Why Are Sikhs Hypocrites?

[Only five]

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.

No you did not provide a criteria for what is an good Sikh leader is, which would be an objective criteria without any subjective statements. What you did was define objectivity, which i rightfully showed is flawed and is an subjective view of your life experiences, the environment you grow up in, and how much knowledge you have on Sikhi. By your own words you have clearly said you don't have much knowledge. Your life experiences do not represent Sikhi and the environment you grow up does not speak for Sikhi or Sikh history. The same could be said about a non sikh, who calls Sant ji by various characteristics.

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.

Sikhi is not ambigious. Sikhi has clear distinction between right and wrong. When you wrote about Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa, you were basing his way of life on your own understanding of Sikhi. This shows you were challenging peoples practice and experience of Sikhi in a subjective sense. In order to look at a Sikh we would have to look at what Guru Sahib defined as Gurmat and manmat. This is the objective way to determine how great of a Sikh Sant ji is. Instead you took your biased view of Sikhi and then applied it to Sant ji. Obviously when you use a biased view point, the results will be biased and in no manner will they speak for objectivity.

My posts relating to this topic actually have very little to do with spirituality.

Hanji bhai sahib, that's why it cannot be recognized as an objective way to look at a Sikh who is a leader and Sikhs are spiritual.

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.

And what criteria is that? Your basis of your argument is that if it wasn't for the circumstances of Punjab in the late 1970s and early 80s, no one would listen to Sant ji and without his charisma and rest attributes you attached to him no one will listen to Sant ji. This is wrong because in order to look at Sikh leaders you would have to develop a criteria that includes Gurmat as the base and the criteria used for what represents a leader in Sikhi, would have to also based on Gurmat. The circumstances of Punjab would also fall into the category of Gurmat. Which you have not done, so in no way can you say Sant ji was good or bad Sikh. Also you can't say Sant ji was a good human or bad human because when Sikhi tells us what Gurmat is. Sikhi includes human qualities like compassion, truthful, speaks for others right and his own and among others. But then Gurmat takes it further and recognizes if the person is acting by Guru's Grace. If not then objectively the person gets defined as a bad Sikh and human. Sant ji was acting by Guru Grace and did not set outside of Gurmat. One example would be when Sant ji relieved a Hindu wife of the abuse she was recieving at the hand of her husband, mother in law, and father in law. Sant ji was being compassionate there and then went further and gave the oppressors the chance to change without using any violence. Now lets take the same incident and apply your non sikh criteria to it. When a non sikh hears of such a woman being oppressed, they would not take it upon themselves to help the women. They would report it to the authorities and let them take care of it. Infact they would see Sant ji as a bully for helping the woman himself. The non Sikhs argument was go as such. Sant ji has no authority to handle such issues in society, it is of the state to help those in need and Sant ji should have left it to the state. Sant ji by interfering, has become the oppressor himself and by his actions says he can rule on these issues, which state chief and state judge died to make him chief and judge of the state? The so called academic scholars to view Sant ji in this way. They say Sant ji was aggresive and stuck to his view. You are doing the samething. In Gurmat to fight for everyone's right is not being aggressive and sticking to Gurmat is not narrow minded. But you and the academic scholars believe it is. Ultimately as i asked you before, who do you find as higher authority, your mind or Gurmat? I never got an answer then and i know i wont get an answer now from you.

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.

Again if you had just looked at Gurmat, then you would have seen that Gurmat tells Sikhs to be Saintsoldiers, which requires a Sikh to be a great Sikh and a leader. The concepts of piri and miri apply here. Sikhi teachings tells SIkhs how to be great leaders.

Someone else may be a great political leader but actually have a pretty rubbish jeevan as a Sikh, like Maharajah Ranjit Singh did.

In the world for a Sikh, the Sikh would have to be a great Sikh (Gursikh) and be a great politician. Again the concept of piri and miri are not separate in Sikhi, but are interrelated. When you call Maharaja Ranjit Singh a Sikh then you can't separate the qualities of being a great politician and being a great Sikh. The Gurus never separated these in there teachings as completely separate so it would be wrong for anyone to use a criteria where they judge a Sikh where they are separate. Which you have done and shows the lack of knowledge you have on Sikhi.

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 judge Sant ji, you would have to use the concept of miri and piri as not separate, but interrelated and once these two concepts are applied in a Sikhs life, they become one. In Sant ji's case they were one and not separate.

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.

To translate that in my language...Woah!! any person that insults another is serious <Edited> off and can't handle having a respectful conversation. Your seriously lacking the knowledge to have this discussion with me. Benti Bhai Sahib, In Sikhi you can't separate miri and piri. Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj has been using miri and piri from day one as one. You serious need to pick up a SIkh history book and start reading Gurbani. Your insults that come from you being fustrated does not help you see anything without a very biased mindset.

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.

For a person that is not <Edited> off you do direct many insults at others. Same Benti as last time. Please understand the concept of miri and piri. Your ignorance is causing you to lash out in your own ways. If i find a video where someone explains the concept of miri and piri good, ill surely make you aware of it. So you don't stay ignorant of this very important concept.

[Only five]

Well clearly you dont have any powers of self reflection and are completely unable to see how you may have caused offence.

Ignorance is bliss!!!!!

[pedrorizzo]

Ignorance is bliss!!!!!

Like I said before you and I are on completely different wavelengths and have completely different views. I have heard you repeat yourself numerous times and I have this kind of thinking from many other people such as yourself. It is basically narrow minded and I dont agree with it. You have completely convinced yourself with your own nonsense and I'm glad that you think you have won the argument and I congratulate you on your victory. I dont really have anything else to say that I havent said already. I'm not gonna post anymore on this thread because we are just going round in circles. Might catch you a different thread sometime.

Goodnight.

[Only five]

Like I said before you and I are on completely different wavelengths and have completely different views. I have heard you repeat yourself numerous times and I have this kind of thinking from many other people such as yourself. It is basically narrow minded and I dont agree with it. You have completely convinced yourself with your own nonsense and I'm glad that you think you have won the argument and I congratulate you on your victory. I dont really have anything else to say that I havent said already. I'm not gonna post anymore on this thread because we are just going round in circles. Might catch you a different thread sometime.

Goodnight.

Again you keep repeating yourself like a broken record. I say the mods should make a rule if you want to build a criteria on to judge a Sikh, first you must understand the concept of miri and piri in Sikhi and then be allowed to build a criteria. You said by your own words that you don't understand Sikhi much and keep insluting me because i point that out.

No, you won because obviously your right and the point you put forward is equal to say....next time i need medical advice, instead of going to the doctor, im go to the nearest construction site and ask the fatest construction worker for medical advice. And next time i go to write a medical exam, ill take some classes in law and then tell the person administering the exam, your testing me on the wrong material.......learn to notice your mistakes. And don't worry i'll provide you with a video on piri and miri when one comes to my attention.

[hawk13]

Like I said before you and I are on completely different wavelengths and have completely different views. I have heard you repeat yourself numerous times and I have this kind of thinking from many other people such as yourself. It is basically narrow minded and I dont agree with it. You have completely convinced yourself with your own nonsense and I'm glad that you think you have won the argument and I congratulate you on your victory. I dont really have anything else to say that I havent said already. I'm not gonna post anymore on this thread because we are just going round in circles. Might catch you a different thread sometime.

Goodnight.

U r attacking personaly ur self did I post any personal comments or taunts but u r like self styled scholar or realist person when u fails in reason u tends to attack personaly by this u r just fooling ur self. U have a materialist thinking which is called faith of conviance not of conviction which changes colors according to situation this is bitter truth,

[steelman]

Steelman: Be careful, your mentor Darshano is watching you

My mentor is Guru Granth Sahib Jee. This is not to say that i have even reached one iota of the stage of a spiritual human being but we can try.

As to the above picture, i will not stoop to your level by giving you a fitting reply.

[pedrorizzo]

Again you keep repeating yourself like a broken record. I say the mods should make a rule if you want to build a criteria on to judge a Sikh, first you must understand the concept of miri and piri in Sikhi and then be allowed to build a criteria. You said by your own words that you don't understand Sikhi much and keep insluting me because i point that out.

No, you won because obviously your right and the point you put forward is equal to say....next time i need medical advice, instead of going to the doctor, im go to the nearest construction site and ask the fatest construction worker for medical advice. And next time i go to write a medical exam, ill take some classes in law and then tell the person administering the exam, your testing me on the wrong material.......learn to notice your mistakes. And don't worry i'll provide you with a video on piri and miri when one comes to my attention.

There are no mistakes just different perspectives. I understand Sikhi and I understand you and where you are coming from. I have met people with similar views such as yourself both in the Gurdwara, at camps and at University.

However I do not accept your version of Sikhi and I do not accept your version of political events and I do not accept, more relevantly, to this topic, your definitions and criteria of subjectivity, objectivity, and what defines a good leader.

Your strong points are practice of Sikhi and preaching about Sikhi. However, you dont really seem to understand anything else unless it is viewed through that lens.

Make no mistake, I understand you and where you are coming from. However, that does not mean that I like it or agree with it.

[pedrorizzo]

U r attacking personaly ur self did I post any personal comments or taunts but u r like self styled scholar or realist person when u fails in reason u tends to attack personaly by this u r just fooling ur self. U have a materialist thinking which is called faith of conviance not of conviction which changes colors according to situation this is bitter truth,

I am not attacking anyone my friend. I can get a bit rough sometimes though when i debate and i apologise for that. However, I dont like being ranted at or preached at, when I express my opinion. I agree that I have realist thinking. I do have some spiritual thinking as well, but when talking about worldly subjects such as leadership and politics, which are not really anyting to do with spirituality and jeevan, therefore, I will approach these subjects from a realist or worldly perspective because that is the most sensible thing to do.

Regarding materialism, I do not really understand where that comes from. I think that you have chosen the wrong word. It does not really have any relevance here, unless you can explain why.

Regarding fooling myself, and not accepting the bitter truth etc, again that is pretty irrelevant because in theory I could just turn around and say the same thing to you. Just because you have convinced yourself that you know the truth does not make it right. Conversely, the same thing goes for me as well

[pedrorizzo]

Leadership is a subject that has been studied throughout history. It is nothing new.

Sikhs are not the only people to have leaders after all. Great leaders like Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Duke of Wellington, Julius Caeser etc, alot of these great leaders from around the world have been studied. They had certain characteristics that made them great leaders and have a huge following.

However, it is not just political leaders. Religious leaders have also been studied. And Sikhs are not unique in that we are not the only kaum to have had religious leaders. Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, Muhammed, Peter, the Apostles... there have been so many. They have also been studied. They also have some common factors that have enabled them to be successful as leaders.

One of these important factors is the environment/context in which they emerged. This cannot be ignored.

Gursikhs and scholars do not agree with each other because Gursikhs are practitioners of Sikhi and say that Sikhi, spirituality and jeevan cannot be understand by the objective observances of a scholar. I am in total agreement with this.

However, politics and leadership can be studied and commented upon by scholars and I believe that they should be listened to when discussing worldly subjects, after all that is their forte.

[hawk13]

I am not attacking anyone my friend. I can get a bit rough sometimes though when i debate and i apologise for that. However, I dont like being ranted at or preached at, when I express my opinion. I agree that I have realist thinking. I do have some spiritual thinking as well, but when talking about worldly subjects such as leadership and politics, which are not really anyting to do with spirituality and jeevan, therefore, I will approach these subjects from a realist or worldly perspective because that is the most sensible thing to do.

Regarding materialism, I do not really understand where that comes from. I think that you have chosen the wrong word. It does not really have any relevance here, unless you can explain why.

Regarding fooling myself, and not accepting the bitter truth etc, again that is pretty irrelevant because in theory I could just turn around and say the same thing to you. Just because you have convinced yourself that you know the truth does not make it right. Conversely, the same thing goes for me as well

Bro control ur self even I get litle rough with u if I hurt ur feelings I also appologises for this despite having socalled extreme views I as a most humble sikh never likes to hurt anybody feelings including u I want to have healty debate.Sometimes u have different point of view u have full liberty to have it.Now I come to ur question relevance of materialist in this debate as u see sikhi in modern perception in today times this is age of matrerialist or selfish age,That is why u find my posts about sikhi or glory of sikh history as just like a comic story and this word looks offending to other members on this forum and to me this is not ur fault because u see it from modern point of view which is purely society selfish way .During the times of Gurus and Khalsa rule and Gurus situation was even worse for example Aurangjeb wanted to convert hindus to Islam never intended to convert sikhs this was evident from the conversation between Emperor and Guru Tegh Bahadur ji when Guru ji was arrested for the first time and freed before Assam operations of Mughals Mughals were convinced that there is no basic differnce between the muslims and sikhism but When Guru ji took up the cause of hindus he asked the Guru ji u do not believe in idol worship like the muslims and these very Brahmins tried to force ur Guru Nanak to wear janue why r u suppoting them The Guru ji replied they were at that time wrong they tried force and now u r using force u both r wrong .In fact first armed attack on sikhi took place during Guru Amardass ji when armed fanatic sadhus fired at a boat mistaking it to be of sikhs but in fact it was the part of convoy of Emperor Akbar which led to strong retailiation from Mughals againist the sadhus.U will be surprised to know that it was the brahmins who made a written complaint to Akbar againist Guru Amardass and then againist Guru Ramdass ji but Akbar wanted to verify himself that is why he visited Gobindwal shaiab twice and rejected the complaint of Brahmins..As sikhism is againist the intolerance during Akbar time Birbal was the biggest enemy of sikhs although he was the most immoral person and used to have physical relations with his own daughter for this he was totaly boycotted other nobles.U may say it is relevant in this but just for ur knowledge Iam unfolding some unknown facts of history if u r not feeling uneasy I will post more if u want and r not feeling bore.