Why Are Sikhs Hypocrites?

[Only five]

I agree that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was special and Daduwal is no comparison. What you said about 'The person lacking dharma will say Sant ji had a certain style and ways to use words to pull people or the circumstance was the reason'.... I can see where you are coming from because I am a Sikh and have a little bit of dharam in me.

However objectively, a non-Sikh or someone who did not follow Jarnail Singh would see it the way that I have described it. I prefer to remain objective on alot of these matters because I think that it wouldnt not be sensible to discard the role that style, charisma and circumstances played in the rise and emergence of Jarnail Singh. After all, it played a role in the emergence of other powerful great leaders in history and in the present day, so why could they not apply to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale?

I don't know if your doing it intentionally or unintentionally, but when you say i prefer to remain objective...... is an insult toward the person that come from Gurmat because you imply that Gurmat is subjective. It is because of Gurmat a person becomes objective. With all due respect, i think when people say i come from an objective point, they are infact coming from a subjective view point. To be objective you would have to take it as Sant ji was. When you say non-Sikh would....., then your speaking about an ignorant person, which is subjective and not objective. To be objective the person would have to learn about Sant ji, which means learning about SIkhi. Today we have many Sikhs that don't have knowledge on Sikhi and they call Sant ji by many insulting names. Or people that call him a politician. Is this being objective? This is being subjective. Inorder to be objective you would have to put yourself in Sant ji shoes and walk, which means to start practincing Sikhi.

[JSinghnz]

Sorry bhenji,

I dont speak Gujerati I'm afraid...

On that night, I wish you and all the rest of the Sikhsangat Panth a happy goodnight.

Always a pleasure.

Night xxx

I meant note *

Just for you sister

The translation is

I will never improve

[pedrorizzo]

I don't know if your doing it intentionally or unintentionally, but when you say i prefer to remain objective...... is an insult toward the person that come from Gurmat because you imply that Gurmat is subjective. It is because of Gurmat a person becomes objective. With all due respect, i think when people say i come from an objective point, they are infact coming from a subjective view point. To be objective you would have to take it as Sant ji was. When you say non-Sikh would....., then your speaking about an ignorant person, which is subjective and not objective. To be objective the person would have to learn about Sant ji, which means learning about SIkhi. Today we have many Sikhs that don't have knowledge on Sikhi and they call Sant ji by many insulting names. Or people that call him a politician. Is this being objective? This is being subjective. Inorder to be objective you would have to put yourself in Sant ji shoes and walk, which means to start practincing Sikhi.

When I use the words subjective and objective, I am referring to the art of looking at things through a Sikh lens and a non-Sikh lens. Because we are ourselves Sikhs, looking at something through a Sikh lens is subjective and looking through a non-Sikh lens could be but is not necessarily, if you want to be technical, objective. It would be objective if one were to be neutral. However, if were to look at the situation through say an RSS hindu lens, yes it is a non-Sikh perspective, but it is not neutral, hence it cannot be objective.

There is no insult here, either intentional or unintentional.

What I am talking about here is the ability to step out of our own shoes and view the situation by being neutral and attempt to improve our understanding of a situation.

Just for you sister

The translation is

I will never improve

Thanks bhenji.

[Only five]

When I use the words subjective and objective, I am referring to the art of looking at things through a Sikh lens and a non-Sikh lens. Because we are ourselves Sikhs, looking at something through a Sikh lens is subjective and looking through a non-Sikh lens could be but is not necessarily, if you want to be technical, objective. It would be objective if one were to be neutral. However, if were to look at the situation through say an RSS hindu lens, yes it is a non-Sikh perspective, but it is not neutral, hence it cannot be objective.

There is no insult here, either intentional or unintentional.

What I am talking about here is the ability to step out of our own shoes and view the situation by being neutral and attempt to improve our understanding of a situation.

And this is the problem (the bold), when you step outside of the Sikhi, then all understainding has been lost. You can't look at Sant ji, without Sikhi, if you do then it is a view point from your own opinion, which is constructed from your environment. And a person's environment is the most subjective thing in the world. To be objective here would be to learn about Sikhi first and then apply Sikhi teachings to Sant ji and see if Sant ji fits into these teachings. What you are doing is completely subjective. On what basis are you saying Sant ji had charisma? Wolrdly view right! This worldy view says certain characteristics in a person means they have charisma? The characteristics that have been given are based on a view of the world that this is what you call charisma, whatever they be. Since these characteristics are assigned by a world view, which means secular, then they are subjective.

[S1ngh]

Just read 1st page.. Based on that.. I also found it bit strange when some people pick stuff that they agree and then publicly raise hell when they don't agree with few things coming from sri akal takht sahib.

However, before judging, people here need to learn how Sri Akal Takht sahib works. There is maryada and strict procedure to follow when someone gets called from sri akal takht sahib. They have requirements, vote and they have to get advise from panj granthi singhs and all decisions to be finalized by all jathedars of 5 takhts. On the other hand, giving award has no mention in any document. There is no document which shows any requirement nor guidelines on how and why to announce certain ppl to get any award from sri akal takht sahib.

Simple is that we should respect sri akal takht sahib from heart not just for show. To avoid certain divisions of our panth, we have rule that nobody can bad mouth any jathedar singh sahib nor any historical sikh institution. Such threads like this one is the only way we can talk, discuss and share or expand our knowledge in more mature manner.

[Singh559]

Just read 1st page.. Based on that.. I also found it bit strange when some people pick stuff that they agree and then publicly raise hell when they don't agree with few things coming from sri akal takht sahib.

However, before judging, people here need to learn how Sri Akal Takht sahib works. There is maryada and strict procedure to follow when someone gets called from sri akal takht sahib. They have requirements, vote and they have to get advise from panj granthi singhs and all decisions to be finalized by all jathedars of 5 takhts. On the other hand, giving award has no mention in any document. There is no document which shows any requirement nor guidelines on how and why to announce certain ppl to get any award from sri akal takht sahib.

Simple is that we should respect sri akal takht sahib from heart not just for show. To avoid certain divisions of our panth, we have rule that nobody can bad mouth any jathedar singh sahib nor any historical sikh institution. Such threads like this one is the only way we can talk, discuss and share or expand our knowledge in more mature manner.

Thanks for clarifying this Singh. Wasn't sure, but that makes sense.

[hawk13]

I have just that dharam, should not be disregarded but should be given the highest level of importance. However the problem with you people is that you have turned this into the usual dharam verus scholars debate. How many times do I need to say that I believe that both are important and both have their place.

Do u call urself scholar or u wrongly say sikhism is overgloried U have a narrow outlook of securlism but sikhs were more secular in medival than the socalled secularists of modern times as for as my mistakes in english is concerned in different nations there is different type of english but u were able to read my ealier posts..Gurmat never or sikhs never overglorifies religion sikhi is itself like sun our Gurus has regarded sikhs as supirror to himself example is of Guru Nanak when Guru Angad ji became Guru Guru Nanak himself bowed before Guru Angad ji Guru Gobin Singh bowed before Panch Piaras and asked for Amrit these happenings were never overglorified but was well recorded

[pedrorizzo]

And this is the problem (the bold), when you step outside of the Sikhi, then all understainding has been lost. You can't look at Sant ji, without Sikhi, if you do then it is a view point from your own opinion, which is constructed from your environment. And a person's environment is the most subjective thing in the world. To be objective here would be to learn about Sikhi first and then apply Sikhi teachings to Sant ji and see if Sant ji fits into these teachings. What you are doing is completely subjective. On what basis are you saying Sant ji had charisma? Wolrdly view right! This worldy view says certain characteristics in a person means they have charisma? The characteristics that have been given are based on a view of the world that this is what you call charisma, whatever they be. Since these characteristics are assigned by a world view, which means secular, then they are subjective.

I agree that there is no such thing as true objectivity because of natural bias or a persons own environment and experience. It is an interesting point.

However, the difference between you and I, is that I am willing to step out of the Sikhi lens to try and understand a situation and you are not. You are of the belief that understanding is lost, I am of the belief that understanding is gained. In some ways, its good that you are so unflinching in your Sikhi views. In other ways, I find it a bit scary to be honest. It demonstrates a lack of ability to empathise and understand things from other peoples point of view. To me, it is the true definition of narrow-mindedness.

[pedrorizzo]

Do u call urself scholar or u wrongly say sikhism is overgloried U have a narrow outlook of securlism but sikhs were more secular in medival than the socalled secularists of modern times as for as my mistakes in english is concerned in different nations there is different type of english but u were able to read my ealier posts..Gurmat never or sikhs never overglorifies religion sikhi is itself like sun our Gurus has regarded sikhs as supirror to himself example is of Guru Nanak when Guru Angad ji became Guru Guru Nanak himself bowed before Guru Angad ji Guru Gobin Singh bowed before Panch Piaras and asked for Amrit these happenings were never overglorified but was well recorded

I dont know where this whole idea of secularism and scholars have come from. Never once have I stated that I am a secularist and never once have I stated that I am a scholar. You clearly have very strong and passionate views about Sikhi and about Sikh history. Some of your stuff I agree with and some of it I dont agree with. Your tone seems like your trying to convince me how great Sikhs are, how great Sikhi is and how great Sikhi history is. Well if that is what you are trying to do, you dont need to because I know how great it all is. I was simply trying to give an objective analysis on how I think leadership can emerge in the Sikh community. Does that make me a scholar or a secularist, not really. However I do like to try and be, as far as possible, objective. That means weighing up the good and the bad.

Objectivity, is something lacking in our community at the moment. If we could step out of our own shoes, for a second, we might actually be able to understand the things that are happening to us a bit better and solve our problems. At the moment, we just keeping having the same problems again and again.... fake babeh, attacks on Sikhi, beadbi, traitors in the Panth etc.... dont you want to try and solve some of these problems?

You seem to have the wrong idea about what I am trying to say... as if I have come here to try and challenge your Sikhi views. Its as if as soon as someone talks about objectivity, they must be some dodgey scholar like Kala Afghana or Dilgeer or someone like that.

[VanHelsingh]

We must learn to be able to distinguish between friend and foe. That takes a degree of inteliigence and dare I say, subtlety.

To be generally inquisitive and unaware is sometimes confused with mischief and ill-intentions on this forum. I'd like to think genuinely mischievous posts and forum members can be spotted from a mile away. I've certainly developed a "spidey-sense" whereby I can tell when someone is taking the proverbial or whether he/she is actually seeking answers, but isn't aware of how to phrase their queries in a way that doesn't cause offence - perceived or otherwise.

The amount of mistrust and paranoia on here is frightening, and I can imagine how someone of a less stringent disposition would turn their back on this forum (and possibly the faith) after encountering a churlish and short response to what may have been a very honest and innocent question. That's another Sikh turned away from the potential path he or she could've walked.

Of course I'm not naive enough to think people make their life decisions on what they read on the internet, but in this modern world where people are sometimes disconnected from the real world and the only concept of sangat they have are the faceless people they encounter online it is a sad state of affairs when something like the aforementioned occurs.

Tolerance and respect is key in my opinion. I believe how you treat and address people online is a reflection on how you behave in real life. Obviously there's caveats and we have a bad day and this sometimes bleeds over into our online persona. Lord knows I've checked my behaviour at times when I felt I deviated from what I consider to be my true character. I've actually gone on to reflect on my personality & my behaviour and whether it was me who had the problem and not somebody else.

Just because nobody knows who you are online doesn't give anyone the right to mistreat or disrespect anyone. That is if you care about such things as decency. If the anonymity of the internet gives a person license to be themselves - when "themselves" is a thoroughtly disagreeable and unpleasant individual who cannot get away with such nonsense in real life - then I suppose no amount of hand-wringing and gentle persuasion will work.