MisterrSingh

'Bender' is a colloquial term used for a plumber, but was co-opted by the homosexual community in the 1890's to refer to someone who is a Friend of Dorothy.

Only benders say that. Are you a bender? You got Grindr installed on your phone?

Get your head sorted, bro. You seem like you're still all at sea. Don't put a plaster (band-aid) over a gaping wound, I.E. plaster = Amrit. With the stuff you said you've done, I think the best policy would be to retake it when you're in the right mental place to do so. Repeated instances of weed, porn, etc, aren't comparable to accidentally pulling out some hair from your arm, or something minor like that.

I heard it from a Giani when I was a kid. It wasn't on stage or anything, it was a group of few young Singhs and the Giani. Who knows whether it's true or not. A lot of events can be retrofitted to fit a narrative after the fact.

Should be fine. You're always going to get idiots, no matter where you go. Head up, chest out, left, right, left, right, chardi-kala all the way. Enjoy yourself.

You know this, but as a commander of men, i.e. soldiers, any individual responsible for a fighting unit MUST not have any liabilities amongst his men that would hamper any desire of inflicting defeat on the opposition. Why would Guru Ji willingly induct men into his army who were clearly unsuitable for the act of fighting? They weren't running a charity or a social club to make Sikhs feel good about themselves, lol. Their primary aim was to inflict damage on the enemy and win battles.

I think Guru Ji would've judged the situation on a case-by-case basis. Some individuals have hidden depths that need to be uncovered by someone who can recognise those latent abilities in an individual. There well might've been a few of the non-warriors who had fighting spirit, but the assumption that all of them were given a weapon and told to go fight cannot be accurate. Guru Ji was a lot more pragmatic, far-sighted, and shrewd than his modern day followers give him credit for. These lot won't be at peace until they've completed pendu-fied our Guru Sahibs into crude "chakdo Singho" caricatures. Drives me up the wall.

What has that got to do with anything being discussed? We're talking about pushing non-fighters into a fighting unit of Singhs whose sole aim was defeat the enemy and win battles. If some limp-wristed kavi (no offence to him) lined up alongside me in a battle situation, and it was presumed he had my back in a situation where I required support in a fight, I'd be pretty annoyed at the fact that I was guaranteed to die if my survival depended on the shivering wreck next to me. Dying the glorious death of a martyr is all well and good, but if the aim of war is to win battles and inflict damage on the enemy, then you have to be alive to push the enemy towards defeat. If everyone is getting martyred left, right, and centre, then that's great for their souls, but not so great for the act of winning a war. And before anyone posts the "Chiriyaa toh Baaj" bachan, which I believe in wholeheartedly, there's also the practical requirement of winning battles and defeating the enemy, which is a feat made possible only through the efforts of battle-hardened fighters and expert strategic planning; that's something we forget when we get all philosophical and metaphysical about the history of our Guru Sahibs. Without preparation, training, education, and skill, you CANNOT win a physical encounter. With the hand of God over your head, impossible feats are absolutely possible, but if that were the only requirement to excel in a particular field (in this case, war) there would've been no need to mold Sikhs into a martial race. A succession of sehaj paaths for a few hundred years would've done the job.

Would Guru Ji have expected the poets and the writers in his darbar (creative types who - shall we say - had delicate sensibilities not conducive to the temperament required of a warrior) to fight in the battles being waged at the time? Would they've forced a kirpan or a spear into the hand of a fey, flowery type who preferred wielding a pen than a sword?

The Anti-Christ!! Nah, just kidding.Basically, what I meant was the people who have the politicians in their pockets; the special interest groups, big business, etc. We don't know them specifically, but we sure as heck feel their influence in our lives as they work through government to fill their coffers and push detrimental policies at the expense of what's best for a sound and prosperous society.

The above is more to do with adultery than it is about celibacy.

Life doesn't magically change post-Amrit, like the flick of a switch without any conscious effort on your part. YOU have to change yourself. Hopefully, that process of change is instigated by the individual in question years or months prior to stepping before the Panj, if you're an adult. Faith, discipline, and humility. These are the three qualities I feel are at the heart of what Amrit represents.

Basically, you get amazing superpowers where you can read people's minds, predict the future, gain the strength of a thousand men, and just generally be an all-round Ubermensch. People fall at your feet whenever you leave your home, because they're unable to tolerate the immense spiritual aura that exudes from your radiant self. Everywhere you go people are begging you to bless them with kalyan... even the goreh! When you speak, your voice thunders and echoes in the air, so much so that it causes the earth to tremble to its core. You also gain the knowledge of hundreds of martial arts, such as kung fu, karate, jiu-jitsu, and judo to name a few. You don't have to train, they just come naturally. When someone speaks to you, you don't use normal sentences like the plebs you see walking around. Instead, you communicate through the verses found in scriptures. So, all in all, it's pretty awesome.

Nobody is going anywhere. This overreaction to a potential Trump presidency is as excitable and short-sighted as the effusive naivety that gushed from certain parties when Obama was being touted as a serious contender for the top job. It was almost as if the Messiah had returned and was about to usher mankind towards a higher stage of consciousness. I remember some incredibly foolish Sikhs were declaring Obama would hand us Khalistan! Yet, Obama oversaw a presidency that was responsible for more civilian deaths in Muslim lands due to drone attacks than that paagal Bush ever managed. What happened to his anti-war stance on which he practically built his campaign? Why is Guantanamo Bay still in operation when he declared to shut it down when he was inaugurated in 2008? A Trump presidency will be considerably watered-down compared to his outlandish declarations on the campaign trail. That's how it goes. Anything to get elected. These presidents and prime ministers of all hues are nothing but traitors and whores. Your true rulers are faceless. These elections in the west are nothing but sideshows to get the gullible and mentally infirm riled up enough to make them believe that democracy is real, so that they participate in these sham displays of collective action. I'm a socialist with conservative tendencies. That may sound like a paradox to some, but no more than the concept of a Saint-Soldier. We Sikhs and our faith are bigger than the games being played, but we've been dragged into the mud like the rest of mankind. Wake up.

Celibate good times, c'mon!

I'm not, brother. But it's the few rotten apples that give the genuine cases cause to reconsider their plans. I'd never besmirch, or even think of besmirching, a genuine mahapurash who's practiced what they've preached all their lives.

There's a couple of Singhs I know who wanted to forgo grisht jeevan and undertake seva back home (the genuine type of seva: feeding the poor, helping with construction projects of schools, hospitals, etc, not swanning around in luxury cars up and down English motorways, living the life of Riley whilst pretending to do seva). But in recent years they've been quite disturbed at how many high-profile scandals involving closeted Singhs have hit the headlines; Singhs who professed married life was not for them due to some "higher calling" but were in fact getting up to all sorts of shenanigans - some gay, some otherwise - under the pretence of being celibate. That really did dissuade them from remaining single, lol, so they bit the bullet and did the needful. I can't say I blame them!

Whatever works for the individual, I say. Just don't advocate celibacy and do the opposite behind closed doors. If it's too much for a person to handle, then get married and live the family way. You aren't a lesser Sikh for becoming a family man / woman; not at all. It's the "militant" lot who say stuff like, "You'll wander the earth as a restless spirit unless you get married" that do my nut in, lol.

I suppose I'll take have to take your word for it, as far fetched and as unlikely as this all sounds. You don't have to reply. In fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't.

One thing we need to be careful about as Sikhs when tackling the issue of Islamic extremism is not to hitch our wagon to the mainstream white narrative that's dominated by undercover racists. As we can see, when that happens, we leave ourselves open to accusations of racism and hypocrisy. As Sikhs, all criticism of Islam MUST be framed from our perspective; how it affects us and our people. Of course, there are going to be overlapping issues with whites and other groups, but I don't think we should be relying on louder, non-Sikh voices giving us legitimacy and a platform to voice our unique concerns. Plus, being against Islam and a certain type of Muslim is not reason to keep our mouths shut, lest the tables are turned in some hypothetical situation. That's moral cowardice, I.E. "I best not speak up against injustice, just in-case the goreh target me next time." That's just wrong on so many levels I just don't know where to begin. As Sikhs, being vigilant against Islam is NOT siding with white racists. It's NOT a mutually exclusive deal. I moved on from that. Not concerned.

I know a handful of Singhs who follow Bibeki maryada and you wouldn't know it to look at them, because they don't make a song and dance about it. More importantly, they're adults. They're in gainful employment, therefore have their own disposable income in order to live that lifestyle and fulfill their religious dietary requirements. It's a choice they made based on what they felt was the right thing to do according to their interpretation of Sikhi. Basically, they made an informed decision and are leading a lifestyle that doesn't affect any third party. A child has no business dictating such terms to his mother. If he (the child in Jagsaw's situation) feels so strongly about it, he should go find a job and learn how to cook. Plus, he should insist his mother doesn't wash or iron his clothes, in-case she pollutes his garments with her "unclean" touch. But, anyway, the bibek discussion has gone down a cul-de-sac that isn't wholly relevant to the discussion. The topic is about Hundal's grossly erroneous interpretation of Sikhi, and the devious manner in which he delights in throwing Sikhs under the bus in order to smooth the journey of his Muslim and / or Regressive Left sponsors that put food on his table. When I have the time, I'll try to make a post on why comparing the dietary requirements of certain Sikhs is a completely different kettle of fish to the systematic theocracy that is political Islam which is indisputably against the plurality of religious existence, and proceeds to make inroads into non-Muslim countries through the gentle yet concerted pushing of boundaries on multiple fronts, be they social and political. I make no promises, though, lol.

Serious questions: who prepares his food if he refuses his mum's cooking? How does he eat if he doesn't take food prepared from non-Gursikhs? He can't buy school lunches at the canteen due to obvious reasons, and he clearly isn't going to let his mum prepare a packed lunch for him. Snacks and junk food are off the table because they're prepared / manufactured by non-Gursikhs in non-bibeki environments. Does he only eat at the Gurdwara? Surely that isn't very practical. Plus, what madman allowed a 10 year-old to take Amrit, and more importantly, how is a pre-pubescent child dictating such terms to his parents when he relies on them to stay alive?

Comedy is well and good, and I'm always up for a laugh, but I've begun to notice how most Asian comedians in the diaspora have to knock their own culture in order to get laughs from the white man. It may seem innocuous at first - and I swear, I'm not turning into a SJW, lol - but what may seem like a harmless riff on cultural differences actually does a lot more long-term damage to our identity than at first sight. It is the comedy of observation, which is as old as the hills themselves, but when it's primarily a white audience from whom we wish to gain laughs, it does take on a slightly different context, whether we like it or not. The punchline is always "Look at us; look at how backwards and unsophisticated we are. Please laugh at us, white people. Laugh at our antiquated ways. We are so silly, aren't we?" I don't believe Asian comedians deliberately go out of their way to create these "culture clash" routines in order to have a dig at their own people, but the fact that they don't seem to see any inherent, long-term issues with their brand of comedy speaks volumes about the ingrained inferiority complex that's clearly present in the Asian subconscious. You have even the younger generation on YouTube such as Lily Singh doing similar dress-up / culture clash routines, and I always wonder what a white person with a couple of brain cells available to rub together must take away from such apparent self-deprecation. What conclusions do they draw from such routines, aside from the surface reaction of, "It's just a laugh"? If we keep beating the same drum, eventually you'll convince vast swathes of our future generations that we do belong to a lesser culture that should be laughed at and mocked, no matter how seemingly harmless. When there were the vast migrations of the 20th century of non-white cultures flocking to the west, such comedy was par for the course; it was fresh, exciting, and it was a way of the host countries getting to grips with these new arrivals and their ways in a manner they wouldn't otherwise care to discover. Now that we're well into the 21st century, it's safe to say we should be capable of moving on from the basic template of comedy that was in vogue in the 1950's up to the 1970's. Let's not even get into the whole political leanings of these, primarily, liberal Asian comedians, who are cut from the same cloth as those who pretend as if Asians are one homogeneous group without distinction, as they willfully ignore the nuanced and clearly delineated differences between us based on religion, culture, geography, language, etc. As much some of us would like to pretend "we're all in it together", the reality on the ground would suggest the opposite is true.

They have high standards. They aren't willing to settle for just anyone, lol.

Any country playing host to foreign immigrants (that's including us) is bound to have an element of discrimination amongst the indigenous population, whether it's conscious or otherwise. It's just human nature. It's when good, decent people that want to get on with everyone and not makes waves, come up against attitudes and obstacles that are preventing them from attaining opportunities on the basis of their race, is when that sense of injustice begins to be felt. My question is this: should we highlight these injustices and attempt to change the system, and in the process create more hostility towards us for daring to speak out, OR should we be determined to create our own opportunities and, in a way, put up barriers to ensure our own success?