometimes speaks more to some people than the strictly abstract and theoretical approach. Maintain the connection with the path throughout this difficult phase, and if the connection is heartfelt and genuine on the youngster's part, they will eventually endeavour to continue that deeper, applied spirituality as they get older. Of course, if it's all about force-feeding marathon gutka sessions at times when the kid clearly isn't interested, then you're setting yourself up for being either witness to a massive and obvious falling off the wagon on the part of the youngster, OR in some cases a 'keeping up appearances' facade that's designed to keep the parents happy and keep the heat off the kid whilst she or he gets up to all sorts behind your back.

Ajeet's going full Cersei Lannister in his Game of Kursiyan, lol. Fair play to him. Just don't take it too far!

And Russian covert statecraft, too. Under Indira it was mainly focused on internal hostile elements, but since the 90's, as with most big and diverse countries, those methods are used on their own broad population without discrimination. The media is a vital arm of these operations; the democratic choice dichotomy illusion is exactly that: an illusion.

Stop him? Why not turn up for the lulz? He's a bare joker. Cracks me up. Don't turn a barely legitimate fake holy man into a victim by protesting his arrival or presence as if he's responsible for a genocide. You're assigning him too much importance.

Veer ji, I've been fortunate to listen to continuous jaaps of Gurbani in the past few months, and I've too been struck by the things you've mentioned above. The tone and content of the compositions of Bhagat Ravi Daas are also indicative of what we know their waking mind was occupied by during their life. There's a poetic sadness to their Gurbani that is incredibly emotional, more so when one's aware of the historical and personal context of the bani they created.

Yet, they also refused to indulge in flagrant and egoistic displays of their abilities to prove their divine credentials BUT when the moment required such actions they weren't averse to showing their hand, as it were. Again, it's that fine, knife-edged difference that some people struggle with, especially when they enter into a discussion where there's a desire for a binary / black & white response to their questions. There's a temptation to take a hard-line approach with such people, and dumb everything down to the point of, "Believe or be damned," but I think that would be an unwise strategy considering these people aren't mischievous Muslims or people of other faiths trying to undermine Sikhi while elevating their own faith, but are actually our own brothers and sisters. We don't have the luxury of being so comfortably careless with the manner in which we do vichaar among ourselves.

That was exactly my response. I just think younger generations and even some of the people of my age bracket who haven't been exposed to that uniquely stoic yet even-handed brand of Sikh spirituality find it difficult to wrap their heads around certain apparently paradoxical concepts and remarkable individuals in our history, especially for those of our people who've been raised on a steady diet of Hollywood-ised emotional indulgence. There's a blurring between fiction and reality AND a further step beyond of the blurring between the former and our particular ways and history, which seems to make some of our own almost incredulous at what they're being asked to digest. But, as I said, the "superhero mythologising" by our parchaaraks and other people with a voice in the panth, is not helping matters at all. There's ways of inspiring awe and reverence by emphasising the divinity of Sikh personalities without utterly killing any human angle of personal interest. Without wishing to offend anyone, third-worlders might be impressed and cowed by such descriptions of untouchable brilliance, but for slightly more sophisticated and deep thinking westerners who want to FEEL a genuine connection, these types of potential believers are being done a huge disservice, and actually it's causing people to switch off and turn away, especially when they're initially told certain things to get them through the "turnstiles" that Sikhi is unlike the other faiths.

I'll be sure to forward all future enquiries to you.

I'm being asked questions by younger -- and some not so young -- Sikhs who aren't necessarily religious or even theists (yet they possess a fairly decent comprehension of the Punjabi language and therefore can contextualise what's being said on the Gurdwara stage on the few occasions they attend) but due to cultural and familial connections have a desire to connect with their heritage and generally get to the heart of a few issues without undergoing the parchaar sales pitch. I'll be honest, some of the questions they pose are the kind of things white people would ask about our religion around 20-25 years ago. They aren't being mean or devious but they are completely lacking any form of sugar-coating one would expect of our so-called co-religionists. At times it's a culture shock for me. Anyone else would get triggered and take it as an affront, but one can usually judge the intentions of someone who isn't taking the peshaab but merely acting out of ignorance and curiosity. One example of what I was posed by someone last December during the shaheedi / Sahibzaade remembrance events: a young man in his 20's said to me he felt an immense guilt trip being inflicted on Sikhs when almost all parchaar centred on this particular period is simultaneously designed to remind us that Guru Govind Singh Ji felt no pain or sadness at the death of his sons -- because divine incarnations are above such base emotions -- yet the sangat is expected to be practically in mourning at the loss of the Sahibzaade; recent years have seen opening weeping and similar hitherto unseen behaviour in the darbaar itself. Anyway, his question was, "If their father didn't feel any form of sadness or regret at the loss of his offspring, then why am I being induced into physical acts of mourning designed to make me a loyal follower? What does it matter to me if the father showed no emotion?" Can you believe such a question could originate from one of our supposed own? What do the contemporary jathe leadership and assorted babeh of the quom have in response to such questions? Is it clear how we're shooting ourselves in the foot?

A lowly human being at the bottom rung of cognisance and spirituality cannot hope to identify with the existence and thought processes of a perfect God. You keep telling Sikhs who've lost all hope and faith, after being destroyed by the cruelties of life, that the individuals we're meant to view as role models were automatons and beyond human emotions, then don't suddenly be surprised when future Sikh generations complain about being unable to identify with infinite perfection, and turn to other paths for satisfaction and peace, when all they desire is to feel a sense of hope in the idea that the great souls they're meant to worship may have an iota of an inkling of what their lost and lonely Sikh might be experiencing. If there's no connection, there's no love; only fear and incomprehensible and short-term awe that eventually fades. It's like asking an ant to comprehend quantum physics; there's simply no point to it. We don't detract from the human and spiritual perfection of our Guru Sahibs by highlighting aspects of their humanity. Whilst they clearly didn't succumb to grief and helplessness, there were obstacles and adversities in their lives that they overcame through faith and devotion. Anticipate these growing concerns and issues that generations of Sikhs in the future will undoubtedly be facing as life's complexities and tribulations become even more taxing and burdensome on the individual. Don't bend the Truth but do tailor and clarify the message so that it's understood by those who need to hear it the most. I reiterate: we are sleepwalking into irrelevance as far as parchaar to our own people is concerned when we are hellbent on emphasising there is no common ground between the "uttai-churai" of our life experiences and the documented and irrefutable ordeals face by our Guru Sahibs. You want a genuine, deep, lifelong love and devotion for Sikhi and its Gurus? You create a meaningful connection. You don't just order people to worship or be damned. That's unless you want blind, unthinking sheep, in which case we can continue following the script.

Any human with an enquiring mind that seeks the truth undergoes such crises of faith. Nobody can convince you whether all the things you want to be true ARE true as they relate to your own particular understanding of life and existence (at this stage in your life), because we are fundamentally driven by different forces, even though from another perspective we aren't as different, individual, or as complex as we like to believe. I usually find a person who's lived a little of life with many of its trials and tribulations is in a better to place to seek the answers to these questions from within themselves instead of seeking definitive and insurmountable validation from others or external sources. You're asking questions that have troubled humans since conscious thought came into being. What do you expect people to say? You can either receive these answers as expressions of our belief in the Sikh faith (and then continue the journey to discover how these beliefs relate to you), or you can dismiss them based on what you currently feel to be your overall understanding of life and such matters. It really is all about faith. Trying to definitively get to the bottom of life's greatest mysteries on an overcast Saturday afternoon is asking too much of the sangat on here, lol. Look within.

I've always maintained that Guru Ram Das Ji's life and specific contributions to Gurbani should be studied by those who themselves are experiencing a difficult and seemingly painful existence. There's a tragic undercurrent to Guru Ji's history, that's relatable and speaks to the broken and the disenfranchised, that is greatly underestimated among the great accounts of warrior-like valour or entirely zen-like spiritual demeanour of other notable personalities in Sikh history. Most contemporary Sikhs of a certain frame of mind would identify and greatly benefit from this exercise. As I grow older, I realise that 4th Paatshsh are, to me, the most "human" of Guru Sahibs, and that's taking nothing away from their divinity.

Why? Saving face and putting a positive spin on an embarrassing -- for Hindus -- historical capitulation. They literally cavorted with the enemy and sought to profit from a union with their invaders. It's willful self-delusion designed to make subsequent Indian generations feel less guilty at having been cucked by the Mughals. A huge coping strategy.

Some people are just rabid; no decorum or sense of propriety. Sometimes us superstitiously-inclined ethnic groups are drawn towards rationalising our problems by viewing them through the lens of the occult, whereas the reality is most likely a commonplace, humdrum reason that we've overlooked in a hysterical rush to arrive at a solution.

Adjust the manner in which you mentally frame your relationship and your interactions with him. It's almost a process of stepping out of yourself and seeing things for the first time with new eyes. If you're clinging to the memories of the good times or you're an overly sentimental person, you most likely won't be capable of doing this. Reconcile yourself with the idea that his demeanour has changed with age, and that there's no dialling it back to more pleasant times. Dare I say your interactions with him from now on will almost be tinged with him being patronised by you or treated like an incapable child needing to be humoured. If this seems cruel and dispassionate, then obviously it's not going to work for you. You can plough on as you are, pining for the old days, but you'll only end up hurting yourself.

You've identified the discrimination that's always been a part of the immigrant experience, but that visceral and somewhat aggressive and easy to identify racism that was (generally) at its peak post-war right up until the mid-to-late 80's. What you're struggling to identify is the post-21st century racial dynamics in society that are as prevalent -- yet less overt -- which originate from the people we, as minorities, have been convinced are our "friends." Of course, they're our friends for as long as we sing from their hymn sheet. It's when we begin thinking for ourselves and reject their narratives that our "allies" turn on us. You're still trapped in thinking of race and discrimination in its mid-to-late 20th century terms. The world and related issues of racism have moved at an incredible pace. From my observations things are in flux on virtually an annual basis, and that's change at an unprecedented rate. By viewing this issue based solely on your parameters as defined in your original post, it's like reading the first chapter of a 20-chapter book, skipping the remaining 19 chapters, and then stating you've finished the entire book. It's not the whole picture.

That's half the story; the classic confrontational far-right racism that's always been present. Why's there never any mention of the "well-meaning", patronising racism of low expectations stemming from our so-called allies? When are we going to start identifying and discussing those problems?

The politicisation of homosexuality is the focal issue rather than any individual gays and their leanings. Ask yourself why and for what purpose, and then trace these developments to their natural conclusion. It'll all make sense.

He clearly said he's not gay no more; he's delivert, and he likes women, women, wyminnn... How much more proof do you need? ?

Funny how when it comes to asserting our identity and attempting to improve our prospects and collective aims as a people, we get the usual suspects appealing exclusively to the egalitarian aspects of our faith to the exclusion of anything that sets us apart from those who would be content to see our gradual demise. Yet, I'm not sure conversion is the answer. But human nature being what it is, a "take it or leave it" approach is a waste of time.

I disagree somewhat with the premise of this topic although not in the logic of it. What would've been more beneficial for our growth was the faith emerging in 969 instead of 1469. We missed the boat in many ways and unfortunately got caught up in a lot of historical and social nonsense that meant we were punching above our weight AND playing catch-up for centuries. Looking at the situation from a regional SE-Asian perspective isn't the total picture; need to glance further West to understand how their development (the Enlightenment, etc) impacted us, too. Sure, Sikhi emerged exactly when it was supposed to, but if we're conducting these mental exercises, then I'd argue it arrived a little later than it needed to for the sake of its future long-term prosperity.

Good lad. You've matured and put your ego to one side. Apparently, according to someone in Gupt, you and I are the same person, so you / I are basically talking to ourselves, lol. The secret's out!

It was a tongue in cheek idea, you fat autist. Why are you getting triggered over this, lol.