MisterrSingh

I believe the opposite. Knowing human nature and the way our minds function, I think it's a good thing that we don't have specific recollections of our past deeds, in as much as we won't be tempted to behave cynically in order to "do good" if we were to know the specific details for determining the reasons for erasing those previous misdeeds, and I feel this is a deliberate act on the part of our Creator. In essence, we are currently acting without vested interests on a karmic level. Yes, on some instinctive level most people realise that goodness is preferable to bad, and we somehow feel that if we follow this rule even in the most crudest of forms, we will be closer to God than if our life erred towards the other, darker end of the spectrum. Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: if we were somehow aware of everything from our previous existences -- and therefore aware of what exactly we needed to do in order to pay off those debts -- we wouldn't do good by battling with our conscience and weighing up our choices (which is the way we function currently), but instead all our goodness wouldn't be selfless and would instead be automated; it'd be driven by a desire to do good for the sake of progression, and not because it's something we truly feel to be the correct course of action as a decision and something's that's arrived upon organically through using our budhi. The Creator is absolutely spot-on with how much he's given us non-Brahmgyanis to work with. It's all part of the plan. It is very, very difficult, though.

I'm fascinated by the karmic debt theory. The idea that we have to pay off our karams to people over the course of lifetimes, is an intriguing idea. I also wonder why our memories are wiped before each birth. Well, I kind of suspect it's done so that we can begin with a clean slate each time, so that we aren't unequivocally aware of any mistakes or paaps that we may have committed previously (which would then weigh on our conscience and seriously mess with our heads), but as I mentioned in another thread I believe any serious psychological hangups or problems that plague us in our current lifetime originate from previous experiences, so in that respect the memory wipe works on a basic level as long as we don't get serious about scratching the mental itch, as it were, but the underlying issues don't disappear just because we aren't consciously aware of the true reasons for why we are the way we are. Sometimes it seems to me as if we're almost toyed with. We're kind of on the back-foot from the very beginning. Is too much expected of us?

Ruth Montgomery "A World Beyond." A decent start, but bear in mind some of it doesn't perfectly gel with the eastern dharmic traditions. Generally, it's very interesting. From an academic viewpoint, I recall a book by an American psychology professor who stumbled upon past life experiences bearing on our current life psychology, and how much of the issues that plague us as individuals, actually span various lifetimes and aren't - as contemporary academic thought has us believe - completely random events that can be treated by medicine. Unfortunately, I can't remember the author or the title, but I'll check my shelves to see if I still have it.

Sounds like you're shopping for a Dulux Paint tester rather than a potential spiritual awakening, lol. Start with the basics: nitnem. Then see how you feel after a while.

+1. Some common sense. Although, bigger picture, in terms of representation, we should take a leaf out of the Islamic book (no, not that one), and be prepared to support "our" guy. This is a very difficult thing for me to admit, because I believed the opposite for most of my life until very recently. It's a numbers game. This world is not one where honesty, honour, and integrity will be reciprocated. Fighting fire with fire seems to be the only way to make any headway. I guess it depends where one draws the line.

This is the often cruel nature of politics, when the seemingly central issue at hand - in this case Canadian Sikhs - is a smokescreen for the true conflict, i.e. Trudeau's enemies finding any feasible reason to criticise and undermine him. It's not personal, it's politics. As a Sikh born in Britain, it is a stark reminder of how different Canadian Sikhs are viewed in their adopted country by other groups. At times the hostility from certain quarters isn't too far off from the perception of Pakistanis in Britain. Generally, Canada is undergoing it's own particular awakening amongst its white majority. The stereotype of Canadians being amenable and easy going has taken a hit in recent years. There are prominent Canadian voices amongst the Right who are beginning to speak out against the policies they foresee as signalling trouble for the future of their country. The cult of Trudeau seems to have magnified and accelerated some of the deeply held negativity and hostility towards minority groups that Trudeau keeps close to him for political purposes. This hit piece by Rebel Media is an example of Sikhs being caught in the crossfire between the battle of liberals and conservatives. Canadian Sikhs need to smarten up, because sooner rather than later the Indian government will put the squeeze on Canadian Sikhs, and they'll achieve this by allying with the Canadian Right.

It doesn't matter if the media understands what Khalistan is or not. The question is does the rationale behind the proposed existence of a separate Sikh state, i.e. Sikh reasons for wanting autonomy, follow the current narrative of globalism and neo-liberalism that's become the desired template for what a country should aspire to be, and unfortunately it doesn't. Look at Brexit and the Catalonia issue to discover where the wind is blowing. Things will change in the future, I have no doubt about that. But now? It's nearly unthinkable. Our best shot was between 84 and 90. Some consistency and statesmanship might have worked wonders. Sadly, there was nobody to play the game.

"... Baba don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more." Seriously, most of us struggle to comprehend what love truly is. The majority mistake attachment and / or lust for love, but it's not.

It's not just Indians who play these games, sometimes it's our own people and others, such as the British and Americans, who've been conditioned to believe these lies. They point to the United Nations hearing when Manmohan Singh was directly asked whether India had purposefully targeted Sikhs for elimination during the 80's and 90's, and his reply in the negative apparently settles all arguments, because "one of our own" categorically denied such a thing took place, therefore it must be true(!). When going toe to toe with such people for whom facts and truths can conveniently assume many forms dependent on the time of the day, lol, you've got to be prepared with as many direct and easily relatable comparisons that they simply cannot refute. The Nazi and Jew collaboration angle is perhaps one of the most suitable, because of the West's continued obsession with Hitler and his regime. It's a language they understand, because it's the only one they speak. Same with the previously identified Obama example. "Did racism suddenly evaporate in the United States when the Obamas made the White House their home?" Too many are all too eager to defend that which should never be defended for their own vested interests. The facts are alien to such people. Ideology and politics are the only things that matter to these people. The only weapon that's effective in such moments is the truth.

This is the kind of activism that works in this day and age. Now expect various Indian sympathisers - or paid agents - in the western press to inexplicably push a few anti-Sikh stories into the foreground to counter any potential good this work might do. There's one line that's trotted out whenever there's a conversation of India's mistreatment of Sikhs, and it's, "If India was anti-Sikh, why was a Sikh elected as Prime Minister?" It's a completely reductive argument that conveniently bypasses countless instances in history where a few select ambitious individuals (who lack any wider sense of affinity for the plight of their brethren) from within a "troublesome" minority community are purposefully selected and elevated to key positions in the majority's administration in order to muddy the waters and give the impression to outsiders that there is no systemic discrimination. There were Jews in Germany who collaborated with the Nazis for business reasons and for their own selfish purposes, and that's arguably the most concise and striking example to offer someone who's peddling Indian propaganda about Manmohan Singh. This is before we even get into the argument of the turban not signifying religious adherence, as much as being white doesn't denote a devotion for Christianity.

It seems some Indians see through Ms. Trudeau's act: Maybe it's just salty right-wing Indians?

It's sleepwalking into Sharjah compliance.

That's exactly what needs to be done. It's a balancing act. The days of our parents and grandparents is long gone, where two people were thrown together and expected to get on with it, and generally speaking they successfully cracked on with things, minus all the over-thinking and analysis I'm suggesting. Things often just worked, not without any problems, of course, but not at the level we're seeing in contemporary times. That probably has something to do with the shift in mentality of society, towards a rather individualistic approach to life amongst other things. As you mentioned about reading between the lines, that's essential. The balance of adjudging someone's personality as a fit for one's own -- based on what the individual seeking a partner considers to be the morals and values they require in life partner -- is as fine as a knife-edge. Looks and attraction are somewhat important at first, but if the extent of one's expectations and demands for a partner begin and end with a pretty / handsome face, that's just asking for trouble.

Yes, absolutely, sanjog is the one variable that's key for anyone with religious or spiritual beliefs, although from a certain point of view - as Sikhi tells us - we can affect it through various means. Sanjog can sometimes be the difference between a defeat and a victory. Our duty as beings with brains is to use them as much as possible. The rest is up to the big guy.

There are many issues Sikh men need to be aware of when entering a life-long commitment whether it's with a woman from India, or a young lady from any respective western country in question. Unfortunately, it's somewhat of an uncomfortable truth that Punjabi fathers are themselves ill-equipped to advise their sons on the various ways of successfully traversing married life. Maybe this will change as people of my generation become fathers to their own children of marriageable age in the next 20 or so years, but I think that era will offer its own set of unique challenges. Generally, it's practically a sink or swim mentality amongst our people, and that leads to many serious issues that could easily be avoided if we just talked or even just frankly identified a few of the important issues to consider when selecting a partner AND the various issues that can arise between a couple after marriage, as well as identifying the problems that are unique to our culture regarding extended family norms, etc. Most of this soul-searching and analysis must begin before the marriage, before selecting a partner. There's TOO much to comprehensively identify and discuss here, but as an overview I will say that if you're going the traditional way of finding a partner through an introduction via a third party, just do yourself a favour and quickly eliminate from your mind any thoughts of romance and any other subjective ideas that will impair your judgement. If the institution of marriage is a serious concern to you, and one you plan to undertake just the once, then for God's sake use your brain, and don't take your cues from entertainment and other nonsensical soft-cultural influences. Be as dispassionate and as cool-headed as possible. Think about the sort of progeny that will result from your union with a lady, because ultimately you should be viewing a marriage as a method of securing the future of your lineage. This kind of approach to marriage isn't only for royalty and the elite families of the world. Sometimes, unavoidable bad stuff happens that you can't account for, but if you're attributing everything to fate and luck, you're going to be in for a shock. If this seems like I'm talking about breeding horses instead of humans and fostering relationships, then I apologise, but marriage and its related financial and social issues - that can destroy lives when it all falls apart - is a serious business. Look at not only the girl in question and her respective physical and personality traits, but analyse her family, too. Is there an errant sibling in the family? Maybe there's more than two? Could the potential person of interest be shielding their true nature for the purposes of securing an engagement? Look at the parents: are they loud and boisterous beyond the usual jolly Punjabi demeanour? Is their brash nature an endearing quality or does it suggest an unfortunate lack of manners and common sense? Could this be an indication of more concerning traits and values they've passed on to your potential marriage partner? Would you be upset if similar ingrained traits were passed onto your children? There's SO much to sift through if you aren't in the habit of leaving things to chance. If you're going in with a head full of dreams and half-baked fantasies of everlasting love and romance, you're going to be disappointed. Marriage, even on a good day, is hard work. Give yourself a fighting chance by opening your eyes and your mind before entering such situations.

Is skincare overr... no, I'm not going there. Bro, this is not good, and your reason for ending it is spurious at best. I'm not going to kick you while you're down, but if you do decide to end it, go away for a while and do some maturing.

I would hazard a guess the contributors to SGGS Ji assumed -- to co-opt an American phrase -- that some truths are self-evident. I would think an examination of the spirit of the discourse in SGGS Ji can be extrapolated to other less defined areas of human conduct that aren't as explicitly defined in scripture.

There's a distinction between working for the Man in modern times (and everything that entails), and labouring in tandem with family and loved ones on one's homestead, nurturing more than just a bank account. Beggars can't be choosers, but the distinction is real.

It's mostly a South Asian custom, isn't it? I know a few Iranian and Lebanese people, and they turn their nose up at some of the things that pass for culture amongst the Muslim communities in our neck of the woods. It's not even a Sunni or Shia thing, although the Lebanese I know are Shia, lol. There are a few constants across the Islamic continuum regardless of geography, but the guys I'm acquainted with are day and night different to the likes of the Mirpuris and the Bangla crews.

Indian Sikhs (as in those living back home), not including the observant, are pragmatic about their methods of worship and their general belief system. It's very similar to what we have in the West with "cultural" Christians. I would never say it's pakhand, but it's more of ceremonial / being seen to be doing the right thing, mentality. I'd say there's a greater sense of devotion for the particulars amongst NRIs.

Some of you need to watch The Notebook. Love is forever. ?

Anywhere I can detect the aroma of tarkah as I'm walking past. ?

What are your thoughts on the attitudes of cut-haired Punjabis raised by 2nd or 3rd generation children of immigrants in a predominantly white middle class manner? Is there a chasm between that group and their perception of 2nd or 3rd generation Punjabis who are raising their kids in a religious and culturally orthodox manner?