Balkaar

Hasn't this exact same topic appeared in several other guises quite recently? Examine these links, if you would, everything you could conceivably wish to know about this topic has been covered here, exhaustively: http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/77200-hypothetical-new-sikh-sect-that-accepts-homosexuality/ http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/77269-if-sikhs-were-forced-to-marry-gay-couples/

Right, there are much too many different varieties for you to use such generalizations as 'Indian DNA'. It isn't even akin to saying European DNA. Most European DNA is quite similar, the DNA of Dravidians and their northern neighbors is completely different, they do not belong beneath the same umbrella. Hindu varnas have no place in Sikhi. We do not acknowledge them. By that logic, Sikhs therefore cannot be Indians. And what about the untouchables? They aren't members of any varna. If you insist that an Indian is defined as one who professes caste membership, the untouchables must not be Indians either.

I think you mean 'Sri Preet Maharani Ji', brother. Then again, anything is possible in that universe.

Indian DNA? Preeet, how do you manage to access this forum from the alternate dimension where you live, in which a Punjabi belongs to the same race as a bloke from Tamil Nadu? Please reply, your answer could be very beneficial to the scientists of my own universe.

-

I'm guessing they're there to consume the algae and aquatic insects that would come to predominate if not for them. They keep the sarovar clean. They're also very beautiful animals.

Of course, there is much to be admired about Preeet in point of fortitude. She fights her corner like a Singhni should, and clearly aspires to some pretty lofty ideals.

Lol Nope, no I did not, but I've never before had to reckon with a force like Preeet

Yeah DTF! You have no right to criticize a paedophile or a murderer unless you first take them out for lunch, have a nice chat and get to know them a little better. (*Sarcasm*) It is also a nonsensical idea that we who degrade people like murderers become their equals by doing so. I simply am better than a child rapist, I think I can claim this much for myself without being unduly accused of hubris.

Preet, this is exorbitantly strange logic you are deploying here. I've never come across this idea anywhere in Guru's Bani. Of course Amritdharis can be bad, what about Ajit Poohla who raped the womenfolk of our Kharku Singhs? He's no Bhagat of Akaal Purakh.

-

This really is a messy affair. Although I find it completely believable that the cowardly Indians would be capable of immolating hundreds of their own in order to incriminate the Sikhs, I hesitate to ascribe all the wrongdoings supposedly committed by our own to them instead, as many of us our wont to do. How in the world can one be said to be making fun of the entire Khalsa Panth for pointing out the fact that Amritdharis can be rotten too?

Whatever their motivations for it, the move was stupid and utterly pointless. Not one enemy of the Sikhs was killed because of it, and Indian Airways was hardly a limb of the Hindu Sarkaar. It's like Al Qaeda blowing up an American Apparel thinking that it is affiliated with the American government just because the name of store contains the word 'America'.

There were more AKJs and Taksaalis fighting for the freedom of our people than there were Nihang Singhs. The AKJ's emphasis is on Kirtan. The Taksaal's is on Santhiya. And yet their military contributions were greater than the Buddha Dal's, the samparda whose professed métier is warfare. I don't doubt that Nihangs do Seva, but one doesn't need to be a Nihang to do seva. The only thing that apparently distinguishes Nihangs from ordinary Sikhs is their position as faujis. What good are faujis who don't actually fight?

Parmar's exalted reputation has always confounded me veerji. I support the Khalistan movement completely, but massacring a planeload of civilians is nothing more than terrorism. I'm not surprised the Canadians think so poorly of Sikhs if they really parade his portrait about like that, and treat one of the most shameful events in our history as though it is something to be celebrated.

I'm talking about this: http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-canadians-think-of-sikhs-jews-christians-muslims/ A quarter of the Canadians polled believe Sikhism encourages violence. 30% of British Columbians, theirs being the province where Canadian Sikhs are the most highly concentrated, believe the same. All I'm saying is that there is obviously something wrong happening in your community, because very few Britons believe the same about the Sikh people.

I'm no Canadian, but can one of you transatlantic brothers or sisters explain to me why the Sikhs in your country have developed a reputation as criminals and extremists in the minds of their non-Sikh countrymen, whereas Sikhs in nations such as my own are very highly regarded?

I don't think so. Most of these so-called moderates haven't the faintest idea what's actually written in the Koran, just like the majority of the supposed adherents of other religions (our own religion isn't exempt from this trend either). Or, if they do, they deliberately misquote verses and search for loopholes in order to escape the obvious nastiness of the Koran. They're the sort of people that read a passage like "Kill all unbelievers wherever you find them" and then proceed to scratch their heads and ask themselves "Hmmmn, I wonder what he means by that?". It's often said that the Islam of Al Qaeda/ ISIS is erected atop a twisted 'interpretation' of the Koran. The only ones who are doing any 'interpreting', if we consider the literal definition of the word, are the moderates whom I have just described to you brother.

It may have something to do with our parents and grandparents. The Sikhs advanced very quickly up the social hierarchy in countries such as the United Kingdom. Our arrival on these shores was concurrent with communities like the West Indians and Caribbeans, and we were all of us poor when we first arrived. Now, Sikhs are largely middle class, whereas most Afro-Caribbeans are still working class. But our ascent was very quick, too quick for us to discard our poor persons' mentality. Oscar Wilde once said "There is only one class in the community that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the poor." Most of our grandparents and parents were born into relative poverty. My parents both used to live in a single room with the entirety of their respective families. My parents have done well for themselves now but they still have the mentality of poor people, if you know what I mean, the same that they evolved during their most formative years. It is only to be expected therefore that their greatest concern in life is the accumulation of wealth, and that they are incapable of seeing that their children (born into some wealth already, and so less concerned with its accumulation) could want anything but the same.

-

Pakandi baba, on 01 Jul 2015 - 12:55, said: Yep, you found me out. I'm not actually Balkaar Singh, my real name is Balkaar Raam, I'm an undercover RSS Chela trying to subvert your Sikh panth from the inside. Grow up. Not everybody with a divergent point of view is peddling some hidden agenda. I'l happily refrain from addressing your posts.

Lol, bloody marvelous MisterrSingh

First of all, let me say that I respect you for having the humility to openly confess this problem. Personally Veerji, I don't think there's much harm in masturbating very occasionally to relieve stress. If you don't then your semen will emerge of its own accord whilst you are asleep, causing some nuisance and a little mess. However if you are masturbating regularly and incorporating pornography, this can be quite detrimental to your well-being. I used to spend inordinate amounts of time alone in my room watching porn. However I did several things to end this corrosive habit and they were quite effective - - Leave your bedroom door open. The prospect of my grandmother walking in, beholding ungodly horrors and subsequently succumbing to a fatal heart attack pretty much crushed any of my masturbatory plans. - Make your room a positive environment. Have a lot of pictures of the Guru Sahibaan, Mahapurakhs or Gursikhs. Keep gutka sahibs and shastars out in the open. By the end of it, the idea of masturbating in your room will seem very, very unappealing. - Exercise often and hard. It is a good way to dispose of any pent-up energy or frustration. - Simran and Paath, of course. I wish you luck.

Hinduism, and by extension, Hindu, are very tricky terms to define veerji. The Hinduism of today with its emphasis on the Trimurti would be unrecognizable to a Hindu living in the centuries before Christ, to whom Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu were little more than footnotes in sacred texts. If Jacfsing's definition of a Hindu is one who makes propitiations to the trinity of gods, then nobody before the first century AD could be called a Hindu. A Hindu of old would be chiefly defined by his worship of Indra, the lord of storms, He would make sacrifices to Agni, lord of fire, tossing butter, soma (the juice of a hallucinatory plant) and meat into the flames in order that Agni could deliver these offerings to the realm of the gods. It would be unthinkable for a contemporary Hindu to slaughter a cow, but their ancestors did so with zealous abandon, Indra was said to be particularly fond of the charred flesh of bulls. Today all these elemental deities, whom the Norsefolk and the ancient Greeks would not have found unfamiliar, have been completely forgotten and overshadowed by the new triumvirate. It isn't entirely surprising either. When a society advances from agrarianism and develops a system of commerce for instance, a goddess of wealth like Saraswati becomes more relevant, and Vayu, god of the wind, less so. Religions tend to reflect the societies in which they are conceived. 'Hinduism' has changed beyond all recognition, but has somehow retained its name. I think therefore, it could probably be best defined as having faith in any member of the Indian polytheistic pantheon. So that I'm not completely off topic here, several of the Bhagats were devoted to individual deities. Ramanand was a devout Vaishnav, Surdas a worshipper of Krishan.

Jae Hum Ko Parameshvar Uuchar Hai, Thae Sabh Narak Kund Mehi Paar Hai. Mo ko dass thavan ka jaano, ya mai baed na ranch pashano He who calls me God will burn in the fires of hell, I am only the servant of God, do not doubt this. This is from the rasna of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Sahib in Bachittar Natak, where the subject is himself. I understand that for these Sikhs to die may have been the will of God, but then why did Guru Sahib write the Zafarnamah and chastise Aurangzeb as if it was his fault? Why blame him at all for simply enacting the will of the divine? Guru Sahib himself admits in Zafarnamah that he made a mistake: Hadn’t I taken thee to thy word upon the Koran, I wouldn’t have chosen the path I did. (23) I knew not that thy men were crafty and deceitful like a fox. Else I wouldn’t have driven myself to this state. (24)