Balkaar

Veerji, do you want to drink them because you lift weights? Protein shakes are intended to supplement your diet, to help you meet your protein goals when your diet doesn't already fulfill them. If you can find a vegan protein shake, great, but if not, there are foods you can incorporate into your diet which will do the trick. The RDA (protein) for an average man is about 40g. I consume 100 grams of protein a day. 4 pints of skimmed milk, 46 almonds and a cheese dish every day surpasses this. It is also relatively cheap.

Your smugness is so palpable I could butter bread with it.

Further up on Ang 274, it is written: ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥ Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr || पर त्रिअ रूपु न पेखै नेत्र ॥ Whose eyes do not gaze upon the beauty of others' wives, Which implies, does it not, that gazing upon the beauty of one's own wife is permissible. But if Guru Sahib then goes on to speak of "conquering sexual instinct", how can this be permissible? If all sexual instinct is bad, is this not also? Maybe, just maybe, its because conquering sexual instinct isn't the same as destroying all traces of sexual instinct within oneself. The two words are profoundly different. "Eindree Jith Panch Dhokh Thae Rehat". Of course it shouldn't be overflowing, but directed at one person, in a monogamous relationship, I fail to see the harm in it. If you want to conquer your sexual instinct, be my guest, I wish you luck. Just don't be surprised when your junk doesn't work.

No, there's no explicit scriptural backing for my position. But I've yet to be shown that there is any for yours either, contrary to your hysterical protestations that there is. Nobody's even shown me any Gurbani yet. And in the absence of any definitive scriptural conclusion, is it more reasonable to say live and let live, or to impose prohibitions on these people anyway as if there were passages against it? You can carry on repeating "one man one woman, one man one woman, one man one woman" again and again, if you like. Although I think a better slogan for you would be "one man, one man, one man, one man, one man", considering you'll encounter great difficulties finding even one woman with that noxious attitude of yours.

After criticizing me for supposedly denouncing how Guru Sahib wrote the Maryada - - you quote the Maryada written by the SGPC? Is the SGPC your Guru Sahib? I for my part couldn't care less what they have to say about anything at all. Of course those crusty geezers would be against homosexuals on all accounts.

Show me the Rehitnama that says so. No good simply saying it does, I could have done the same thing to prove my own point.

Why such hatred for any and all manifestations of attraction? Do you have a wife? Is she not attracted to you? If not, I can't say I blame her, you do seem determined to be as cold and unappealing as the realms of possibility will allow you to be. Ban me? For expressing a view? I should imagine accusing people of being homosexuals on no grounds whatsoever is the sort of juvenile and slanderous behavior that merits removal from a forum for adults. Show me the rehitnama or a tuk from Guru Sahib's rasna which explicitly says that homosexuality is a sin. Only then will I change my mind. Until such a time as this evidence materializes, I'll dismiss all your pretensions to be speaking on behalf of Guru Sahib. - I'm straight by the way. What questions are these exactly?

If not for that, what then? And say, hypothetically, that everyone does conquer the very instincts that compel us towards sex. Everybody undergoes a mystical apotheosis and loses all desire for it. The species would come to an end. Humanity would die out. Who would be there to stop the dust from gathering on top of our Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib, in their empty and dishevelled Guru Ghars, fallen into disrepair and given over to the dominion of vines and animals? The sexual instinct is not anathema. The sexual instinct is not equal to lust. It is necessary for the persistence of humankind, and the survival of the Sikh Dharam on Earth.

Did I not speak about mutual consent in the post you just quoted? Of course I don't support marital rape. I'm against non-consensual activities of any sort. What did I say that prompted such a question? I'm defensive of gay people because gay rights is a cause I care about. Marriage should be predicated on love, first and foremost. But I can't exactly stop those who wish to get married for the wrong reasons.

I am not. Pornography is bad. Rape is bad. Exorbitant Fetishes are bad. Promiscuity is bad. But homosexuality isn't. I had a feeling somebody would equate rape to being gay. Two people who are married, man or woman, man and man, or woman and woman, who love one another, giving mutual consent to be physically intimate, is not the same as some boozy nutter forcing himself on a screaming woman.

Lust does not equal all sexual impulses or attractions. Lust is an excessive fixation on matters of sex and the exhibition of promiscuous behavior. It is bad, and it must be kept under control. However it is impossible and counter-productive to attempt to purge ourselves of all vestiges of sexual attraction. It is necessary for the continuation of the species no less, and for romantic love. Our own Guru Sahibaan had children. They didn't spring from holes in the ground, Jacfsing, they weren't delivered to Guru Sahib's house by the magic stork. They were created as per the traditional method. And the traditional method necessitates sexual attraction. Your nails will break off by themselves if you do pretty much anything with your hands. All these record breakers with extremely long nails have to sit there vegetating all day. We shower because we are stewards of our own bodies, they were given to us by God and we've a duty to look after them. I know nobody is born feeling attracted to men or women, you've missed the point entirely. But the genetic information which determines sexuality is still there in the child, only latent, not yet active. If nobody is born straight, then I must ask Jacfsing, when did you decide that you liked women? Or don't you? Have you conquered all sexual attraction and become asexual, like a mushroom?

Your hair will still get wet in a nylon hijab. One wonders why they make such things, considering all that figure hugging swimming gear rather defeats the purpose of a hijab. All that will come of wearing it is that you will look Muslim.

That is completely unnecessary. I believe with the utmost conviction that Sikhi is the only major monotheistic religion that can accommodate homosexuals. We, as Sikhs, keep our kes uncut because we are enjoined to accept our Satguru's design. Does the same not apply to one's sexual orientation? If one is born gay, then the 'Sikh' thing to do, in my opinion, is to accept that too. And for those who are considering drawing comparisons between two consenting adults of the same sex having a loving relationship, and monsters who molest children, paedophilia and most other forms of sexual deviancy are acquired behaviors. Nobody is born with these proclivities. The instance of paedophilia for example is quite high among people who were sexually abused as children. It is sad that certain elements have made Sikhi so inhospitable for some people that ideas of fantastical Sikh sects where they can finally be accepted even has to be considered.

There is quite a disparity between a Hindu becoming a Sikh gradually whilst struggling to shake off their past life, and one who claims to be a Sikh whilst defiantly iterating Hindu myths.

I think she and I both agree that neither of us will ever agree on anything. Which means we finally agree on something! Yippee

My knowledge of today's Sikh luminaries isn't very extensive, but I lean towards the Zinda Shaheed Sant Baba Nihaal Singh of the Harian Bela Nihangs (he is one of the few Nihangs respected by pretty much all Sikh groups). Bhai Jagraj Singh (Basics of Sikhi) also seems to have attracted a great deal of admiration from all quarters.

That's very well-considered MisterrSingh. I ought not have administered such heated advice so hastily.

Christian prosleytization doesn't proceed from motives of extending the sphere of Western political influence, but from patronizing and condescending notions about non-Christians. Christian evangelists believe that they are saving the souls of non-Christians by initiating them into the mysteries of their archaic desert religion. In pursuit of this 'greater good', no method is too base. Consequently, poor Sikhs are bribed into forsaking their faith. I think we Sikhs need to wake up and realize that Christian and Muslim missionaries will never relent in their pursuit of a worldwide hegemony of their respective religions. I think we need to send out our own missionaries to make up the numbers we lose. There are 25 million Sikhs in the world, and over a billion Christians, they can afford to lose people, we simply can't. Moreover, it is our duty to spread the faith, as people who pray for 'Sarbat Da Bhalla'. We wouldn't need to blackmail or bribe them. Once they see how Sikhi preaches complete equality and accommodates reason, the retrograde doctrines of their former religions will immediately lose their luster.

Whom do you think would be suitable candidates veerji?

It's a noble sentiment, but I think we'd do better to focus on reforming the governing bodies of the Sikh world in the Punjab, not on erecting our own elsewhere. Sikhi could do without a schism right now. Also, as other posters have pointed out, the Sikhs of the West are no less susceptible to corruption than our brethren in the Punjab. An Akaal Takhat in exile would probably still be rife with politicians and plutocrats. I think what we really need is some sort of mass uprising in the Punjab. The stranglehold of the Badals on Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib has to be broken. I could see the Sarbat Khalsa being a solution to this problem at least.

My situation is exactly the same as yours, but I don't find it to be an issue at all. Then again I am a cold, reptilian loner, whereas you probably aren't. I'd suggest looking through this thread. The sentiment expressed therein is almost identical to your own - http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/77145-intimidation-in-sangat/ Why not try talking to some goray? Good Sangat doesn't necessarily mean rehitvaan Gursikhs. I've more relationships with non-Sikhs than Sikhs, and it hasn't been bad at all. Some of them have really helped in my development and spiritual progression. I don't think there can be a substitute for live Kirtan however. Nothing quite like it. Ultimately, your relationship with your Guru should be very personal and very intimate. I don't believe it should be predicated on being around other Sikhs. Keep this in mind in your darker moments. I did, and it did me immeasurable good. Best of luck, Sister

Do Americans spend all day looking directly into the sun? I can't see how it should have escaped their notice that she is clearly a white woman with a mediocre fake tan. While I don't know how to feel about her racial appropriation, this web of lies that she spun is shameful.

Are we ever going to agree on ANYTHING?

The Naamdharis of old had an irresistible tendency to foist Guruship upon their leaders. Baba Raam Singh, the second leader of the sect, made his allegiance to Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj quite explicit, but his followers would have none of it. They declared him the twelfth Guru, an avtar of Guru Gobind Singh no less. Similarly, his predecessor Baba Balak Singh was claimed to have been the Eleventh Guru, who received Gur Gaddi in secret from Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself, who had apparently escaped his funerary pyre and assumed an altar ego. I can't speak for Raam Singh's successors, but the tradition of Namdhari 'Gurus' was initiated not by any chief of the sect, but by the fanatical Namdhari masses amidst the heated protests of the intended Guru. It's quite fascinating.

I regret that I am unable to read Gurmukhi, Veerji. I would be obliged if someone could translate the post.