I don't agree. Sure, we might not have the ease and comfort of categorisation along the western introduced binary/dual model. But I'm pretty sure that Sikhi can be demarcated along lines that aren't dumbed down and simplistic like that.
I've often said that the main difference between Hindu matt and Sikhi matt is Sikhi's militaristic egalitarian social vision. Abrahamising or westernising (which are both frameworks built upon binary/duality) Sikhi isn't any sort of solution. Pandering to the lowest intellectual denominator of the panth is stunting our development. As well as reaching down to such people, we have to drag them upwards too (no easy task given certain elements of the panth).
And look at how the example of Dusserha in Sikhi works. It's brought into a SIkh framework for the Sikhi agenda. It's clearly repurposed and adapted to needs. It's not some sort of blurring or compromise.
The so called good cops are standing quietly behind the blue line backing their comrades who commit racially motivated murder etc. When their voice is the loudest about abhorrent police practices, then they'll be good cops. Until then they're complicit.
I don't think it is just that. A lot of academics have a sort of secular western mindset too. A lot of them have taken the Singh Sabha ideas and have gone to extremes with them. When I was younger, there seemed to be little understanding of puratan Sikh ithihaasic texts (like those we are looking at in this thread), which were all pretty much branded as 'Hindu accretions' because the writers referenced commonly accepted Indic concepts and such in their narratives. I think colonialism sort of created a dual-abrahamic mindset amongst many educated apnay, and they went to extreme lengths to separate Sikhi from Hindu matt, even going to the extreme of vilifying their own historical texts because they couldn't grasp the contexts with the duality mindsets.
It's really good to see a generation who can study and analyse their own historical texts without the paranoia the olders did.
I shouldn't have been so harsh for your honest opinion. Sorry about that. Guess I can be an ar5e as well.
I thought the book was really good in how it explained those moments of stillness that you can sometimes get if you're lucky when meditating (simran). Those moments (what he calls the power of now i.e. being in the moment unencumbered by the baggage of the past, as well as concerns about the future) are psychologically and spiritually rejuvenating.
And I didn't agree with all he said, I just thought he helped elucidate a purpose of meditation very well.
You should maybe try reading it again, because you might be in a different mindplace now, and be able to take more out of it. I should read it again too sometime.