MisterrSingh

I think you misunderstood me. We all behave differently to certain degrees when we're outside in the world compared to the privacy of our homes. That's just things to do with comfort levels and familiarity, etc. My argument was in a religious context, I.E. a so-called spiritual figure preaching about honesty and integrity when in public, but when away from the gaze of the sangat he's performing dodgy business deals or hurting people in various ways. That isn't a soul being weak; that's being mindfully and willfully deceptive. That's what I was referring to.

Haha, I wouldn't take my assessment of it as gospel. It's just something I keep my eye on for various reasons. It's fascinating to observe as those situations unfold before our eyes. Once you begin to understand human psychology and habits it all begins to make sense.

It's a thought that's disturbed me since I discovered they were brothers a few months ago. But then I remember Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Prithi Chand were of the same parentage, so it's not so hard to come to terms with such apparent anomalies that have precedence even in our Guru Sahib's lives.

I think a lot of issues come into play when a person aspires to that type of image without possessing the genuine substance behind it. Too many to mention, lol, but it's a mild form of mental illness IMO, or maybe it's plain old deviousness, or perhaps that individual set out with noble intentions but was corrupted along the way either by others or their own ambitions and motivations. None of this would be possible if most of the followers who profess to be religious or spiritual weren't so gullible to allow such individuals to take a foothold in people's perceptions. There's a heck of a lot of enabling that goes on that allows such frauds to rise to prominence; these "saints and leaders" need a captive audience to survive, and when they receive that audience they realise they're "in." From there on in, it's just a matter of chipping away and working hard to elevate their name and standing to further increase their reach and impact on others. Sounds exhausting, lol. But, as you correctly said, a sane minded person would only care what God thinks of us. That's why I think such people aren't sane; in fact they're the opposite of sane. It's just, somehow, under the protection of religion, they are given legitimacy.

I haven't got a negative or even mildly unfavourable thing to say about Jugraj Singh. I think he's arguably the only person in modern day Sikhi (in terms of the youngsters) who's trying to make a positive change through parchaar WITHOUT the strange hangers-on and ego massagers that usually surround such people when they get a bit prolific. He's a legend IMO. My point, if I had one, lol, was a general observation from back when I was a kid about people who said a lot of things and behaved a heck of a lot differently behind closed doors compared to when they were around people. I should've made that clear.

Not explicitly, but their demeanour suggests otherwise. Sounds like I'm doing nindya, but I'm not, lol, just hypotheticals.

Agree, but the ones who profess to be on the cusp of being a brahmgiani, but lack other qualities one would normally associate with a person who's experiencing spiritual bliss on a regular basis, are pulling the wool over people's eyes.

I can see where the OP is coming from in a way. When someone has reached that particular stage of enlightenment, or is on the road to it, they don't feel the need to shout about it. They radiate it. There's the old saying, "empty vessels make the most sound." Well that quote springs to mind when it comes to those who talk a good game but don't play it. Nothing in their nature or demeanour suggests they are connecting to God in any way. They're riddled with anger, resentment, insecurities, as much as normal folk who don't even bother with religion. In those cases one begins to wonder what affect religion is actually having on that person. But it's also about faith. Faith is so important. But even that needs to be tempered by other attributes and values, I.E. blind faith yet no active or conscious efforts on our part will not yield results. It's always about a balance.

That's exactly the issue. First, whenever a Sikh does make it in the white man's world, he or she begins to look down their nose at the rest of us pendus, as if we've just popped over on the banana boat last week. Not many, if any at all, keep it real, lol. The status and the associated lifestyle goes to the heads of these people. Secondly, modern journalism is completed funked up. You're either on the Left with its associated bakwaas like The Guardian, or you're a few steps removed from Nazism on the Right with papers like The Daily Mail. And if a journalist values his or her career they've got to tow the party line that the editor feeds his staff... unless one happens to be hugely successful in their own right and can't be dictated to. But rarely do our journalists become celebrity journalists, lol; they hover around the middle brackets, not daring to create any waves that will upset the higher ups.

I gather he's quite unpopular amongst his peers in the industry. Reading between the lines I get the impression they think he's a bit of a joke.

Proves how thick he is. If he was good at playing the game he'd know which battles to fight and which to walk away from by judging the mood and the likes of the crowd he plays up to. He's made a miscalculation, and now his chamche are wondering what else he could be wrong about.

You're kidding me! That has to be the old Balkaar Singh dry sense of humour. Please tell me it ain't true...

Another Muslah troll at it again, lmao. So easy to spot one.

How does something like that even exist?

What's MSG3?

Yep, I thought the Ahmaddaiya term rung a bell. They're mischief making of course, but these guys get it real bad from other Muslims. They're practically viewed as apostates and not really Muslims. I read somewhere they're persecuted in places like Pakistan, and are lumped in with the Christians and other non desirable non-Muslims.

Is there a Sikhi-centric explanation as to why these beings were ubiquitous back in the day, but nowadays they only manifest in visions and dreams to the select few? I am a believer BTW, in terms of them existing as stated by Gurbani. If that makes me gullible or whatever, that's fine. But equally I don't want to extinguish the life force of anyone who believes they were metaphorical constructs, lol.

If only they knew the power of the Sikh side.

In principle I wholeheartedly agree with you. In practice I think it depends on a couple of factors. However, from a purely Sikh perspective (in terms of a marriage where both guy and girl have been introduced to each other by a third party) complete transparency is the only choice. If one side is labouring under the mistaken assumption that the other has not partaken in full intercourse, then that's a complete no-no as far as I'm concerned. In terms of the OP where it seemed like a slap-and-tickle situation (without wishing to get too explicit) I feel there's some leeway to be had. The main factor I alluded to earlier that determines if to disclose past situations that don't involve full intercourse, but do include sexual activity of various sorts: 1. Maturity of the guy and girl in question. IMO, if it's made clear "something" happened during youth or in the past (that wasn't part of a regular lifestyle of dating and promiscuity), if a person feels their partner is mature enough to handle those revelations, then by all means disclose what occurred. On the other hand if such information will act as a barrier to cause mistrust and double-guessing between the guy and the girl - and as long as it was a one-off and wasn't part of a heady lifestyle of debauchery - I'd elect to keep that particular mistake under wraps. There's no point in raking up the past if it's firmly behind you. But, as I said, if you've copped off with someone, then no matter how sorry you are or how long ago it was, in a Sikh arranged marriage situation, if your partner asks you straight, just tell them the truth.

Unless you're planning to walk around with a sign around your neck which reads, "I fiddled around with a member of the opposite sex" for the rest of your life, I don't think you should stress too much. Honesty is always preferable, but there's being too honest, and that usually ends up creating more problems than it solves. You clearly feel contrite and are sincere with your regret, so don't beat yourself up about it. If there's a deeper reason for your apparent remorse, I.E. it's dawned on you that, as a form of divine "punishment" from God, you will end up marrying somebody who also has a few sordid secrets tucked away, that's a whole different kettle of fish and something you need to come to terms with as you get older. You've had your cake and eaten it, but now you're worried someone will have had a nibble on the slice of cake that was meant for you... or something like that, I'm getting my metaphors mixed up. As long as you endeavour to not make similar mistakes in the future, there is nothing else much for you to do. Finally, as you grow older you'll realise life is not fair. Bad things happens to good people, and great things happen to terrible people too. That should be some consolation for you if you're worried about the future. You may be one of the lucky ones... from a certain perspective at least.

There used to be an ice cream flavour called "Tutti Fruity" (pronounced "Tooty Fruity" of course) when I was a kid, but we use to call it as it was spelt in a Punjabi accent, lmao. When I use to go shopping with my mum I use to say out loud, "Can we get some Tutti Fruity?" emphasis on Tutti. Great times.

I practically grew up with and was mates with Jamaican kids during primary school (nearly all the white kids who were my friends where I lived spoke like them too). We all know the hilarious lingo they employ amongst themselves, but I never felt compelled to imitate their style of speaking. There was the odd "Stop being a battyman" on occasions, lol, but it was okay. But when you've got affluent Sikh kids from leafy suburbs coming out with that "blud and ting" bakwaas, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

It's frickkin embarrassing to hear Sikhs talk like that, especially when they don't even live near an urban area or haven't grown up around people from that background. David Starkey, the prominent historian, suggested a theory for this trend a few years back when the riots in England were kicking off, but he was roundly shouted down for being racist by the Left, when, I actually think, he had a point - I don't even think he was being racist at all by pointing out non-blacks who adopt that patois do it to appear and sound "cool." It's been going on since I was a kid, so it's not a new phenomenon.

Steady on there, Singh, you're giving the impression I water-boarded you Guantanamo-style to get the truth out of you, lol. Anyway, you're young, nobody really minds that you're struggling with this issue at your age. You shouldn't really obsess over it. If you were in your 30's, then it might be a bit weird.