Why Are Sikhs Hypocrites?

[hawk13]

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.

Bro as a sikh u have to be proud of ur history but ur forgetting one thing there r devoted sikhs a lot of them but Indian state never allows these people to emerge they r framed in false cases or r killed .Iam telling u some examples take the example of Sant Jarnail Singh,Jagdev Singh Khudian,Bimal Khalsa,Avtatr Singh of Jammu Gurjit Singh Kaka of 80s and 90s, Just recently long detention OF Bhai Daljit Singh Bittu,Pala Singh,jASWINDER sINGH A VERY INTELLIGENT YOUNG BOY who got injured in 5 dec 2009 Ashutosh protest now lodged in Nabha Jail.These r true leaders but these just gets killed or spends their life in jails after getting toture of eletric shocks ,getting chiilies in their wounds this is reality this is reason why trators like Badal gets full state support see at SGPC elections 80 percent voting is fake as 80 percent voters were nonsikhs media vidieographed it but it suits Indian state to force on sikhs badals as the Mahants were forced on sikhs after the occupation of sikh kingdom. It is easier to debate in PC and blame sikhs. But in reality who wants their young boys to get tortured or killed ? U just talk about the sikh issues in public u will be on watch list of state intelligence and gets ur self prepared to be framed up this is reason why traitors have become leaders because they r able to accept the overlordship and slavery of hinduwadis who control sikh institutions through their agencies .There is no surprise that people like badals r given PanthRatan I will not be surprised if tomoorow same award goes to KPS GILL as the sikh Institutions r under the control of state agencies .it is the state agencies who confered the award on badal not the sikhs .

[hawk13]

Due to some problem in my computer some words r missed .I regret this problem many words may be missing.

[JSinghnz]

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.

The biggest issue I see here is generalization of one's opinions and lot of scaremongering if another poster has different views from oneself. People walking away from the path on reading discussions. So you see what I mean. This is scaremongering.

Then we have other posters who love to provoke others with outrageous comments. And to make it worse, then fall down to make personal attacks if they are countered.

So let us try to learn from our mistakes and become more mature in discussing issues which are so important for all of us.

[VanHelsingh]

The biggest issue I see here is generalization of one's opinions and lot of scaremongering if another poster has different views from oneself. People walking away from the path on reading discussions. So you see what I mean. This is scaremongering.

Then we have other posters who love to provoke others with outrageous comments. And to make it worse, then fall down to make personal attacks if they are countered.

So let us try to learn from our mistakes and become more mature in discussing issues which are so important for all of us.

You underestimate the effect words can have on an individual. To reduce my whole post to "scaremongering" is exactly what I was talking about. I guess I have ulterior motives because I'm scaring people as well(!).

What is the point posting on this site? I really wonder...

[HSD1]

Then we have other posters who love to provoke others with outrageous comments. And to make it worse, then fall down to make personal attacks if they are countered.

Speak for yourself. Most of us are mature to discuss things without getting personal.

[Only five]

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.

There is such thing as true objectivity. Any miligram of secular thought makes the any view subjective. Especially when we are speaking about Sikhi and Sant ji.

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 keep putting words in my mouth that i have never said. This (between you and I) is a discussion on Sant ji, who was not an atheist or a secular person. Sant ji is a Sikh and for that matter you have to look at Sant ji through the lens of Sikhi. If we were talking about an atheist then obviously he would be looked at through secular lens. What you are doing is taking a medical license exam and saying this is the criteria for judging if a police officer knows the state laws. Tell me if that makes sense?

You are of the belief that understanding is lost, I am of the belief that understanding is gained.

So then Sikhi is lacking in understanding of the secular world? Again your saying a medical license exam is a proper way to examine if a police officer knows the state laws. No understanding can be gained from administering the wrong test to see how a person was in the world. Subjectively a person can gain after learning they administered the wrong test, but nothing objectively can be gained because Sikhi knows from the beginning to administer the correct test.

In some ways, its good that you are so unflinching in your Sikhi views.

When looking at Sant ji or any other person that calls them a Sikh, then no i will not move from Sikhi view. Again i'm stress police officers don't get test by a medical license exam. They get tested based on what is expected of police duties and if there conduct meets up to the criteria given, then they are excellent police officers.

When it comes to looking at a wholly secular being, then see him through a secular view point. But Sikhi also will be applied, not by me, but Sri Vaheguru Ji Maharaj. You should be shaking your fist at the sky and calling God lacking the ability to see from your eyes and your secular view point, when Sri Vaheguru Ji Maharaj give his final judgement.

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.

Again you put words in my mouth and then insult me. If your mad at me then tell me where you got mad and I can clarify for you there was no insult intended by me. The scary part is that you want to administer the wrong test for the wrong person. Again doctor exam for a polic officer will not be testing the person at all of their police officer duties. You lack the ability to determine when to use a secular view and when to use a religious view point that includes secular view points, but from Sikhi, which ultimately get translated into religious because there is no secular view in Sikhi. Sant ji in no way is a secular man. Sant ji is a Gurmukh that never saw an ounce of the world without Sri Vaheguru ji Maharaj in it. For that use Gurbani to say what Sant ji is. Next you will be applying Christian views on a Buddhist to say he was so and so and applying Isam to say an Hindu is so and so.

Sorry guy, learn to administer the correct test to get the highest level of objectivity. Sikhi is all objective, once you start follow Guru Sahib grace. Another problem that lies here is that you believe Sikhi is subjective and I know Sikhi is objective due to actually practicing Sikhi. So before you judge Sant ji or Sikhi, learn exactly what both are and then decide what test to administer. Even secular academics acknowledge that applying the wrong test is simply wrong in every way and does not determine an ounce of objectivity.

[Only five]

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.

Since your all about objectivity, or at least state you are, then provide the criteria for objectivity here. I seriously do not get how you have been objective. You state by your own words that you don't know much about Sikhi and also state Sikhi is subjective. How does a person that does not know much about Sikhi, determine that it is subjective and says you need a non sikh view to be objective? To such wild claims, its obvious and clear to state that the person is very biased against Sikhi. But give the sangat here the criteria which determines objectivity in this discussion, so the test of Sikhi can applied to see if it truly your objectivity criteria apply's here. Otherwise you are being very vague here and then expecting people to blindly jump to the conclusion you have come too.

[pedrorizzo]

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.

The biggest issue I see here is generalization of one's opinions and lot of scaremongering if another poster has different views from oneself. People walking away from the path on reading discussions. So you see what I mean. This is scaremongering.

Then we have other posters who love to provoke others with outrageous comments. And to make it worse, then fall down to make personal attacks if they are countered.

So let us try to learn from our mistakes and become more mature in discussing issues which are so important for all of us.

Well you yourself have been less than respectful with your own insults and attacks. Perhaps you yourself need to come off your high horse and treat other people how you would like to be treated yourself. Do you find your beliefs being challenged as scary? That could be the only reason that you could consider alternative views being expressed as scare mongering.

[manvimattu]

The best answer that fits your question is. We were seduced by the Hindu Bharamin, then the British Sharab for hundreds of years and beyond. It is so easy to be evil but to take care of your good is not easy to maintain. Modern Day off springs of the Bharmins is all the sants after 1978. Wheather they Play Dhadria or you give people to drink tea or you claim to be Guru Gobind Singhs jees Takasal. The modern day British drunks are the SGPC, SAD, and etc There is a saying One day all the traitors of the panth will come in the open. I have seen these people arise since 1984 I wonder when will they disappear. How much Kirtan, Paath, and Naam Jaap do we have to do to rid of these traitors. How many more Bin Ladens the Indian Governments are going to install in the Darbar Sahib who make fools out of people. Foundations of Khalistan can only be laid when the people become true GurSikhs and only then the declarations of Khalisatan will take place at the Akhal Takhat after no more SAD people in the punjab.A true Gursikh will never become involved in politics. Politics is against keeping your Gurmat.Politics makes you do things against SIkhi,

[pedrorizzo]

Since your all about objectivity, or at least state you are, then provide the criteria for objectivity here. I seriously do not get how you have been objective. You state by your own words that you don't know much about Sikhi and also state Sikhi is subjective. How does a person that does not know much about Sikhi, determine that it is subjective and says you need a non sikh view to be objective? To such wild claims, its obvious and clear to state that the person is very biased against Sikhi. But give the sangat here the criteria which determines objectivity in this discussion, so the test of Sikhi can applied to see if it truly your objectivity criteria apply's here. Otherwise you are being very vague here and then expecting people to blindly jump to the conclusion you have come too.

You and I will never agree, because we have fundamental differences in what we class as subjective and objective. I have already defined to you what I regard to be subjective and objective in my other posts but you see it differently and have used a different criteria to define it.

Actually, I am not here to challenge peoples' practice and experience of Sikhi in a subjective sense. To me, someones practice of Sikhi, their jeevan and their Sikhi viewpoint is all subjective. By that I mean that noone can look inside another persons soul or mind and tell you what their spiritual experience is.

My posts relating to this topic actually have very little to do with spirituality. I am simply judging leaders using the criteria that leaders should be judged by and by looking at the circumstances that are relevant to the emergence of a leader. To me, their subjective practice of Sikhi doesnt necessarily have much relevance to their ability to be a leader. For example, someone could be a great Sikh, a great bhagat etc but may not be a very good political leader. Someone else may be a great political leader but actually have a pretty rubbish jeevan as a Sikh, like Maharajah Ranjit Singh did.

So in answer to your question about using the correct test for the correct circumstances, I feel that I am doing a better job than you are because I feel that I am judging people by the correct qualities for a person in that particular role.

To translate that in your language, I am using a 'worldly criteria' in order to judge a persons 'worldly qualities'. I am not however using a 'worldly criteria' to judge their 'sikhi qualities' because that would indeed be impossible and irrelevant because the wrong test has been used.

Regarding your point about insults, I am not mad with you and you havent upset me. However, I do think that your views are narrow-minded because you judge everything through a purely spiritual lens and do not seem to acknowledge that for worldly things, a worldly criteria must be used.