MisterrSingh

To the bit about people behaving differently behind closed doors, I guess each soul has their weaknesses, I'd think the majority of people do that.

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.

Thank you for explaining that. O_O

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.

I still wonder how this guy is Jugraj Singh's brother. (Vaheguru truly does work in mysterious ways).

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've seen this and that's what I don't understand. Why do some people desperately want to be some sort of 'saintly' figure to others? To me that's a very lonely life. In terms of sikhi, I'd be more worried about what vaheguru thinks of me ;A;

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 sometimes think this too, but then I think maybe it's because my level of intelligence is not high as others that its my perception towards somebody else's way of writing that I don't understand when one has hidden haumai or it's just the way they write. I tend to read and understand the things that are not covered up with fancy words to side track to confuse without Gurbani, that are not 10million pages long.

Jugraj Singh is doing a good seva which is much needed with the youth and those that wish to learn about Sikhi.

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.

I agree but I don't think anyone has professed being a brahmgiani?

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

Someone committing a bujjar kurehit is a step too far but to express normal human qualities is likely to occur even if they are experiencing naam as they still possess houmai, so that doesn't make them a gurmukh. :D

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.

We need better Sikh journalists or at least better journalists of Sikh origin.

I think that this lack of Sikh journalists is the problem because it elevates the likes of Sunny Hundal.He becomes the go to guy, particularly with media that represents the left (BBC/Guardian/Channel4).

I do not think any Sikh would mind criticisms, heck we are very critical on this forum of our own quom shortcomings but it should be objective.

However being objective is not something that is done in modern journalism.

I think the Sunny Hundal talk is veering off the topic in hand.

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.

He seems to appeal to the naive impressionable teenage girls and what makes it worrying is that he is a man that is approaching 40.

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.

Haa, the usual sunny hundal liberal lefty hippy "sikhs", who usually suck his backside out dry, r now turning on him and disagreein with him on this grooming issue. The guy is a complete joke, even non sikhs on his page, r sayin he seems very pro-muslim and anti-sikh.

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.

The members of a group founded by a man called Shiv Dayal Singh in Agra, whose followers began to claim he was sent by the almighty after they secretly sniffed his tutti and decided that it smelled like roses (I'm not even making this up).

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

This is for the Indien peoples site? You very racist to your own colour, why, you don't like yourselfs. You peoples sound you never like your own race colour. You like white colour skins to the brown colour skins but I don't think it is good, no? You must get proud of your colour and relegion and race because if you are not you telling people you hate yourselfs. No one can like your race if you don't like it. You like to mix with other colour but in your country there are over billions of people to get to marry them. I think you people very racist because you don't like to marry your own colour people but you want to marry the europeans. In many eruopean countries no one like the brown people and the immigrants are not good for these countries because they are poor and not many good facilities for their own citizens. Europeans will not like any foreigners marrying their children too as they very proud to be white and don't want to mix and look nothing nice at all. They think mixing is ugley and not so good for future. Mixing not so good in this way.

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

Aw yee

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.

voted up

If only they knew the power of the Sikh side.

He should let any potential partner know about his past before marriage, otherwise it can create more problems after.

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.

I've come to the point in my life where I regret this now. I want to find a Sikh partner for my life, but I feel I will be looked down at due to this area of my life. I feel that when girls find out I had a relationship in the past they will throw me to the side and I don't want to lie to them or hide it. At the same time I would prefer to end up with someone who hasn't had sexual relations in the past.... but I don't know if I can even expect that now

All in all I feel bad, but have learned from my experience. I will not date anyone until marriage. I just fear for how I should handle situations with Sikh women I meet in the future. Any thoughts from older/wiser individuals appreciated

thank you

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.

I used to live in South London back in the early 90's with a lot of black friends. This type of speech developed with these South London Black youth, I knew some East London, North London and West London Black youth and this type of speech was not as strong on them but it has spread. I think the influence and the popularity of ragga/jungle has had a part to play.

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.

I've heard our people chat too, innit, bluudd gaawan so it's not limited to Pakistanis.

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.

I'm not brave, it was Guru's Kirpa that I was able to post this, (I honestly that I was being gupt, but misterrsingh was the one who got me to admit that it was not my bravery, rather foolishness that this wasn't gupt).

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.