CuriousGeorge

I think you have mis-interpreted this quote. "Guru" in Sikhism has two distinct and important translations. That is, Guru means the worldly teacher, such as Nanak and his successors (including the Granth Sahib) AND more importantly, Guru means God -- the ultimate Teacher. The quote you mentioned refers to Satgur -- which is almost ALWAYS a connotation to God. It does NOT mean the Granth Sahib or any other world Guru but God. That is, there is no liberation without God. This is a common misinterpretation and any scholar will tell you as much.

Thanks for the welcom Manjot Singh. Perhaps the tenets of Sikhism indeed focus on tolerance and peace and compassion as you say. Perhaps I am more disillusioned by the Sikhs here in this forum than Sikhism. The avatars, responses and pictures of the people here paint a very different picture and lend themselves to a religion of retribution and violence. Many people here will cite the violence committed towards the Sikhs as a reason for the anti-Hindu and anti-India sentiment (let none of us beat around the bush -- this sentiment is there). Others will cite the exacting of "justice". Let me get this straight. Sikhism is a Dharmic religion, with it's main focus on liberation and salvation from the cycles of death and birth. Salvation thrives where ego, pride, lust, anger and greed do not. That is, when the "I" is no more, there is liberation. The relentless pursuit for "justice" is clearly not such a pursuit at all. Justice can not be born out of anger! And if one argues that it can be, then the Sikhs of this forum are shackled by one of the five sins cited by the founders of Sikhism itself -- anger! To reiterate, if we argue this anger (and let's not get into semantics) towards a government or a people or a situation will bring about justice or any other positive fruit, we are disloyal to the conduct of Sikhism. A Sikh thrives to overcome anger among 4 of the abovementioned sins. If this exacting of revenge and justice is so important, and it is driven by anti-sentiment for Hindus and India in general (note the avatars and responses for examples of this sentiment) -- clearly salvation, that is, Waheguru, cannot thrive in those hearts. Where there is such negativity, how can such a remarkably positive force, Nir Vair, thrive in those hearts? I ask you -- what are your views on this matter?

Well that's why I'm here! I want to learn about its merit! But around here it seems that everyone's interested in "Death to India" slogans and wishing certain people will "burn in hell." I guess my main question is: what good comes out of it all? If someone here, who isn't biased, can help my understand that, I'd be indebted. Why have I been received so rudely and with such opposition? I had no idea this is what it meant to be Sikh.

If you are willing to oblige me, please offer definitive proof that those who take amrit are the only ones with ticket into liberation and salvation.

Then I think it is safe to say that I am very disillusioned by Sikhi. It would seem by the bulk of the responses and threads here, that Sikhism is a religion of pride, power and violence. In my books, and in the books of Buddhists, for instance, these tenets are counter-productive to spiritual growth. I would much rather align myself with a faith whose members don't believe the lowest common denominator is violence and hatred.

If there was violence towards the Sikhs, what will violence towards those who caused it accomplish? Regretably people think violence solves everything. It solves nothing. Calling people b*astards is an act of violence. It's an act of hatred. Is this truly the Sikh way? No no, please, it wasn't rhetorical. Humor me. Is calling people b*astards (a term of hatred) the Sikh way? Regards

Perhaps I am unclear. Hijacking an airliner in an international and PUNISHABLE offense. This rule does NOT step aside to accomodate even peaceful protest. The Indian government (like any other government) may have broken countless international laws. What of it? Since when is that credence for Sikhs to break the law? I would like to reiterate that it is a punishable offense that DOES NOT take into account the nature of the hijacking (was it peaceful? did the hostages hug the terrorists? were the hostages happy?). This implies one simple thing: those responsible ought to be punished accordingly.

You are making a remarkably unsual and awkward proposition. That is, effectively, there is no true liberation/salvation without holy nectar. This is not only obtuse, it is absurd. The implication you are making is that only those who have taken holy nectar -- that is a fraction of the world's 23 million Sikhs -- will ever reach true liberation. Let's consider this. Assume that 50% of the world's Sikhs have indeed taken nectar (a very liberal estimate). That gives us 11.5 million human beings in general poised for Salvation. That implies that only 0.002% of the world (all Sikhs, mind you) will ever reach Salvation. This is absurd!! Are you implying that the Sikh god favors those who drink nectar with regards to entry into his kingdom of Sach Khand? And that this drinking of nectar over-rules the potential millions of good deeds and accumulation of good karma of an individual, particularly if he does not follow the Sikh faith? In response to your ignorance, it's safe to say that the other 99.998% of us would rather have nothing to do with a doctrine or dogma which instills such skewed, unreasonable and foolish values.

What is the relevance of this unusual (and highly unlikely) hostage reaction -- that is, the endearment of the hijackers? Even if this were the case, does this condone the committing of an internationally recognizaed illegal act of terrorism? If it were to appease a group of people (as these hostages were appeased), does a Sikh engage in murder? Where is line drawn in terms of what a Sikh can and should do when it comes to breaking/bending the rules of the law?

Why are we sitting here condoning an international act of terrorism. The hijacking of an airplane is international offense! Anyone, regardless of faith, should be ruthless prosecuted for such an offense. Again, I ask you my friends, why are we condoning such a terrorist act?! I'm confused! Furthermore, what does this have to with Sikhism? :| @

Hello khalsaforce, Thank you for you insight, though I am not sure it has addressed my question as directly as I had anticipated. I'd like to comment nonetheless. From your post, it would sound as though the Sarbat Khalsa is a body which instructs Sikhs on political/religious matters. From an unbiased position, this is perhaps more troubling than the stigma question I had discussed in my initial post. It raises important questions regarding the authority of the Sarbat Khalsa. What is the decision making process and what checks and balances are in place? You indicate that the Sarbat Khalsa ruled that Khalistan must be pursued "no matter what" -- this is a very broad and potentially dangerous statement! What means are justifiable to this end? What if it comes to killing? Is it justified to do so to serve this purpose? And even more so, why -- why must Khalistan be secured? Is it merely because an authoritative body has commissioned it? Or is there another reason? Is there room for self-determination or application of intellect in Sikhism or is everything predefined by an authoratative body? I'm curious what your views are on this matter. In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate my initial question regarding the stigma on the Khalistanis who are commonly viewed as terrorists and compulsive individuals with strong hatred and anger against members of the Hindu faith. All in all, how does this fit the mold of the ideal Sikh -- a Saint Solider? Forgive me -- I'm not sure what this reply means.

Hello friends! I am new to this forum and I joined largely because I have some curiosities regarding Khalistan. I look forward to having insightful conversations with all of you. One of the primary things I have noticed is the emphasis put on the Saint/Solider ideal in Sikhism. A saint is surely a man who has attained a perfect balance in life, devoid of hatred, anger, pride, ego, etc. A soldier is (usually) a noble individual devoted to protecting, and keeping the peace. He is a defender of humanity. How does a Khalistani fit the mold of this ideal Sikh -- the Saint/Soldier? Allow me to elaborate. There seems to be a common stigma attached to "Khalistan" and the "Khalistanis" and in brief, I feel it can be summed up in the following arguments: It would appear that a Khalistani cannot be a saint: he seems to be driven by an impulsive anger and sense of revenge. There seems to be this remarkable sense of hatred for members of the Hindu faith. A soldier is a defender -- has there not been senseless killing in the name of Khalistan? Taking up arms in a religious institution seems to be at best, awkward. It would appear that the stigma doesn't allow for a Khalistani to be seen in the noble Saint/Solider light. In fact, I've heard Khalistani's being called terrorists time and time again. What are your thoughts on this?? Is this all an unjust stigma? Or is there some merit to what some people see? Thanks for any insight you can offer and I look foward to friendly discourse!