Jump to content

Ajit Vadakayil Anti Sikh Article


Nalwa
 Share

Recommended Posts

OH YES !! DON'T DOUBT, HE IS A RETIRED MERCHANT NAVY CAPTAIN. ( I know this, cz I work in merchant navy) !! secondly he isn't a retard, read his other posts regarding various issues. I don't agree with everything he writes, WON'T comment anything regarding his post on SIKHISM ( Iam not a SIKH, iam a HARYANVI JAT, so knowing just one side of the story doesn't make me qualified enough to comment on the subject).

BUT MANY OF HIS WRITINGS ARE TRULY EYE OPENERS. btw some of you guys here have mocked HINDUS !! just wanna Know,

WERE NOT ALL THE SIKH GURU's HINDUS?? where was sikhism before 15-16th century, no trace. IS it not true, that HINDUS Formed a DEDICATED GROUP TO FIGHT THE MOGHULS, and these brave ones were called SIKH's, and thus started SIKHISM !!

TO add to your knowledge, HINDUISM (term coined by middle east ppl) OR BETTER, I SAY SANATAN DHARMA is THE ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN RELIGION. COME ON YOU CANNOT DENY THIS, AND DENYING WON't HELP, YOU CAN't RUN AWAY FROM YOUR ROOTS. CAN YOU?

I HOPE YOU WILL ATLEAST AGREE THAT YOU ARE THE SON's of PUNJAB ? IF yes than there is a much bigger cause to fight for, than simply cursing HINDUISM. FIGHT TO SAVE THE YOUTH OF PUNJAB ( 70 % is on DRUGS ) & HARYANA. WILL APPRECIATE IF YOU PUT YOUR EFFORTS TO HELP THE MOTHERLAND.

ONCE AGAIN, IAM SORRY IF MY WORDS HAVE HURT ANYbdys SENTIMENTS. I RESPECT SIKHS AND Love VISITING GURUDWARA whenever possible.

Hi InderRS. I havn't read his other articles, but the one he wrote on Sikh history I have read. The reason why we find his article offensive is because he presents that article as if it is authentic history to his readers who will get the wrong impression that what he has written is the truth when in reality it is far from the truth. His article is full of lies and even insulting remarks for respected Gursikhs. He never cite's references to back up his claims. So he has basically written an article on Sikh history based on his opinion and views rather than facts, and I hope you know the difference between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHY DO SIKHS DON't want to associate themselves with HINDUISM?

Because Sikhs are not Hindus. We have our unique way of life.

WERE NOT ALL THE SIKH GURU's HINDUS??

No. Because after coming in contact with Sikhism, they renounced Hindu way of life.

where was sikhism before 15-16th century, no trace.

Every religion has its origin in time. Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma also did not originate when the creation began.

IS it not true, that HINDUS Formed a DEDICATED GROUP TO FIGHT THE MOGHULS, and these brave ones were called SIKH's, and thus started SIKHISM !!

Absolutely not. Sikh warrior who fought Mughals were Sikhs not Hindus. Gurbani calls Gurmukhs as Sikhs not as Hindus or Muslims. These Sikhs were specifically called “Nanak-prast” by the Mughal government in their official edicts.

I never wore Janeu, does that make me a NON HINDU ??

Wearing the sacred thread was obligatory in 15th century Hinduism. It clearly marked one’s initiation into the Hindu fold. Hindu practices are not strictly being followed these days but 15th century social and religious life was much different. You never wore Janeau which is irrelevant. What is important to realize is the fact that Guru Sahib rejected it along with caste system and many other Hindu practices.

ok GURU NANAK DEV JI WAS not a HINDU as per you, but will you also deny that he was born in a HINDU family and so did the other GURU's.

First four Gurus were born in Hindu families and remaining six Gurus in Sikh families. First Guru founded the Sikh religion and started a new path. His three successors renounced Hinduism when they came in contact with the Sikh Gurus. Being born in a Hindu or Muslim family does not automatically make one a Hindu or Muslim respectively. Hinduism is not in one’s DNA or part of the gene structure. If one does not follow Hinduism and rejects it, he cannot be classified as a Hindu. Otherwise, Mohammad would be considered a pagan for being born in a pagan family, Jesus a Jew, Buddha a Hindu and all those Christians and Muslims who converted from Hinduism as Hindus. This argument is flawed.

Did Sikhism start overnight? were all the sikhs created Directly by the GODS without mortal human beings in just one day??

Yes it did start overnight but took centuries to develop and consolidate it. Those who came to Sikh Gurus and adopted Sikh way of life became Sikhs instantly.

if thats not the case, then what religion or belief did the predecessors of SIKHS follow?? now don't tell me that they followed nothing or that they didn't follow SANATAN DHARMA or were not called HINDUS.

Early Sikhs before becoming Sikhs followed Hinduism, Islam, yogic practices etc. Some were Vaishnavas, Saivas, naaths, siddhas etc. This goes to show that these paths were incomplete and unsatisfactory to the people which is why they opted for Gurmat. You make it sound like “once a Hindu, always a Hindu”. If the same logic was applied to Valmick then we will have to say “once a thief always a thief”. Right?

Now the most holy mantra as per my understanding is " Ek ONKAR " the fundamental teaching of SIKHISM. WIll you deny that this mool mantra has not been taken from VEDAS onkar meaning "AUM" or "OM". if you deny this than you should start claiming that SIKHISM is much older than VEDAS or Hinduism.

You forgot very important aspect of this mantra which is “ik”. This is what makes it distinct and unique from Hindu mantra of Aum. AUM represents Hindu trinity of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiv who play different role in creation. This is contrary to Gurmat concept of theology. “Ik Oankar” refers to One Supreme God who is Absolute, never changing and Omnipresent. He always remains One and is above the Hindu trinity. Hence, there is no comparison. If one asserts that the word Allah in Islam refers to pagan deity or the moon god merely because the word was used by the pagans for their gods, it does not mean that the same word in Islam means exactly the same thing. Similarly, words like Aum, Madho, Gobind, Murari etc. must be interpreted within the framework of Gurbani to ensure that Sikh theological and philosophical concepts are consistent and in consonance with the rest of Gurbani.

So if you carefully read dvaita or advaita sidhanta of Hinduism, you will find HINDUISM imbibes all beliefs or all religions in itself. Thats the GREATNESS of SANATAN DHARMA a.k.a HINDUISM.

There are many contradictory philosophy systems offering various interpretations of concept of dvaita and advaita in Hinduism. Which system are you referring to? Shankra’s, Ramanuja’s, Vishisht, Vallabhacharaya or anyone else? However, none of them are exactly the same as Gurmat which stands unique.

So its clear that WE ALL ARE HINDUS in a way, and this includes followers of all ABRAHAMIC religions and HINDUS, BUDDHISTS, JAINS, SIKHS or even ATHEISTS.

This is where you are a mistaken. It is a flaw of Hinduism that it has no defined philosophy and way of life and no organized structure. On the other hand, Gurmat is organized and complete way of life. Being Hindu does not mean being a human. We are all humans but our way of life and set of beliefs we follow define who we are. Those who follow Gurbani are Sikhs, followers of Quran are Muslims, followers of Bible are Christians etc. Hinduism has no definition. Word Hindu means a thief. So no, we are not thieves in any way.

if Hinduism was not so good, than why didn't the holy GURU's criticize it?

‘Na Hum Hindu Na Musalmaan’ is clear enough to convey that Sikhs are neither Hindus nor Muslims. Vedas, Puranas, Simartis, caste system, Hindus gods and goddesses, Hindu ceremonies etc. are all rejected in Gurbani. You just need to open your eyes to this fact.

In SHORT the DEGREE OF FREEDOM A HINDU ENJOYS doesn't exist anywhere else. a HINDU is free to worship god or also become atheist,

It is not a matter of freedom as you make it to be but an inherent flaw of Hinduism that utterly fails to provide a path of guidance to become a better person and God-oriented human. What good is a religion if it gives the choice to either believe in God or reject His existence? Hinduism is an undefined system full of self-contradictory passages riddled with empty, blind and mechanical rituals that serve no purpose to progress of one’s spiritual journey. And this is why Sikhs are not Hindus.

THE PURE BELONGS TO THE GOD ( BHAGWAN)

ALL VICTORY BELONGS TO GOD ( BHAGWAN)

Word Khalsa in the panth refers to Khalsa of the Guru. It is not a generic term meaning pure or a political term used for tract of land administered directly by the king. Word ‘Khalsa’ in Sikh greeting refers to Sikhs only. Word ‘Vaheguru’ specifically refers to the Supreme Reality that is defined in Gurmat theology. Thus, it is not a general term to refer to any God. Therefore, the greeting means:

Khalsa Belongs to Vaheguru, Victory Belongs to Vaheguru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH YES !! DON'T DOUBT, HE IS A RETIRED MERCHANT NAVY CAPTAIN. ( I know this, cz I work in merchant navy) !! secondly he isn't a retard, read his other posts regarding various issues. I don't agree with everything he writes, WON'T comment anything regarding his post on SIKHISM ( Iam not a SIKH, iam a HARYANVI JAT, so knowing just one side of the story doesn't make me qualified enough to comment on the subject).

BUT MANY OF HIS WRITINGS ARE TRULY EYE OPENERS. btw some of you guys here have mocked HINDUS !! just wanna Know,

WERE NOT ALL THE SIKH GURU's HINDUS?? where was sikhism before 15-16th century, no trace. IS it not true, that HINDUS Formed a DEDICATED GROUP TO FIGHT THE MOGHULS, and these brave ones were called SIKH's, and thus started SIKHISM !!

TO add to your knowledge, HINDUISM (term coined by middle east ppl) OR BETTER, I SAY SANATAN DHARMA is THE ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN RELIGION. COME ON YOU CANNOT DENY THIS, AND DENYING WON't HELP, YOU CAN't RUN AWAY FROM YOUR ROOTS. CAN YOU?

I HOPE YOU WILL ATLEAST AGREE THAT YOU ARE THE SON's of PUNJAB ? IF yes than there is a much bigger cause to fight for, than simply cursing HINDUISM. FIGHT TO SAVE THE YOUTH OF PUNJAB ( 70 % is on DRUGS ) & HARYANA. WILL APPRECIATE IF YOU PUT YOUR EFFORTS TO HELP THE MOTHERLAND.

ONCE AGAIN, IAM SORRY IF MY WORDS HAVE HURT ANYbdys SENTIMENTS. I RESPECT SIKHS AND Love VISITING GURUDWARA whenever possible.

The fact that you are employing a varied font showcases your imbecility. Secondly your retarded captain is no authority on any matter least of all Sikhism. 'Scientifically Proven?' Forgive me if I don't accept your nationalistic line and advocate mass consumption of Cow Urine as some Vedic antidote to modern diseases and ailments. Rather than coming here to sporadically try defending your beloved master, why don't you direct your attention towards fighting the Hindu radicalism prevalent in India and attempting to stem the drug flow in your own state? Can you provide any cardinal proof which explicitly evidences the existence of a Sanataan Dharma, linguistically and historically, in any Indian publication before the twentieth century? Sikhs have not only fought the Mughals we have also clashed with Rajputs and Marathas. You cannot gloss over history overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Vedas are truly adulterated as you say then what factuality exists to prove the existence of all or any elements of Hinduism? How do you know what constitutes Hinduism and/or its fundamentals? If the Vedas truly are adulterated then how do we know if Hinduism is historic? How do you know you are Hindu if there is no set scriptural criteria to define your belief? How do you know Sikhs are Hindus if the British changed the Vedas? How do you even know Sanataan dharma or your faith exists if the Vedas have been changed? The fact, as you assert, that they have been changed must mean that modern Hinduism is false. If so then who are you to comment on Sikhi if your own faith eludes you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Sikhs are not Hindus. We have our unique way of life.

No. Because after coming in contact with Sikhism, they renounced Hindu way of life.

Every religion has its origin in time. Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma also did not originate when the creation began.

Wearing the sacred thread was obligatory in 15th century Hinduism. It clearly marked one’s initiation into the Hindu fold. Hindu practices are not strictly being followed these days but 15th century social and religious life was much different. You never wore Janeau which is irrelevant. What is important to realize is the fact that Guru Sahib rejected it along with caste system and many other Hindu practices.

First four Gurus were born in Hindu families and remaining six Gurus in Sikh families. First Guru founded the Sikh religion and started a new path. His three successors renounced Hinduism when they came in contact with the Sikh Gurus. Being born in a Hindu or Muslim family does not automatically make one a Hindu or Muslim respectively. Hinduism is not in one’s DNA or part of the gene structure. If one does not follow Hinduism and rejects it, he cannot be classified as a Hindu. Otherwise, Mohammad would be considered a pagan for being born in a pagan family, Jesus a Jew, Buddha a Hindu and all those Christians and Muslims who converted from Hinduism as Hindus. This argument is flawed.

Yes it did start overnight but took centuries to develop and consolidate it. Those who came to Sikh Gurus and adopted Sikh way of life became Sikhs instantly.

Early Sikhs before becoming Sikhs followed Hinduism, Islam, yogic practices etc. Some were Vaishnavas, Saivas, naaths, siddhas etc. This goes to show that these paths were incomplete and unsatisfactory to the people which is why they opted for Gurmat. You make it sound like “once a Hindu, always a Hindu”. If the same logic was applied to Valmick then we will have to say “once a thief always a thief”. Right?

You forgot very important aspect of this mantra which is “ik”. This is what makes it distinct and unique from Hindu mantra of Aum. AUM represents Hindu trinity of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiv who play different role in creation. This is contrary to Gurmat concept of theology. “Ik Oankar” refers to One Supreme God who is Absolute, never changing and Omnipresent. He always remains One and is above the Hindu trinity. Hence, there is no comparison. If one asserts that the word Allah in Islam refers to pagan deity or the moon god merely because the word was used by the pagans for their gods, it does not mean that the same word in Islam means exactly the same thing. Similarly, words like Aum, Madho, Gobind, Murari etc. must be interpreted within the framework of Gurbani to ensure that Sikh theological and philosophical concepts are consistent and in consonance with the rest of Gurbani.

There are many contradictory philosophy systems offering various interpretations of concept of dvaita and advaita in Hinduism. Which system are you referring to? Shankra’s, Ramanuja’s, Vishisht, Vallabhacharaya or anyone else? However, none of them are exactly the same as Gurmat which stands unique.

This is where you are a mistaken. It is a flaw of Hinduism that it has no defined philosophy and way of life and no organized structure. On the other hand, Gurmat is organized and complete way of life. Being Hindu does not mean being a human. We are all humans but our way of life and set of beliefs we follow define who we are. Those who follow Gurbani are Sikhs, followers of Quran are Muslims, followers of Bible are Christians etc. Hinduism has no definition. Word Hindu means a thief. So no, we are not thieves in any way.

‘Na Hum Hindu Na Musalmaan’ is clear enough to convey that Sikhs are neither Hindus nor Muslims. Vedas, Puranas, Simartis, caste system, Hindus gods and goddesses, Hindu ceremonies etc. are all rejected in Gurbani. You just need to open your eyes to this fact.

It is not a matter of freedom as you make it to be but an inherent flaw of Hinduism that utterly fails to provide a path of guidance to become a better person and God-oriented human. What good is a religion if it gives the choice to either believe in God or reject His existence? Hinduism is an undefined system full of self-contradictory passages riddled with empty, blind and mechanical rituals that serve no purpose to progress of one’s spiritual journey. And this is why Sikhs are not Hindus.

Word Khalsa in the panth refers to Khalsa of the Guru. It is not a generic term meaning pure or a political term used for tract of land administered directly by the king. Word ‘Khalsa’ in Sikh greeting refers to Sikhs only. Word ‘Vaheguru’ specifically refers to the Supreme Reality that is defined in Gurmat theology. Thus, it is not a general term to refer to any God. Therefore, the greeting means:

Khalsa Belongs to Vaheguru, Victory Belongs to Vaheguru.

If we look at the purataan siddhant of Ik Onkaar we will see 2 perceptions. Ik meaning unmanifest, on meaning the tregun represented by Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu and kaar meaning force above. Thus linguistically Ik Onkaar means the unmanifest force/creator above the tregun (represented by om). If the Sikh Gurus were practicing Hindus then there would have been no need to manifest such a 'blasphemous' mantra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT MANY OF HIS WRITINGS ARE TRULY EYE OPENERS.

they might be eye opener to you but i would never trust and tom <banned word filter activated> and harry unless he provides me with credible sources.

Credible sources ?? Do you even expect something like this after a 1000 yr slavery ( 800 yrs under Moghuls+200 yrs under BRITISH).MUGHALS destroyed temples, burnt the takshila and Nalanda University literature. BRITISH did the worst, they stole our vedic scriptures, took out the best and returned us adultered content.

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO KILL A NATION : ATTACK THE KNOWLEDGE & BELIEF OF PEOPLE. CONFUSE THEM ENOUGH< SO THEY BECOME SELF LOATHING.THIS is exactly what they did, injected poison into our vedic scriptures and made by producing fake evidences written or created by them, they tried to induce that inferiority complex amongst the Hindus. with full force they tried to show the ugly part of Hinduism( eg Devadasi pratha, untouchability, sati pratha, casteism etc etc) which actually never existed in sanatan dharma. "

YOU KEEP TELLING A LIE THOUSAND TIMES< EVENTUALLY THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO WILL START BELEVIN IN IT."

WHY DO SIKHS DON't want to associate themselves with HINDUISM? cz of the above reason, they fear that they will be attached with such taboo and made fun of. SO SIKHS want to beleive that their ORIGIN OF LIFE STARTED from the day SIKHISM was formed, what before that. HINDUISM OR SANATAN DHARMA existed long long time before we heard of Christianity or Islam. GRADUALLY WE ARE GETTING EVIDENCES TO OUR EPICS TOO ( RAM SETU BRIDGE, UNDERWATER DWARKA EXCAv etc).

STILL, WOULD you BELEIVE THE SO CALLED CREDIBLE SOURCEs LIKE WIKIPEDIA indirectly Controlled by west or a wendy donigers stupid false writings on HINDUISM?

WERE NOT ALL THE SIKH GURU's HINDUS?? where was sikhism before 15-16th century, no trace. IS it not true, that HINDUS Formed a DEDICATED GROUP TO FIGHT THE MOGHULS, and these brave ones were called SIKH's, and thus started SIKHISM !!

Where did you get your history lessons? Let me guess, the retarded Navy Docuhe right? SMH

Guru Nanak Dev ji refused to wear janeu. Sikhi started with Guru Nanak Dev ji

Hindus did not form a dedicated group. All followers of Gurus were Sikhs not HIndus as they used to take "Charan Pahul " to become Sikhs before Amrit Sanchar was started by Guru Gobind Singh ji.

NOPE, I GOT MY HISTORY LESSONS FROM the so called BRITISH EDUCATION SYSTEM, and years later I CURSED myself for having read HISTORY written by GORA's or GORA KA STOOGES.

YOU may call him DO#che, if that pleases YOU, thats your perception abt him !! I mentioned earlier, I don't blindly trust what he writes, but at the same time I cannot simply IGNORE it. ( if something is bitter to me that doesn't mean its all false).

Guru Nanak Dev ji refused to wear janeu ??

I never wore Janeu, does that make me a NON HINDU ?? ok GURU NANAK DEV JI WAS not a HINDU as per you, but will you also deny that he was born in a HINDU family and so did the other GURU's. AS PER YOU SIKHISM was founded in 15th century. NOW NO OFFENCES but ???

Did Sikhism start overnight? were all the sikhs created Directly by the GODS without mortal human beings in just one day??

if thats not the case, then what religion or belief did the predecessors of SIKHS follow??

now don't tell me that they followed nothing or that they didn't follow SANATAN DHARMA or were not called HINDUS.

Now the most holy mantra as per my understanding is " Ek ONKAR " the fundamental teaching of SIKHISM. WIll you deny that this mool mantra has not been taken from VEDAS onkar meaning "AUM" or "OM". if you deny this than you should start claiming that SIKHISM is much older than VEDAS or Hinduism.

Now what does HINDUISM or SANATAN DHARMA speak about god ??

DVAITA and ADVAITA --won't elaborate on this, as the comment would become too lengthy, moreover you don't seem to be interested in learning this.

Now what does HINDUISM or SANATAN DHARMA speak about paths to attain MOKSHA ??

1.The path of knowledge - Jnana-Yoga

Spiritual knowledge -leading to the knowledge of the relationship between the soul (atman) and God (Brahman)

2.The path of meditation - Dhyana-yoga

The idea is to concentrate so you can reach the real self within you and become one with Brahman

3.The path of good works - Karma-yoga

4.The Path of Devotion - Bhakti-yoga

Choosing a particular god, demi-gods, goddess, pitra puja or Guru puja or simply praying to god and worshipping them throughout your life in actions, words and deeds.

Now a Hindu can follow any or all of the 4 paths mentioned above. EVERY HUMAN BEING is more or less fine with the 1st three paths. The PROBLEM comes with path4 , that is when ARGUMENTS start flowing, that is when EGO comes into action and probably thats why Iam replying to you on this site.

So if you carefully read dvaita or advaita sidhanta of Hinduism, you will find HINDUISM imbibes all beliefs or all religions in itself. Thats the GREATNESS of SANATAN DHARMA a.k.a HINDUISM.

So its clear that WE ALL ARE HINDUS in a way, and this includes followers of all ABRAHAMIC religions and HINDUS, BUDDHISTS, JAINS, SIKHS or even ATHEISTS.

EVEN if someone doesn't believe in god still he can be called a HINDU, as then indirectly or directly he is following the SCALAR WAVE form of god. ( read latest on conscience and QUANTUM physics)

Allright back to the discussion: if Hinduism was not so good, than why didn't the holy GURU's criticize it? they were well familiar with Hinduism, as it existed before sikhism. The only thing which they did was that they chose one of the paths above and made a religion with simple rules and guidelines.

It will be surprising if some BUDDHIST guy tells me that GAUTAM BUDHHA WAS NOT A HINDU.

In SHORT the DEGREE OF FREEDOM A HINDU ENJOYS doesn't exist anywhere else. a HINDU is free to worship god or also become atheist, to look at god in personalised way or believe only in the spiritual power or for people with scientific influence simply believe in the Scalar form. No hardbound rules, no fatwas issued(like in islam), no forceful conversion, no fear that GOD will do us harm if we don't worship.

BOTTOM LINE : HINDUISM a.k.a SANATAN DHARMA is the best way for me to live life. Again I say this not to be-little others belief or religion, rather BE PROUD of what you follow but don't disrespect others.

There are flaws in every society, yes some sections of our society screwed up somewhere in Our Long History, by not being able to preach properly and maintain their the true dharma, but for this you cannot blame Hinduism.

I conclude with this last QUOTE of mine on this thread.

WAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA

WAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

---------------------------------I hope this Greeting is not copyright of SIKHS and it means--------

THE PURE BELONGS TO THE GOD ( BHAGWAN)

ALL VICTORY BELONGS TO GOD ( BHAGWAN)

(P.S : I understand the context of how and when the abv pledge was introduced by GURU ji during the MOGHUL reign.)

The Bhagvaad Gita, which is said to be a repository of Vedic spiritualism, says that worshipping an animal, a site or the land of birth is useless. If the Gurus were truly Vedic Hindus why would they go against the Gita? Or is that the British again?

Running away from roots? We just weeded them out. Please don't go away. I am just beginning to enjoy this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you just make your point? Why are you on this forum and what is it that bothers you? Is it members over here mocking Hinduism or are you here to convince us (like many others in the past) that Sikhi is an off-shoot of Hinduism (Sanatan Dharm in your words)?

We will need to be on the same platform before we can even initiate debating with you. Since this is a Sikh forum, and since we look forward to discussing Gurbani on here, it would be best if you came back after you had read, understood, and contemplated on Sri Japji Sahib, the very first Bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. Until then, I guess we are like 2 guys looking at apples, one calls them oranges and the other calls them mangoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use