TejS

Sikhi pretty much criticizes and goes against their tenets, sayings and practices, and so I think indirectly it does deny the authenticity of their claim of being chosen by God.

This is the problem I have with the concept of "prophethood" in Abrahamic religions. You have these figures that are living their lives, and suddenly they're "chosen" by God. Why? Where is the logic in that? If the person in their life never once tried to reach out to God for truth, contemplate on the truth, seek out God on their own, or tried to attain a morally perfect life, then why? It makes no sense to choose that person over someone who is giving his/her all to attain God. Judaism is mostly a fabricated religion meant to embolden and ensemble a diverse group of people under one identity. I wouldn't doubt it if all of their doctrine is simply imagination at play. The Torah reads more like a fantasy saga than a spiritual doctrine on truth. And the same applies to the other Abrahamic religions.

I've heard dalia has always been consumed a lot in ancient Punjab, even back to the times of the Indus Valley. I think it's called bulghur wheat in English.

Krishna goes on to say that Arjuna can attain moksha through karma yoga - the fulfilling of his caste's duty to fight and kill. How is that my emphasis, or interpretation? It's written literally in the Gita. What exactly did you think? The Dasyus were enemies because they worshipped phallic idols. You said they were servants. Vishnu doesn't even exist as a separate entity, it's just a needless personification of God's nature created for those lacking in intelligence.

My emphasis? You mean Krishna's emphasis on caste? Jaat stems from "ajaat", meaning casteless, someone who the Brahmins removed from the caste system due to them not abiding by Hindu practices. Now that same Jaat tribe has become a caste in Sikhism, where it serves the role of a "Brahmin" dictating who can step into a Gurudwara and who cannot. They yield themselves as the saviors, upholders of Sikhism, which is plainly laughable. The dasyu were enemies, the Aryan obliterated them: http://vedic-age.blogspot.com/2009/11/conflicts-of-aryans.html Vishnu is what? Nothing but a minor quality of a limitless God, Akal Purakh, who the Hindus have personified into a demigod. God is the creator of all. “He created air, water, fire, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva” (Guru Granth Sahib, 504). “He created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, who act according to His Will” (Guru Granth Sahib, 948). Not sure why you are emphasizing his minor attribute. This is the problem with Hindus, they see through parts, they lack the mental strength to see the whole. Let's not err like them as Sikhs.

You just called my interpretation "blah blah blah", yet go on to telling me to respect other's views, now that's laughable. I don't know how naive does one have to be to not be able to see that the caste system arose out of racial tension in India. The Vedas were written in Punjab, a purely Indo-Aryan society. When scholarship moved eastwards to Uttar Pradesh, after the fall of the Kuru Kingdom, the Mahabharata and the encompassed Gita was written with new rules drawn to counter the spread of Buddhism such as the incorporation of reincarnation and impose segregation among the racially different people. Being respectful is one thing, being ignorant is another. A tribe is very different from caste. Not sure why you are equating the two. And no there's no mention of caste in Rig Veda, because there was no division among the people. Everyone was equal. The only common enemy was the Dasyu, the idol worshippers, which is also another act your beloved Krishna advocates in the Gita going against the Veda, therefore going against the Hindu claim of having an "eternal way".

I guess you didn't understand what I found laughable. I wasn't laughing at the avatar himself or that he came later on in the future, I'm laughing at the teaching he departs to people in the Bhagavad Geeta. His emphasis on Arjuna attaining mukti/moksha on the basis of karma yoga, and his karma being the duties of his caste is laughable. It enforces one's caste and goes against the original Rig Veda that has no defined caste system and against Sikhi too. Not to mention that it is inconsistent with warranting reincarnation and demigod worship which is not found within the original Veda and contradicts its teachings.

Ah yes. Thank you for explaining. I agree this is a system that we need to bring back in a civil way.

I know you said no Apple, but I think you should really give them a second thought. I purchased a MacBook Pro in 2012 and it's still going strong, and the free yearly update of macOS secures your computer more so than any Windows machine, not to mention the issues Windows has with privacy. Shouldn't this be in the Lifestyle section?

That's a good observation on the warrior minded approach to worship. If you gloss over the Rig Veda, which is untouched by Dravidian influence, you can still feel the same warrior-esque worship in that text as well. In adding to what you have said, Middle Eastern worship is also very much about a slave-master dynamic. Their religions enslaves one's mentality and restricts individuals from becoming their own masters. I would say however that the Indo-European were more animistic than the Middle Easterners. Ram is not the one that's blue/black, instead you're referring to Krishna. Krishna is a god that is not found in the original Hindu text, the Rig Veda, and comes far later and is believed to have been written as a result of appeasing the Dravidian population and bringing them into the "Hindu" fold. This is why I laugh when people claim Hinduism as the Sanatana Dharma, the "eternal way", because there is nothing eternal about it. The whole system of worship has been butchered, reverted to appease so and so. The whole concept of reincarnation, caste, idol worship is completely missing from the Rig Veda, and the text actually looks down upon present-day Hindu worship. There was never a lighter skinned influx from Afghan/Persia into South Asia. That is a myth. We are not descended from Afghans or Persians, instead all of us are descended from Indo-European tribes found in the Eurasian steppes who mixed with the Dravidian of India.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

The original tribes of Hindus were Indo-European, and we (Punjabis) were a part of that group. Middle Eastern beliefs stem from the Fertile Crescent, however Dravidian are believed to have come from the Middle East and therefore present-day Hinduism is a mixture of Indo-European beliefs and Dravidian practices (idol worship being the notable one).

I disagree that Khatris are "the highest" kul, unless you meant that in jest. And the differences that you see in people's faces is superficial. In fact, that's what I'm trying to prove through genetics. A Khatri and a Jatt are genetically the same. Jatts are as Scythian as a Khatri or a Tarkhan - the genetic results are the same. Refer to the document I posted that shows you the breakdowns of multiple Sikh people.

This. I cannot agree more with this. I've even echoed similar sentiments on here multiple times. We have been doing the opposite of this in naivety, and have as a result suffered. I can understand our doctrine encourages seva, but you can only provide seva until your foundation is strong. If your home is a mess and is not functioning, how are you supposed to go help others. We need to strengthen our own community by ourselves, but unfortunately our people think that helping others hundred of miles away from Punjab is considered seva, and not helping our own.

I'm confused. Isn't gotra and caste the same thing? All I'm saying is that certain castes like to claim superiority over other castes because they believe they are superior due to their lineage. I've heard certain tribe/caste members say that their tribe were from so and so, invaders from here and there, descended from him or her. And so by showing all Sikh Punjabi caste communities their genetic tests, they'll come to realize that they're the same people genetically and are not different at all, therefore they may think that the farmer, or merchant or carpenter caste individual is below them, but really they aren't in any way. In fact, I'd also like to mention that Punjabis, Haryanvis, Himachlis, Sindhis, Rajasthanis and even Kashmiris are genetically the same people divided needlessly on language and now religion. We as Sikhs should unite these tribes under Sikhi.

Because we're specifically trying to eradicate caste within Sikh Punjabis.

Get Sikh Punjabi's to partake in a genetic test or become more aware about them. And I can guarantee, having already seen the results of Jatts, Khatris, Rajputs, Tarkhans, that there is no little to no difference. This will erase any doubts about genetic or familial superiority when they realize they're the same blood and people. And as for the Dalit populations, well they are the original inhabitants of Punjab, and therefore we all have a substantial amount of Dalit "in all of us" as evidenced by the "South Indian" and "Baloch" component we share with them, so there is that. Anyways, I don't think genetic tests should warrant how we treat someone or not, but it helps in bringing us closer through logic. Here's some results for those who are interested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mTH_BnLv9riKKwHeNpjFmu7flT6_ekTuYij0juxnjb4/edit#gid=1369294505 To break it down, I'll explain the major components: South Indian - pretty obvious (this is found in Dalits/Chamaars in heavy percentages - approx. 60%). Baloch - this is not named after the Balochi people, however a Gedrosian component that came to South Asia from Iran during the Indus Valley, it's also referred to as Iranian Neolithic Farmer. Caucasian - this is from the Caucasus, believed to have been passed on to us from the Aryans. NE Euro - this is not from the British, but has also been passed on to us from the Aryans who mixed with populations living in the Eurasian steppes.

This is interesting. Being someone who has been a proponent of Darwin's evolution theory, what then would have the been the best way to attain salvation before humans evolved? Would it then be the common ancestor that we share with apes, and what about when we were just bacteria? Or does that theory not fit with our religious system.

I never disputed that. Those hukams are for baptized Sikhs, the Khalsa. Commandments? I didn't know we were Abrahamics. If there are no commandments listed in the eternal Guru of the Sikhs, should we really be getting critical about them?

Guruji's first command is in the Guru Granth Sahib as the Mool Mantar.

At the risk of getting blasted on here, what's wrong with moneh. Name me one "commandment" in the Guru Granth Sahib that states that Sikhs need to grow their hair. I understand that what Diljit is doing is wrong as he's projecting a lie, but Sikhs that have haircuts are somehow lesser Sikhs?

Interestingly close to June 3.

The question stems from a treatise on idolatry I was reading. The reason behind why idolatry is viewed as wrong in certain religions, such as ours, is because attributing false characteristics not revealed by God himself (itself) leads to disrespect and the creation of a false God. The same can be applied for a name. You can attribute a name to God that is not really representative of God. A name serves a similar purpose to an idol in this way. Both are manifestations, one verbal and the other physical. To elaborate, a name that connotes a meaning not meant for God such as "servant" or "tyrant" would be viewed as degrading and not true to God's nature as revealed in the Guru Granth Sahib. Now, no logical, serious and sane person would address God in such a disrespectful way, and I am fully aware what name(s) Sikhs use to address God during Amrit Sanchar, but there have been instances where I've heard our people say you can address God with any name. I find that misleading and contradicting and want to know if it's justified by our scriptures or not. Not sure why you had to be so snarky in answering. And no I haven't taken Amrit, though I have watched many videos of people taking it, and therefore know what goes on during the ceremony.

Because if we are allowed to use any name for God, then that refutes the whole argument for not worshiping idols. I could create a name for God, similar to an idol, and begin doing my worship according to that. There would be no difference in that and what idolaters do. Or are we only allowed to use the names in the Guru Granth Sahib?

The point is that the Qu'ran itself states that it was sent down as a result of tampering of the previous scriptures, and therefore it itself is perfect. However, the formation and missing verses demonstrates that the Qu'ran itself suffers from the same dilemma as the Torah or Bible and thus is not perfect, therefore can't be considered to be the final word of God as per the Muslims as God will of course need to send another text down to correct this tampering once again. This little claim renders the whole cult of Islam as being false and disproves the view that it is the final religion. Simple. Of course Muslims will deny this, but, it sets in doubt which is the first step to break them away from the barbaric ideology.