Why Are Sikhs Hypocrites?

[pedrorizzo]

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.

It is better to speak about the topic at hand to be honest, relating to leadership and the Akal Takhat etc. We can read up and educate ourselves on Sikh history in our own time, so posting more information is not really necessary, thanks.

You still havent really explained why my posts are materialistic... I can see why an someone may think that I am a realist, secularist or even a scholar (lol), but there is nothing I have said that relates to materialism. I think you will struggle to find a connection between my posts and materialism, assuming you completely understand what the word means.

I will attempt to explain to you why I believe you have what I referred to as 'comic book 'and 'over glorified' views.

You are correct, that my views are modern.

Throughout history, the purpose of history and historians has changed. In the olden days, most historians were heavily biased in favour of their own community in order to make their community seem bigger, better, braver and more successful than what they really are. This is called over-glorification.

However, in modern times, the emphasis has now changed. Historians are not interested in one sided, biased history that only shows the good sides to a community and completely ignores the bad. Most historians today try to approach a subject as a neutral observer and weigh up both the good and the bad. They will still quote their own community. However, they will also quote their enemies and other neutral parties in order to get a balanced view of history.

You see the danger with what people such as yourself do, is that you only look at the good and positive attributes of our community. However, in order to make improvements in our own lives and to allow our kaum to progress, we must also focus on the negatives. We should be honest with ourselves and honest with our history. If we cant find anything wrong with ourselves and/or our history, then we are really not looking hard enough. The greatest learnings take place when we acknowledge the negatives, learn from them and attempt to improve this for the future, so that repeated mistakes are not made.

Hope this helps.

[HDSH]

This site is a joke.

Yet you continue to a part of this joke :rolleyes2:

[hawk13]

It is better to speak about the topic at hand to be honest, relating to leadership and the Akal Takhat etc. We can read up and educate ourselves on Sikh history in our own time, so posting more information is not really necessary, thanks.

You still havent really explained why my posts are materialistic... I can see why an someone may think that I am a realist, secularist or even a scholar (lol), but there is nothing I have said that relates to materialism. I think you will struggle to find a connection between my posts and materialism, assuming you completely understand what the word means.

I will attempt to explain to you why I believe you have what I referred to as 'comic book 'and 'over glorified' views.

You are correct, that my views are modern.

Throughout history, the purpose of history and historians has changed. In the olden days, most historians were heavily biased in favour of their own community in order to make their community seem bigger, better, braver and more successful than what they really are. This is called over-glorification.

However, in modern times, the emphasis has now changed. Historians are not interested in one sided, biased history that only shows the good sides to a community and completely ignores the bad. Most historians today try to approach a subject as a neutral observer and weigh up both the good and the bad. They will still quote their own community. However, they will also quote their enemies and other neutral parties in order to get a balanced view of history.

You see the danger with what people such as yourself do, is that you only look at the good and positive attributes of our community. However, in order to make improvements in our own lives and to allow our kaum to progress, we must also focus on the negatives. We should be honest with ourselves and honest with our history. If we cant find anything wrong with ourselves and/or our history, then we are really not looking hard enough. The greatest learnings take place when we acknowledge the negatives, learn from them and attempt to improve this for the future, so that repeated mistakes are not made.

Hope this helps.

I must say what the cotemnary writers say cannot be false as most of the facts have been recorded by adverserlies the enemy history writers most sources of sikh history are from Persian sources which were written by worst enemies of sikhs but many positive points have been highlighted by enemies also u would also call it overglorification. I have answered the ur question about sikh leadership as SGPC is elected by 80 percent fake votes of nonsikhs which were vidieograhed by media confering awards on badals makes no relevance as people like badal suits the Indian state, Akal Takaht is supreme but is governed by code of conduct or sikh rehat maryada if someone violates rehat he ceses to be sikh even he happens to be its jathedar as jathedar id nominated by SGPC which is elected by non sikhs we cannot expect any thing positive from them.True leader of sikhs is GURU PANTH TO BE GUIDED BY GURU GRANTH.Guru Panth is KHALSA which is Army of almighty. Sikh history was written after the great reaseach by scholars of modern times after long research of 80-100 years by different scholars,

[pedrorizzo]

I must say what the cotemnary writers say cannot be false as most of the facts have been recorded by adverserlies the enemy history writers most sources of sikh history are from Persian sources which were written by worst enemies of sikhs but many positive points have been highlighted by enemies also u would also call it overglorification. I have answered the ur question about sikh leadership as SGPC is elected by 80 percent fake votes of nonsikhs which were vidieograhed by media confering awards on badals makes no relevance as people like badal suits the Indian state, Akal Takaht is supreme but is governed by code of conduct or sikh rehat maryada if someone violates rehat he ceses to be sikh even he happens to be its jathedar as jathedar id nominated by SGPC which is elected by non sikhs we cannot expect any thing positive from them.True leader of sikhs is GURU PANTH TO BE GUIDED BY GURU GRANTH.Guru Panth is KHALSA which is Army of almighty. Sikh history was written after the great reaseach by scholars of modern times after long research of 80-100 years by different scholars,

Any person can be false, regardless of how esteemed and well regarded a scholar they are. I have no doubts about the fallibility of humans. You are correct about quoting enemies.

Usually, if an enemy says something good/nice about you, there is probably some truth in it because they have no real motive to be nice to you or nice about you. Obviously there may be exceptions to the rule as well.

I agree that some of the Persian and Mughal sources show alot of respect for the Sikhs.... so do many of the British sources after the Anglo-Sikh wars. However, both of these communities have also written negative things about us. Does that mean that we should disregard the negative things they have written? Not necessarily. Of course they will have all kinds of motives for writing bad things about us, so they will be heavily biased.

However, as a wise man said, ' If you ever want to hear the truth about yourself, ask the opinion of someone who is your enemy'. Your enemy is less likely to suck up to you and keep telling you nice things about you. They are more likely to find something bad about you and insult you about it, in order to hurt your feelings.

More importantly though, is the ability to reflect on oneself. Actually we shouldnt need other people to give us positive or negative feedback in order to learn from it. We should actually be able to look deep inside ourselves and also have a deep long look at our own community and our history and be able to point out both the positive and the negative. If we cannot do this. We will never learn.

[Only five]

There are no mistakes just different perspectives.

Yes, without doubt you don't see where i'm coming from, even after i have been using simple words to explain. What you say does contradict what I say. You come from a secular view point. But i come from Gurmat, which is not a view point, but the only view point accepted by Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji Maharaj as truthful.

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.

If you understood where i was coming from then you would have understood that miri and piri are interrelated and can't be looked at separately, when we speak about a Sikh. Yet you go on about how to separate them. Also i have met a few people with your similar view points, but they understand, once explained to them, how their secular view point is wrong.

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.

I don't have a version of Sikhi. I accept Gurmat. And throughout this discussion I have been explaining Gurmat to you. Also obviously you wouldn't accept Gurmat form of objectivity. You clear don't have the knowledge to know what it is, even after it was explained to you many times.

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.

I asked you to present your criteria for objectivity, but you refuse to do so. And i have understood your view point as i put your view point in my own words and explained how it was subjective and had no form of objetivity in there. You on the other hand are unable to put in your own words, what the criteria for objectivity is for you. And your unable to put in your own words the argument i have presented from Gurmat. Instead of acknowledging the other side, you ignore it and keep putting your point forward. But i don't blame you for even tempting to put Gurmat in your own words, when you don't even have the concept of miri and piri down.

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.

Again if you understood, then you would have been like, that's Gurmat what hes presenting, so i better accept it or i will be going against Guru Sahib. Well that's what a Sikh would say and then accept Gurmat. But i guess your the exception here.

[Only five]

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.

Okay the sangat have heard your view on what a great leader is.

Here i'm let Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj explain Gurmat, what criteria Sri Vaheguru Ji Maharaj uses for a great leader:

Tav Parsaad Svaye

God is One, Wonderful Preceptor God is always victorious

composed by the 10^th Guru

By God’s blessings - Name of the Hymn Swaiye

Groups of monks, saints, jogis, and jatti’s of Jain and budha’s sects and their schools have been studied

Groups of undaunted brave men, gods, demons, and all other sects of saints have been studied.

All the ideoligies of all the countries have been also studied but the Lord of souls is still unseen.

All such are of no use if there is no faith in God and the blessing and grace of God is not achieved. (1)

If invaluable elephants of very large size, decorated with most costly ornaments of gold, are being possessed.

If the fleet of millions of galloping horses have the speed faster than wind, are being possessed.

If innumerable kings have very strong arms, are loyal and they bow their heads.

If such transcendent emperors exist that does not matter as everyone has to depart nakedly. (2)

If all the countries are conquered and various kinds of big drums are beaten.

If herds of millions of decorated elephants trumpet and millions of galloping horses are neighing.

Such emperors of the past, present, and future cannot be counted.

Without adorning God, even such emperors must go to hell in the end. (3)

If baths may be taken at places of pilgrimage, all acts of kindness and mercy may be practiced and may types of performances for self continence with charities are performed.

If the vedas, puranas, the quran and all other holy books of the world are studied.

If subsisting upon air may be practiced and many other such performances be performed.

Inspite of all this, all such performances are useless without recitation and adoration of God.

If the tested indefatiguable and unconquerable soldiers, wearings tabards, have the power to crush enemies.

If they are confident that the mountain may move from its position by acquiring wings but their steps cannot turn back upon the battle field.

If they crush the strong enemies by cutting their necks and demolish the pride of the frantic elephants.

They will depart from this world empty handed without the blessing of the Lord of the Universe.

Numerous indefatiguable and brave soldiers have the courage and strength to face the attack of swords and other arms.

Many countries are conquered and the revolting foes are being crushed along with the frantic elephants.

Strong forts may be seized and the whole world may be conquered merely by a single threat.

God is the only donor and supreme. Lord of all who are beggers before Him. (6)

The demons, the gods, king of cobras, ghosts, spirits have been reciting God’s Name since the past and they will recite in the future.

All the creations of the land and water can be created in a single moment by the creator.

All the fruits of their noble actions which crush their all sins are being attained and they are appreciated honoured and contented.

Those saints who adore and worship God are leading their lives with all pleasures while their enemies kneel down. (7)

The kings who woned the most powerful elephants have been ruling over the trimorphic world.

They have numerous obligations and they have distributed countless, elephants and other animals as charity and wedded princess by winnin savambras (marriage competitions).

Even the god of creation, god of death, the god of sustenance and king of heaven would have to die at last.

Those who have adorned God, would be made free from the cycle of transmigration. (8)

Those who sit for meditation by closing both their eyes are of no use.

Those who have ablutions even in all the seven oceans would lose this as well as the next world.

Those who have spend their lives in sinful activities have also lost in the same way.

All should listen to this truth that only those who love God can realize Him. (9)

While worshipping stones some people are bowing before them and some others are withholding idols of stones in their necks.

Some people have faith that God is in the south while others consider God, is toward the west and they are bowing their heads in those directions.

Some people are worshiping idols foolishly while others are adoring the dead.

The whole world is busy in such false performances without knowing the secret mystery of God. (10)

[pedrorizzo]

Yes, without doubt you don't see where i'm coming from, even after i have been using simple words to explain. What you say does contradict what I say. You come from a secular view point. But i come from Gurmat, which is not a view point, but the only view point accepted by Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji Maharaj as truthful.

If you understood where i was coming from then you would have understood that miri and piri are interrelated and can't be looked at separately, when we speak about a Sikh. Yet you go on about how to separate them. Also i have met a few people with your similar view points, but they understand, once explained to them, how their secular view point is wrong.

I don't have a version of Sikhi. I accept Gurmat. And throughout this discussion I have been explaining Gurmat to you. Also obviously you wouldn't accept Gurmat form of objectivity. You clear don't have the knowledge to know what it is, even after it was explained to you many times.

I asked you to present your criteria for objectivity, but you refuse to do so. And i have understood your view point as i put your view point in my own words and explained how it was subjective and had no form of objetivity in there. You on the other hand are unable to put in your own words, what the criteria for objectivity is for you. And your unable to put in your own words the argument i have presented from Gurmat. Instead of acknowledging the other side, you ignore it and keep putting your point forward. But i don't blame you for even tempting to put Gurmat in your own words, when you don't even have the concept of miri and piri down.

Again if you understood, then you would have been like, that's Gurmat what hes presenting, so i better accept it or i will be going against Guru Sahib. Well that's what a Sikh would say and then accept Gurmat. But i guess your the exception here.

I come from a secular view point when I am talking about a secular topic. I will come from a Gurmat standpoint when discussing a Gurmat related topic. However, politics and leadership are secular topics. I understand that Miri and Piri are connected. However, they are not the one and same thing. This is the reason why you are so confused.

The Gurus Sahibs did not state that the two are the one and same thing or interlinked. They stated that these two separate entities must co-exist side by side.

This is what Miri and Piri means.

Again you are confused, because you fail to understand Miri and Piri, first as separate entities. Only if you recognise them separately, can you begin to understand how the two must co-exist side by side.

You have convinced yourself that you are following the true one and only Gurmat. Again, like other fundamentalist people, you think that only you know everything about Sikhi and that your interpretations are the correct ones, and everyone else is wrong. You are annoyed that you cant convince me of your beliefs, so you have resorted to stating that I dont know very much about Sikhi etc.

My criteria for objectivity in this example, like I have stated many times, is the ability to step out of your own shoes as a Sikh and attempt to view Sikh history from a neutral standpoint and weigh up the good and bad point of an event or a certain individual, to enhance our learning and to aid problem solving.

I do not accept your definition of objectivity, which you have somehow labelled a Gurmat definition of objectivity. You are too focused on trying to prove what you regard to be my secular opinion as wrong. You are heavily focussed, as many preachers are, to prove me wrong and 'convert' me into your belief system.

I, on the other hand, am trying to take an objective view and weigh up the good and points of an individual or an event to enhance my understanding and to aid problem solving. I am not here to try and prove you wrong. I am trying to do something completely different, and you have not really grasped that yet.

In addition, like a true pindu preacher, you are attempting to scare me and convince me that if I do not change my views, that I will be going against Guru Sahib and presumably.... what? burn in hell? get beaten by jamdhooths? or maybe come back in my next janam as a spastic?

[Only five]

I come from a secular view point when I am talking about a secular topic. I will come from a Gurmat standpoint when discussing a Gurmat related topic. However, politics and leadership are secular topics. I understand that Miri and Piri are connected. However, they are not the one and same thing. This is the reason why you are so confused.

The Gurus Sahibs did not state that the two are the one and same thing or interlinked. They stated that these two separate entities must co-exist side by side.

This is what Miri and Piri means.

Again you are confused, because you fail to understand Miri and Piri, first as separate entities. Only if you recognise them separately, can you begin to understand how the two must co-exist side by side.

You have convinced yourself that you are following the true one and only Gurmat. Again, like other fundamentalist people, you think that only you know everything about Sikhi and that your interpretations are the correct ones, and everyone else is wrong. You are annoyed that you cant convince me of your beliefs, so you have resorted to stating that I dont know very much about Sikhi etc.

My last post to you in this dicussion is the Gurbani of Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj. Maharaj prefectly explains how piri and miri are interrelated in Sikhi. Whether you want to accept the Gurbani is on you. Throughout this whole discussion i was trying to help you out, but it's clear to me, you don't want help.

Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[pedrorizzo]

My last post to you in this dicussion is the Gurbani of Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj. Maharaj prefectly explains how piri and miri are interrelated in Sikhi. Whether you want to accept the Gurbani is on you. Throughout this whole discussion i was trying to help you out, but it's clear to me, you don't want help.

Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I never asked for your help at any point during the discussion. However, you assumed, rather patronisingly, because my views were different to yours, that I need your help lol. The Shabad you posted is beautiful, and in my mind highlights the supremacy of Waheguru over all things. However, I cannot infer that Miri and Piri are the same thing from this particular shabad as you have stated. By doing so you are forming an extrapolation that does not exist. My understanding of Miri and Piri is that these two entities must co-exist side by side, ie neither should be neglected.

Like I said, we were trying to do two different things. I was trying to learn lessons from history, whilst you were trying to preach your Sikhi beliefs to me. No hard feelings.

vjkk vjkf

[AnakinSkywalker]

No doubt general education is very important to learn and much can be learned from it. I'm a university student, if i was against general education...then i wouldn't pay thousands of dollars to be there in the first place.

You believe general education is important and yet you haven't even got the basic grasps of high school level biology...you don't believe organisms go extinct or in evolution,....AND You're a University Student?....LOL...

Don't mention the name of your University, 'Only five'...You'll destroy its reputation.