MisterrSingh

At least I'm true to myself. Can we say the same for you? At least I'm not lying to myself. Are you being honest with yourself? BTW I'm not angry at all. Dr. Zhivago you're not. LOL!!!!

Is that the royal 'we'? Is there more than one of you? You aren't possessed, are you? That could explain the self hate.

LOL!

Read what was actually written instead of blindly supporting your cohorts. Read what I criticized on. I urge you to stop with the blind solidarity, pack mentality and group think. For once in your life, learn to think independently.

If you believe whites are elites and the rulers clearly, you despise them. Why choose to live among those whom you despise?

I see you're still avoiding the question nearly two weeks after it was asked, lol.

You're too angry and emotional to have a cordial and sensible debate with. When you stop grasping at straws and pushing people's moderate words towards extremes, then we'll talk.

...also health and safety in Uk since that incident of the little boy falling into a dhal pateela during vaisakhi in East London (Goodmayes I think) a few years back .

What happened there? Is the kid okay?

Two of the Gurdwaras I frequent have their kitchens inspected by the local authority on an annual basis. The findings of each inspection are posted on the noticeboard near the front doors.

The solution isn't banning Sehajdharis, but rather banning the SGPC.

Why would a Sehajdhari wish to involve him or herself in matters of orthodoxy, anyway? If the religion they professed to follow was genuinely close to their heart, surely they'd make the transition from Sehajdhari to Amritdhari?

But having said that, i really liked ppl i met in both jathas. You shoukd really try to meet some ppl in jathas and taksal yourself. Its really cool how much they are into sikhi than us average sikhs. Of course tne youngsters take it too far, but kids like making cliques. So really try to meet some jatha/taksal singhs

From my experience, having encountered many of the "dedicated" from various jathas as i was growing up, one thing I feel they unanimously share across the board is an inability to look at the bigger picture. It was an unsettling feeling that troubled my conscience even as a child, and something I detected in them early on, but unable to articulate until recently. Whilst the hypocritical amongst them were a lost cause that I didn't spend much time wondering why they were the way they were, it was the otherwise decent and good-natured ones that gave me cause for concern.

I tried to emulate them for a while throughout my formative years in their dogged, inflexible approach, assuming that I was the one who was lacking in some way, but it proved too much for me. I am not suggesting for one moment my level of adherence was and is lax in any way; I like to think I'm disciplined and resolute in those ways that a Sikh should be disciplined, but not at the expense of a greater understanding of humanity.

I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to say, quite badly, is that whereas they saw Sikhi from a purely limited and immediately local perspective that was filtered quite heavily through their racial, cultural, and personal experiences, I've always felt Sikhi to be something that encompasses the entire spectrum of existence and not just one tiny part of it. Which approach makes for a better Sikh? God knows, lol.

I should clarify, I'm not one of those, "All paths lead to the same destination" type of pappu. Sikhi is a unique gift that, from what I can gather, other faiths barely begin to scratch the surface when it comes to uncovering the truths that Sikhi lays bare in an instant. Such a unique path should have an affect on the follower of that path, in terms of transforming an individual from within and eventually ironing out anything in their character that is an antithesis of the path they are on. Yet, from what I saw, there were no such improvements or changes in those people over the years and decades. But there was a lot of gum flapping.

May I ask a question that's kind of related to this area?

Do the various jathas that promote their own flavour of Sikhi - as valid as they may be - preach to their own, behind closed doors, that only their brand of Sikhi is the correct way to salvation and that other jathas are - for want of a better word - heretics? Or is there an understanding that the slight differences in Maryada are valid, and that ultimately as long as one leads a Gursikh life, those differences between groups don't really matter?

I read somewhere that maharaja Ranjit singh was the reincarnation of keso pandit whom Guru ji took to the top of the mountain to do Devi puja. He was sorry for his deeds and that is why he was offered raj by Guru ji.

I heard that Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the reincarnation of Aurangzeb. Apparently, he was inconsolable when he reached the afterlife after his reign of terror as emperor, so he was offered birth as a Sikh and the eventual Sikh kingdom as a way of making amends for his mistakes as the Mughal Emperor. Probably explains Maharaja Ranjit Singh's predilection for Muslim females; the soul memory lives on, lol.

Myths.

I hear that, but (just out interest) how does the fact that the strongest and most successful we appear to have been post our Guru's physically leaving us, was under some drinking, drug taking and arguably womenising man - maharajah Ranjit Singh?

Some of the most prolific and respected thinkers of modern times assert there is no God; that faith is a sign of a feeble-mind and a weak intellect. Some of the most incredibly successful and wealthiest people on earth are apparently horrible human beings with a raft of personality defects, yet that hasn't stopped them from achieving all they have. How is it that the Mughals were able to build such an empire when latter emperors butchered and maimed hundreds of thousands in order to hold onto power in the name of their religion?

What I'm trying to say is that mankind is capable of many feats that one might consider as an affront to the ways of God. Some might say, "If God was real and true, how and why would He allow such people to come to the fore and allow their voices to be heard by millions across the world? Surely He'd suppress such voices in order to prevent mankind being mislead."

In that respect, us thriving under Ranjit Singh despite him being a drinker, druggie, and womaniser is not a tacit endorsement of his lifestyle and a shining example of what we must do to succeed. It just means God affords us enough rope to do what we must do, and when we take things too far, we end up hanging ourselves. You could argue that we have a lot more freedom to live our lives than we've been lead to believe. A bolt of lightning from the heavens won't strike us when we think or do something against the laws of God. Even the "bad" things have a rhyme and a reason behind them. But eventually a price must be paid IMO.

Does anyone really believe our Guru Sahib would crow over an empire that in many ways was headed by people who were an affront to all he and his predecessors preached? Were they that easily impressed by a bit of earthly dominion that they'd endorse and bless such individuals with success? I'm not buying that.

As for the Sikh empire, it was material success that disappeared as soon as it came into being (or thereabouts). Empires eventually crumble; they all do. I wish I had the necessary spiritual knowledge to realise what Guru Ji meant by "Raaj." Knowing the world and our people as they are, it's difficult to see how various circumstances will conspire to allow that prophecy to come true. It will happen, but not for a long time IMO.

I never said it was bad.

Neither did I.

To be fair, Anon, the kind of Sikhs in university Sikh societies who think drinking is acceptable aren't the brand of Sikhs upon whose shoulders Khalsa Raaj will be hoisted into being. Those type of Sikhs are more concerned with the transient tastes and moods of whichever era they reside in; their opinions and beliefs change with the wind. They lack faith in the eternal and irrefutable word of God.

To be fair, Anon, the kind of Sikhs in university Sikh societies who think drinking is acceptable aren't the brand of Sikhs upon whose shoulders Khalsa Raaj will be hoisted into being. Those type of Sikhs are more concerned with the transient tastes and moods of whichever era they reside in; their opinions and beliefs change with the wind. They lack faith in the eternal and irrefutable word of God. Their philosophers and their thinkers hold more sway over them than their Guru.

MisterrSingh does have a point. The average fellow on this forum aren't Mahapurukhs, (I'm probably the worst to give advice), there probably are some. The way you phrased the question could've been better.

This forum is good for vichaar; the exchanging of opinions and sharing of ideas. For those who don't have access to sangat, it's essential IMO, as long as everyone's behaving in the correct spirit of obtaining knowledge.

This is actually not true Khalsa Ji.

There are many posters on this board who have been blessed. Some just don't know it yet.

Then I'm certain you'll receive the answer to your question.

thing that I see is those dhiley men who want their bibian to do reesan of other dharam women put false arguments up.

You have an unfortunate habit of interpreting things in their most basic and binary terms, and passing that off as fact, based on your own experiences and inherent prejudices.

I'm assuming that "dhiley" comment is a dig at me for daring to suggest that religious adherence in certain minority communities post 9/11 has increased, particularly in the display of external religious symbols and garments, almost as a defiant response to the hostility being faced by the members of these communities due to increasing displays of overt and not-so overt prejudice from white host communities.

You do understand we - as in Sikhs - in the west don't exist in a vortex where we're immune to the various psychological and sociological influences that non-Sikhs are exposed to?

Explain to me why there's been an increase in recent times of bibiya wearing dastaara, MORE SO than in previous years before the subject of religious adherence came into sharp focus, than at any other time in post-modern history, without resorting to reasons that cannot be applied universally.

You can't just pluck feel-good, emotive sentiments out of the air to justify your reasons, particularly when those reasons have little basis in what's occurring in the wider world on multiple levels. Someone of your intelligence shouldn't switch off their brain and related faculties when they encounter something that's at odds with their worldview and beliefs.

I'm not an historian, so the wider argument about what he or she wore on their head at one time or another is irrelevant and unimportant. Wear what you like, it makes no difference to me. If what's underneath the dastaar is nirra gandh, then it's a futile exercise anyway.

What about the idea of them simply not being mentally equipped to do so? Variance is a fact of nature. A significant part of our behaviour stems from biological factors relating to neurological characteristics - if the ability for reflection and self-critique are influenced by the biological make up of our brain, and intelligence varies within a community - how can we expect everyone (or even most of us) to be able to do this thing, which is essentially higher order thinking?

That's some next level stuff, hehe.

I'm sure those of us of a certain generation that had grandparents back home, who may not have been formally educated or trained due to various cultural, familial, or other related reasons, but did have an innate intelligence that made them formidable, would probably say there's more to "knowing" than what's found in a textbook.

In many ways they were smarter and more astute than the hordes of our current lot who have a handful of degrees and qualifications. It wasn't a weasly, street-smart kind of intelligence, but a genuine understanding and appreciation of the world and human psychology based on their existence and experiences. Yet, we call them unpadh because they never set foot inside a classroom their entire lives!

What I'm trying to say is that ignorance is not an excuse, and not trying to better oneself is an even bigger crime. Going through life, skimming the surface and revelling in the shallow superficialities of existence is an indictment on the individual. Clearly, people have varying abilities based on genetics and similar factors, but I don't think anyone with a fully-functioning mind has any excuse to cite extenuating circumstances.

In my relatively short life, I've observed a handful of cases where our people have obtained blessings of a child after a period of not being fortunate enough to conceive.

In all of those cases, with the benefit of hindsight and the passage of time, it becomes quite clear why that particular couple or family were not destined to become parents: sometimes, it's just not written for it to happen. Yet, our people, being the stubborn and arrogant individuals they are, believe they know better than God; that somehow he's made a mistake or He's punishing them.

It never crosses their minds that maybe, just maybe, He's protecting these people from a set of circumstances and a future that will prove to be impossible for them to handle with that particular coveted child in tow. And when, in the distant future, the full purpose behind the difficulty in obtaining that child is revealed through the natural progression of time, these same parents who'd have sold their own souls for a child, turn around and say, "If we knew this was going to happen, we wish he or she had never been born."

Then why were you losing your mind in despair at the time?!

I think you're spot on here.

The next question is: "How did the Sikh community somehow end up with their girls being pretty much ranked as low as these feral, underclass white girls?"

In brief, most of that is self-inflicted on our part IMO. There's also an aspect of meddling on the part of the white establishment; firstly, by recruiting "agents" from within our people to sow discord and forcibly challenge and attack accepted cultural narratives and norms that are positive and are seen as attributes that makes us difficult to mold, and secondly, a gradual psychological malaise that everyone is being exposed to in the west, whereby people are being mentally broken down on many fronts. Popular culture is playing a huge part in this process. Don't get me wrong, this recruitment I've mentioned isn't some kind of insidious selection process in a darkened room, because that simply doesn't work as it's in the realms of Ian Fleming-esque fantasy, lol. Those who are working against their own are doing so because they believe it is the right thing to do, AND as a way of furthering their own lives in terms of careers, etc.

The simplistic answer many will offer is: "We ain't religious any more" and whilst there is an undoubted element of that which may have contributed to this problem, the true and complete answer is much more complex.

Ironically, and this is my personal thought on the issue, a pure religious and spiritual existence, devoid of excessive dogma and hollow ritual, is the only way to identify AND then reverse the deceptions being heaped upon us. But that requires an incredible amount of introspection and thought that many just aren't prepared for.

I didn't do it to push anything onto others and I am sure many do it for the same reason as me , we want to look like our Father and Mother and siblings

The human mind works on many levels. What may motivate you to follow Sikhi is different for the next person. As much as we should avoid being slaves to the whims of our times, it cannot be disputed that external and internal stimuli play a huge part in our decision-making, whether we're conscious of it or not.

Govt sponsored interference to make it seem like somehow the girls are getting radicalised , remember that was the request before from GOI to create a bad feeling towards us . MissterSIngh how about actually reading history instead of jumping to false conclusions ? It was part of our history .

I'm merely referring to modern times, particularly in the West in recent years. I grew up around Gursikhs as a child, but even back then, I don't recall many of the bibiya - of all ages - wearing a dastaar. Although when I went to India as a child, I saw many Gursikh females wearing a turban. I'm aware it has historical precedent. Just trying to understand the sociological reasons for recent trends, particularly since 9/11 has put religious beliefs under the microscope.

I believe, and this may be controversial, there's a slight correlation between the increase of hijabi-wearing females and dastaar-wearing bibiya. There is something occurring on a subconscious level with religious adherence in females of certain faiths that im sure a professional could chart better than my untrained mind is trying to grasp. Something to do with asserting and expressing their autonomy as religious women through the wearing of visual vestments of faith, in response to an increasingly intolerant (compared to previous times) society. Or something like that.

I don't believe Trump has a chance to win either; however, if someone can publicly say the stuff he says and only rise in popularity then that shows the accepted views of a certain nation or group. (I personally would prefer Sanders among the big men remaining, but he's too fiscally liberal).

I get the impression this is all one elaborate social experiment. Trump's testing the waters, trying to see what's the most outrageous thing he can say before he's roundly castigated. He's actually testing the tolerance levels of certain westerners, in terms of how far society has leered towards various extremes, be it the bigoted Right, or the equally extreme but polar opposite Left. If the boundaries are gently being pushed further and further, eventually what's the middle ground will be a sight to behold, and not in a good way. Basically, they want to discover at what point we'll object. If that point never arrives, they'll keep pushing.