Negative Article In Toronto Sun

[VanHelsingh]

There is a difference between telling someone the basic cornerstones of sikhi and describing the what all Sikhs should be striving to be. Many of the things of a perfect Gursikh are black and white, that's what I think he was trying to explain before. The discussions before were for a higher grade if you will. If you try explaining Calculus to a 1st grade student, he is going to run, you have to start with the basics so he can comprehend the more advanced stuff. Same thing with Sikhi when explaining to someone new, you have to start with the very basics, for them to understand the Kesh, the Rehit, and alot of it is very black and white. If you go straight to the more complex stuff, they are going to run.

To mods: Apologies for this OT discussion. Anymore discussion on these lines and I'll open another topic if that's okay.

Anyway, by withholding the "black and white" aspects then surely the faith is being misrepresented? You could argue that "human rights, equality, building a healthy lifestyle, and sharing with others" are all aspects of existence that every human being regardless of religious orientation should aspire to? I dare say there's quite a large number of non-Sikhs in the world who already practice that kind of lifestyle as listed above. In that way, they are not living up to the ideal of Sikhi at all, but rather some abstract humanist ideal.

But I do agree with your overall argument and I thank-you for replying. It's just that I was (semi-mischievously :biggrin2:) trying to illustrate to OnlyFive Ji that if we wish to explain Sikhi to non-Sikhs then we must not be timid and hold-back certain beliefs which may seem unpalatable to them, because if we do I believe we are being disingenuous about our faith, and we are not being true to our Guru.

Sikhi is as much about equality and human rights as it is about dharam yudh and shashtars. Someone will say "How does a faith which espouses the value of human life then seems to hold the instruments of death (shashtars) in such high esteem?". Do you understand how this may create confusion in the mind of someone who wants the facts but doesn't want to undertake a life-long journey into learning about Sikhi?

To curry someone's favour with the aspects WE think they will like to hear and then withhold the aspects we THINK may scare them doesn't sound right to me. It's almost like that situation when Guru Arjan Dev Ji's brother (or was it son?) changed the translation of the line of Gurbani (Mitee Musalman Ki) because he was afraid of the reaction of the Mughal court. If he was built of the same fibre as 5th Paatshah, he'd have given the true meaning of the tuk and then said to the Mughals "Do what you will with me - I'm not scared."

The 'Calculus - Sikhi' comparison may appear to be apt at first but if you really examine the situation it's like comparing apples and oranges. But like I said you've explained your reasoning well and you've given me something to chew on. :biggrin2:

[11Gurus1Jot]

2 Points:

Point 1 - a guilty party always hides things - innocent parties try and get others to witness things:

As far as talking to westerners about the Politics effecting Sikhs it's very simple - we should just say the following:

Sikhs are trying to get all of the west, and the rest of the world to be allowed into Punjab, and Delhi, to research and find out how a genocide was carried out against the Sikhs by the Indian Government, and how all the killers the Indian Govt used were let off free or promoted!!

Alqaeda don't want the west coming in to their area to even view what they are up to, whereas, us Sikhs ARE asking the west to go into Punjab and Delhi/India to find out what has been done, and is being done, to the Sikhs by the India Govt. I think you will agree that the fact that the Indian govt is keeping all the west out of Punjab, including Human rights organisations like Amnesty International, shows their total and utter guilt without any doubt whatsoever.

The Indian Govt are the Alqaeda in this case, as they want to keep the west and human rights organisation out, just like Alqaeda.

This opposite of one side, (the Sikhs), wanting witnesses, and the other side, the Indian Govt NOT wanting any witnesses proves without any doubt who is right and who is wrong, who is NOT guilty and who is guilty.

Sikhs are right, and the Indian Govt is wrong. If this is not the case what have the Indian Govt got to hide !!!!!!!

Murders and rapists would never let the media in, and that's why the indian goverment, not the Sikhs, are trying to keep the western media, and human rights organisations, out of the Punjab - Simply really !!!

Point 2 - WHY did the Indian government do the nasty things they are trying to hide from the rest of the world:

If somebody asks why are the indian government being so horrible to the Sikhs, what have they got against the Sikhs, to do all this to them without provication.

Well, in answer to the above question, I think the below gives the reason why. The reason for the cruelty on the Sikhs has been clearly given in so many books by intellects, both Sikhs and non-Sikhs, for over a hundred years now. However, most Sikhs have not picked up on this. Below is one incident of this simple truth being given to us by a top non-Sikh official of India back in 1911. McAuliffe also stated the same after carry out some totally independent and unbiased research himself. Many others have picked up on this. If we know why it’s being done to us, we can tackle it, and explain to the rest of the world why it’s being done to us. The rest of the world is more likely to believe us if they know why we are being oppressed by the Indian Government.

Reason for Indian Government’s ethnic cleansing and cruelty against Sikhs

Page 67 of the book by Saroop Singh “Kwilsqwn dI loV ikaUN?”

bRwhmxvwd isKW dw hmySw vYrI irhw hY[ KuPIAW ivBwg dy aup fwierYktr im: fI pYtrI ny sMn 1911 ivc BymI irport ivc ieMj iliKAw hY: ]

Hinduism has always been hostile to Sikhism whose Guru powerfully and successfully attacked the principle of Caste which is the foundation on which the whole fabric of Brahamism has been reared. The activities of Hindus have, therefore, been constantly directed to the undermining of Sikhism both by preventing the children of Sikh Fathers from taking Pahul and by reducing professed Sikhs from their allegiance to their faith.

Hinduism has strangled Buddhism, once a formidable rival to it and it has already made serious inroads into domains of Sikhism.

Nothing has changed!!!

[Only five]

There is a difference between telling someone the basic cornerstones of sikhi and describing the what all Sikhs should be striving to be. Many of the things of a perfect Gursikh are black and white, that's what I think he was trying to explain before. The discussions before were for a higher grade if you will. If you try explaining Calculus to a 1st grade student, he is going to run, you have to start with the basics so he can comprehend the more advanced stuff. Same thing with Sikhi when explaining to someone new, you have to start with the very basics, for them to understand the Kesh, the Rehit, and alot of it is very black and white. If you go straight to the more complex stuff, they are going to run.

Guptunknown......you put it in perfect words.

Here is a story that relates to this. I went to a Gurmukh to learn about Sikhi and the first day he told me to do the very basics of Sikhi, even though i wanted to learn the most difficult stuff. The Gurmukh knew i wanted him to tell me the hard stuff, but he didn't. The next time i went after awhile and in that time i practiced the basics, which was a huge struggle. At this point he started teaching me the stuff i wanted to know. In that moment i knew if he had told me the first day (the difficult teachings), I would have surely rejected the difficult teachings because my understanding of Sikhi was very low and i would not be able to understand it. It would only hurt me more than further me in Sikhi.

We can take the same lesson from Sikh history. Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj didn't teach the Sikhs in the first instance to start wearing shastar and use them now. Instead Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj in his Sixth form taught us to pick up shastar and train in them. This was close to 140 years later. Was Satguru hiding this from the people, so they don't run away and say to Guru Sahib your just like the Muslims....wanting to cause terror to conquer? No! Satguru knew the Sikhs first need to build their jeevans at the spiritual level and then they can use shastar.

Even speaking to punjabi Sikhs. I tell them to start with the basics as i was told by Gurmukhs. Once i started telling the punjabi Sikh the deeper stuff and hes like this is way over my head, i didn't understand anything you said......I just told him to start listening to Sant Baba Gurbachan Singh ji Maharaj's katha and start doing paat. To the Gora Sikh i gave him the link to Gurbani and told him the proper procedure to reading Gurbani. We would be hiding something of Sikhi if we tried to hide Gurbani from people. Instead it's all there for everyone to read. If someone wants to go on a witch hunt then they can try and I encourage people to go on witch hunts. At the end of the day they will be full of Gurbani and when they step into the world they will be looking at the world through Gurbani. Instead of being blind, now they have some vision and sooner or later they will bow with their minds to Gurbani.

[Only five]

To mods: Apologies for this OT discussion. Anymore discussion on these lines and I'll open another topic if that's okay.

Anyway, by withholding the "black and white" aspects then surely the faith is being misrepresented? You could argue that "human rights, equality, building a healthy lifestyle, and sharing with others" are all aspects of existence that every human being regardless of religious orientation should aspire to? I dare say there's quite a large number of non-Sikhs in the world who already practice that kind of lifestyle as listed above. In that way, they are not living up to the ideal of Sikhi at all, but rather some abstract humanist ideal.

But I do agree with your overall argument and I thank-you for replying. It's just that I was (semi-mischievously :biggrin2:) trying to illustrate to OnlyFive Ji that if we wish to explain Sikhi to non-Sikhs then we must not be timid and hold-back certain beliefs which may seem unpalatable to them, because if we do I believe we are being disingenuous about our faith, and we are not being true to our Guru.

In the discussion with the gora, i told him about how Punj Pyare were introduced to Sikhs (heads were cut), where to read Gurbani from in english, told him about Bhai Kanhainya ji, eating meat lowers spirituality, when kirpan can be used, etc.

I know Gurmukhs know more than us, so i go by what they say. If you think it's hiding then you should look at Sikh history again and re-think who Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj was.

[VanHelsingh]

In the discussion with the gora, i told him about how Punj Pyare were introduced to Sikhs (heads were cut), where to read Gurbani from in english, told him about Bhai Kanhainya ji, eating meat lowers spirituality, when kirpan can be used, etc.

I know Gurmukhs know more than us, so i go by what they say. If you think it's hiding then you should look at Sikh history again and re-think who Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj was.

You should have stated the above in bold in your original post. I'm not a mind-reader. :biggrin2:

In that case I'm glad you stated the aforementioned facts to the guy. but as you can see from the content of your original post I had no choice but to reach my original conclusion. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you ever meet him again I'd be curious to learn what his opinion of Sikhi is. Aside from the negative portrayal of the faith and it's followers by the Canadian media that is.

[Only five]

You should have stated the above in bold in your original post. I'm not a mind-reader. :biggrin2:

In that case I'm glad you stated the aforementioned facts to the guy. but as you can see from the content of your original post I had no choice but to reach my original conclusion. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you ever meet him again I'd be curious to learn what his opinion of Sikhi is. Aside from the negative portrayal of the faith and it's followers by the Canadian media that is.

I had no plan on telling him the other stuff as a first grade student would not be able to understand it (clearly from his face i could tell he didn't and was making judgements). Only reason i told him is because he asked about the Khalsa formation. IF he didn't ask, then i would have left it at what i said before and reading Gurbani in english translations.

Read up on when the shastar were introduced and then see if Maharaj was hiding something or is there a deeper reason why shastar were kept from Sikhs for 140 or so years.

[VanHelsingh]

I had no plan on telling him the other stuff as a first grade student would not be able to understand it (clearly from his face i could tell he didn't and was making judgements). Only reason i told him is because he asked about the Khalsa formation. IF he didn't ask, then i would have left it at what i said before and reading Gurbani in english translations.

Read up on when the shastar were introduced and then see if Maharaj was hiding something or is there a deeper reason why shastar were kept from Sikhs for 140 or so years.

You're referring to Guru Hargobind Sahib aren't you? Any chance you could be more specific so at least I know what I'm looking for?

Also, you must know that I wasn't referring to our Guru Sahibs when I mentioned the issues of 'hiding' and 'explaining', but I was talking about us modern day Sikhs and how we explain such complex and apparently contradictory concepts (to the layman) to non-Sikhs. The implication as you've alluded to above never crossed my mind.

[Sherdil]

In the discussion with the gora, i told him about how Punj Pyare were introduced to Sikhs (heads were cut), where to read Gurbani from in english, told him about Bhai Kanhainya ji, eating meat lowers spirituality, when kirpan can be used, etc.

I was always taught that Guru Gobind Singh ji had 5 goats in the tent. Every time he brought one of the Punj Pyaare into the tent, he would cut the head off the goat (jatka style). It only appeared to the audience that he was cutting the heads of the Punj Pyaare. Guru Sahib was testing the sangat to see if they would really die for him.

We need to get our stories straight if we are going to explain stuff to goras. We can't be telling them two different things.

[Not2Cool2Argue]

Also, you must know that I wasn't referring to our Guru Sahibs when I mentioned the issues of 'hiding' and 'explaining', but I was talking about us modern day Sikhs and how we explain such complex and apparently contradictory concepts (to the layman) to non-Sikhs. The implication as you've mentioned above never crossed my mind.

Yes so many things seem contradictory...and its really hard to know what to explain and what not to.

For example, I had to miss school to attend the protest for Rajoana and I emailed my teacher that i was going to protest against the death penalty

for Balwant Singh. And when I came back she asked me the success of my civil activism(that's what she termed it) I told her that the date has been moved back and he might be hung on another day. She then asked me what was his crime. And I had to pause and wonder if I should hide things and dress up the truth to make it look less horrible....but then i said, he was a back-up suicide bomber......and she said well i'm never for the death penalty but i'm never for suicide bombers either.

[VanHelsingh]

Yes so many things seem contradictory...and its really hard to know what to explain and what not to.

For example, I had to miss school to attend the protest for Rajoana and I emailed my teacher that i was going to protest against the death penalty

for Balwant Singh. And when I came back she asked me the success of my civil activism(that's what she termed it) I told her that the date has been moved back and he might be hung on another day. She then asked me what was his crime. And I had to pause and wonder if I should hide things and dress up the truth to make it look less horrible....but then i said, he was a back-up suicide bomber......and she said well i'm never for the death penalty but i'm never for suicide bombers either.

I would've loved to have seen her face when you said that! :biggrin2:

So many caveats and 'ifs' and 'buts' to explain to people who simply see the issue in black and white terms. But if we really want Sikhi to expand and not be misrepresented by those who wish to do us harm, these are issues we must face head-on.