TheeTurbanator

http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/profile/443-admin/ http://sikhsangat.com/index.php?/profile/10-s1ngh/

If someone has cancer, then does that mean that God made a mistake? of course not. Everything is a part of human, even being LGBTQ. If someone is committed to Sikhi, and truly wants to give their head to the Guru, why should their sexuality stop them? Science is showing that sometimes your sexuality isnt your "choice", and a lot of programs meant to "cure" LGBTQ people have failed. As I have asked before. can you please cite any Gurbani. or Rehat? You already gave a historical example. How is it? there are actual chemicals involved and this is a complex issue. Assuming it is a mental disorder, does that mean we dont allow mental people to receive Khand Di Phaul? in 1699 did the Guru say no mental people allowed to give their head? Historically Sikhs didnt do a lot of stuff, like allow women into the Panj Pyare, or even in a lot of cases, women into the Khalsa Army and gave them a separate initiation process called "Kirpan Di Phaul".

I was hoping for a proper discussion with reference to Gurbani, Rehat, and History. It’s not good enough to give shallow one line answers on such complex issues. I didn’t come here to get simple answers I can get from my local Gurdwara baba, I came here for intellectually stimulating and productive conversations.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Lets suppose that I am a "transgender Sikh" who was originally biologically male but now identify as a female. Lets assume that I receive "Khand Di Phaul", which is the official initiation into the Khalsa Panth. Would I then call myself a Singh or a Kaur? What does Gurbani or Rehat have to say on this?

Are you even going to try to rebut anything he said? Because you just got counter striked pretty hard.

It should be noted that Sikhi is part of the Dharmic framework which is very different from the Abrehamic framework. When Sikhs do parchaar, their aim isnt to "convert" its to spread the universal truth that carries no particular identity. It would be accurate to say that Sikhi doesn't promote trying to "convert" people (in this case into the Khalsa sub tradition), however its fine with spreading universal principles of "Sant Ka Marg", which dont carry a particular identity and are purely dharmic, not religious as per the abrehamic framework.

This is true for the most part, especially probably for Canada which has a cabinet chosen based on gender, ethnicity, etc. However, there are rare cases like Jagmeet Singh who don’t just wear a turban, but are actually practicing Sikhi to a high degree. Sikhs need to branch out and not to commit to much to India, and really disperse themselves more across the globe in order to gain a foodhold for future generations. If the international Sikh community can create strongholds outside India and gain some publicity or political power, then they can really start to challenge India in the public sphere, however there is only so much they can do. Most Sikhs in India are simply screwed in terms of politics due to the massive amounts of corruption Unless Sikhs start to unite and take back Punjab, it’s over.

I know they aren't equal, im being sarcastic.

All religions and equal bro, just chill and be happy, repeat after me: Kumbaya kumbaya! Stop spreading radical Sikh-izm, we dont need to educate others, its not like the Guru(S) were here to spread the one universal truth....

The entire point of parchaar isnt to "convert" others, its to spread the universal truth of seva and simran, which belong to no external identity. When Guru Nanak Dev Ji traveled he didnt go around converting people, he just spread the truth and people joined Sikhi on their own. The literal definition of what a "Sikh" is as per Gurbani includes one who himself chants the name, and also inspires others to do so. No one, LITERALLY NO ONE here, is making the argument that Sikhs should go out and "convert" people. Just think about this logically: If Sikhi is the truth, then why not spread the truth? If Sikhi isnt the truth, then why be a Sikh? "Sikhi doesn't need selling, it needs telling" - Jagraj SIngh, founder of Basics of Sikhi. PS: Its Sikhi, not "Sikhism"

What are your thoughts on this recent article? https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sikh-separatists-in-canada-drawing-ire-in-indian-media-before-trudeau-visit-1.3792889 Here are my thoughts: You know you are on the wrong side of history, when you attack freedom of speech. "Sikh relgious sucessionism"? LoL! Have they ever read Sikh history or Gurbani? Its common sense to those who are educated on Sikhi that the Sikh Panth is meant to be distinct from others and be independent. The Khalsa is literally meant to be a sovereign army and institution all in one, that only answer's to the Guru, that by itself isnt legal in another country, and its a pretty obvious hint that the Guru clearly taught Sikhs to be independent, but of course. But of course all this means nothing becuase most "Sikhs" in India dont support it, which must mean its a radical idea, even if its backed up by history and bani... Of course its going to come up coincidentally when a Prime Minister visits India, what better time to attack Sikhs. One could make the argument that the Indian government lets Hindu right wing national movements flourish, and there's actually proof that India got a German official to spy on Sikhs. Or what about that time that that. If you wanna talk about state sponsored terrorism. there's a lot of accusations India has gotten, but the problem with them is that they dont care. Read article: German official charged with spying on Sikhs for India : https://www.thelocal.de/20160920/german-official-charged-with-spying-on-sikhs-for-india India State Sponsored Terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#India Amarinder Sengh is a meme at this point, he will say anything to tarnish the reputations of Sikhs abroad. He is salty that international Sikhs are making it, and that him and his third world government are losing their power over the Sikh community. At this point, who cares what that ladoo has to say? its obvious hes doing this as part of his personal smear campaign.

Most Sikhs/Punjabis are too cheap to buy into this new cryptocurrency.

Allen Watts is a great western intellectual to listen to, and some of the stuff he says in inline with the universal concept of Sikhi. Here are just a few of Allens works I would recommend: An essay On Recognizing Oneness; God Is In All, All Is In God: "Alan Watts- The Nature of Consciousness". https://erowid.org/culture/characters/watts_alan/watts_alan_article1.shtml

This song is so bad ?

There are no 10 Gurus, there is only One, and the Guru isnt a "prophet". Gurbani literally says there is only One Guru: "There is One Bani; there is One Guru; there is one Shabad to contemplate." - Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 646 https://www.sikhitothemax.org/ang?ang=646&source=G Sikhi is described by the Guru himself as the "Sach Dharam", is that also like the term "Hinduism", Sanatana Dharma? IS SIKHI HINDU-IZM??? As I already stated in my other comment, Sanatana Dharma, is a blanket term used to describe an ocean of different south Asian originated beliefs, some may be dualistic, others may not. Sikhi is unified, who knows, Sanatana Dharma might also be, but its not interpreted that way by modern scholars. Modern day "Hindus" (basically Indians) are not really dharmic, and just do a lot of stuff out of superstition and ritual, this goes against the sach dharam. Also, the marriage ceremony that you are talking about isnt the same across the board. Im not sure about that term, and I need to research it before I give my thoughts. I haven't really heard this word before, but I think I know the argument your trying to make. The words that we use when describing something, especially something as important as Sikhi, are important. Gurbani itself is very careful in how its constructed. In regards to dharma vs relgion. there is a significant difference between eastern and western schools of thought, and to truly understand each school, one must look at them through their respective theological lenses. Distinct words are important becuase they serve to help (literally) distinct ideas. Would you be fine if people started calling the Aadh Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: "Timeless Teacher Book Sir" or Siri Guru Gobind Singh Ji as "Teacher Preserver Lion Sir", or whatever is commonly understood to be the correct "translation". The words that we use, especially in a highly evolved, and constantly changing language like English, matter. One could argue that why speak English at all, however thats not the point.

I define and understand the western term "relgion" (which has no roots in the eastern lexicon) as something that is inherently dualistic, belief based, and contains rituals.The concept of "god" as understood through the else of most or all "religions" is very different from the universal and timeless concept of ੴ (which wasnt created in 1469) I define and understand the eastern term "Dharam" is the timeless truth, and isnt specific to any time period, nor does it have multiple prophets or have rituals. I understand Dharma to be generally all encompassing, while "relgion" isnt. Dharma applies to all, and is a fundamental truth, while religion is often limited to one creed, people, or even species.

"Religion" is defined in a very western, abrehamic context, and the term "Dharma" just like many other terms such as ੴ have no adequate English counterparts.

The dharam of Buddha is similar to Sikhi in which both teach to kill the ego, however it is divergent in the sense that Sikhi heavily emphasizes the simran on the ONE. while the same concept isnt so clear in the modern interpretations of the Budha dharam. In regards to "Hindu-ism", (correct term Sanatana Dharma), its a blanket term used to describe an ocean of different south Asian originated beliefs. This is why when people compare Sikhi to Sanatana Dharma it really depends on which aspect of it they are talking about. Unlike Sikhi, Sanatana Dharma isnt a unified belief system. Hinduism" is so broad that you cant even really define it. It would be like saying all the abrehamic religions were one.

Source? As far as Bani is concerned, all humans are equal before the one, all "religions" are not. Sikhi isnt a "relgion" its just the universal truth, some of which is contained in "religions", and there is differently more in some than others. Being free to believe what you like, and believing that "every path is right" are two completely different things. The Guru criticized the Hindus beliefs so much, but he still sacrificed himself for their freedom to believe what they want, even if its not inline with Sikhi.

Good to see your done with all that atheism stuff

It’s something we all need to work towards ?

It doesn’t matter, killing the ego is still the end goal of a Sikh, and without it, one cannot become one with the One. Its at least better to accept the endgame of a Sikh (to kill the ego) rather than to create excuses to justify it. It’s ok if a person isn’t a saint as they start off, but that’s still something they work towards.

Only for the weak minded. The origin of all is without ego, as long as the ego exists of course the 5 Evils will exist. Bani clearly talks about killing the Ego, it doesn’t tell you to hold on.

The way daas understands it is that the “5 evils” are just manifestations of Ego, which is the root cause. To kill the leaves, one must kill the root, ego, or else the leaves will keep coming back.