Jump to content

Questions About Sikhi (From A Non-Sikh)


Guest Anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last night I read the Japji Sahib and tonight I will read more.

Don't just read it conceptually, but contemplate deeply on it, ask questions while reading how does it relate to my experience- lots of questions and answers already in japji sahib. Satguru talks to everyone all the time, its just we are busy with our conditioned mind-metal noise, be quiet and listen(sunaie)-

ਸੁਣਿਐ ਲਾਗੈ ਸਹਜਿ ਧਿਆਨੁ ॥

Suṇi▫ai lāgai sahj ḏẖi▫ān.
By Listening-intuitively one spontaneously starts to meditate/contemplate deeply.

For example-

kiv sachi-aaraa ho-ee-ai kiv koorhai tutai paal How then can one be purified? How can one throw away the falsehood? hukam rajaa-ee chalnaa naanak likhi-aa naal Says Nanak, By Abiding by the Command of God, which is written along with everyone!

Here Satguru nanak dev ji is saying hakum rajaie chalna nanak likiya naal. According to my understanding, answer which is given here is -One has to look beyond conditioned mind and get attuned with their inner intuition within/intuitively listen with one consciousness/intellect (surat) -Hakum-divine will of God/absolute reality which is always unfolding-always happening right at this moment. So on a person level, whats hakum always unfolding for you or how does this relate to you in your experience? You have to listen with your unconditioned consciousness-surti for guidance directly from inner Guru-Satguru within. It essentially our intrinsic deepest spiritual impulse getting drawn to God-absolute truth or aspects of it as part of spiritual development, all contributing in our going back to our source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poster Bijla Singh has answered all your questions. If anonymous is an honest seeker, he would contemplate on what Bijla Singh has said. Instead of rushing to argue. Even in my post you skip over important information provided and ask a question on what has already been answered.

How do I know Gurbani is God? Because I have faith and contentment in Gurbani. I have no issue answering this question. Yet, you have faith in Buddha and Buddhism and you cannot be 100% sure it is actually Buddhism because Buddha didn't write anything down. Over the centuries many things change and concepts are lost. Sikh Gurus wrote ALL of God's teaching down on how to reach God and this makes Sikhi authentic and real and unchanging. You are blindly following 'Buddha teachings without any clue if today's Buddhism is what Buddha taught. Also lastly and not least Buddha was ONLY a seeker. The Gurus are God himself. Any honest person looking for answers would deeply consider this thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bijla Singh's response has been very fair and considered. It may not immediately be digestible from certain perspectives, but I think it is best to approach questions such as these with humility and an "I know nothing yet I'm ready to learn" attitude. Most of it is down to faith too. What is religion but a leap of faith? BTW, I love certain aspects of Western culture, I really do, but it is not the be all and end all of modern existence. Don't be strong-armed into thinking that, "West = great and sophisticated" whilst, "East = irrelevant and archaic." Draw from both, but derive confidence and faith from Sikhi, because it really is a beautifully serene way to live one's life. Just don't get sidetracked or lured into blind alleys by Man. A Sikh wishes to merge with the Creator; the hard work has to be done by us. Nobody can put in a good word for us and slip us through to the other side, thankfully. Thoughts and deeds, cause and effect. Simple as that. The final four lines of Japji Sahib sum it up perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Let me get to this one first, and then I will respond to the others.

You asked questions and many provided answers. If you are thinking of having an argument or a debate then you will have to find someone else for it.

I thought to have a peaceful discussion, and others provided that. You are the only one who started directly accusing other religions (namely Islam and Hinduism) as having meaningless morals.

Having some similarities does not mean anything. What sets Gurmat apart from Buddhism is the fact (and a very important one) is that the former believes in One Supreme Being whereas the latter does not. Hence, all other concepts concerning way of life and salvation would be vastly different. Similarities can be found in all religions. This does not prove anything.

Alright, we can agree to disagree on this.

How do I know? Because my Satguru told me and He is not a liar. He received the revelation and penned it down Himself. He preached and practiced the same message. Countless Sikhs have experienced the Divine from this message. The true message can only preach what is according to the very nature of God i.e. without hate, fear, equality, peace etc. What proof do you have that Gurbani is not revealed? If you are looking for truth then why not compare the original Gurbani message to other holy books and see for yourself. Truth is not sought by asking questions on forums and picking an argument. Truth is obtained by following Satguru and having an inner connection with Vaheguru which is wholly absent in Buddhism.

I have compared, I am comparing now, and the thing is, Sikhi doesn't look like it's any different. Yes, it does teach very high morals which I absolutely respect, but it seems like its followers are just as divided and into blind-faith as any other religion. Do I expect to get truth here? No, that would be completely unreasonable. But it can help me to totally rule out paths which aren't going to work for me.

It seems to me you do not understand logic. If you want to treat homosexuality topic as something personal then it leaves no room for any objective discussion. I never said homosexuals are useless. I only stated they cannot procreate which is part of Anand Karaj lifestyle. Hence, within Gurmat they have no place. Surely they can adopt but I have already refuted such a useless point. They depend on heterosexuals for it. Assume there are no children left in the world for adoption, what then? On what basis do homosexuals justify having a family unit? On what basis is this marriage justified? You failed to address my point: Lets put any homosexual couple on an uninhabited planet and see if humanity survives. Gurmat is universal and all of its principles are universally applicable. If homosexuality was universally applied, humanity will cease to exist. Infertility is a medical disability. Are all homosexuals medically disabled? You are the one doing apples to oranges comparison not me. You are the one comparing healthy homos to infertile. Procreation is not the only criterion but is definitely one of the criteria. First criterion for Anand Karaj is to have a man and a woman. Many Gurbani verses explicitly state this. Vaars also state the same fact in no ambiguous terms. I never said homosexuals are beggars but are like ascetics who depend on heterosexuals. I dont think you understand how examples work. Homosexuals are NOT householders as defined in Gurbani (I highly doubt you know what householder means within the scope of Gurmat). Their entire relationship is predicated upon physical attraction towards the same sex be it for companionship, intimacy or lust. Living the ideal Gurmat lifestyle is never on their mind. Mind you, we are not discussing pros and cons of homosexuality but whether it is accepted in Sikhi or not. The topic is not homosexuality in general but very specific as to Gurmat injunctions in regards to it.

You too are treating it as something personal, don't pretend that you're not. Within Gurmat they have no place, fine, that is basically the same as being useless (within Gurmat). Do you ever really see a time when there are no children left in the world for adoption? Do you ever really think that would happen? If it does, then we can solve that issue when we get there, because it does NOT matter now. Many indigenous cultures have survived with culturally sanctioned homosexuality, and it has actually benefited them (Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Turkey, many Native American tribes). On what basis? LOVE MY MAN. Love is as good of a reason as any. Many homosexual couples choose not to adopt or otherwise have children, but they are married because they want to be together, and they want to have a partner. Who are you to deny that of them? We're not putting homosexuals on an uninhabited planet, and to draw such comparisons is irresponsible. If you look at something that is contextually dependent, and then take it out of its context, then of course it will seem ridiculous and implausible. Infertility is a medical disability, that's true, but homosexuality is also biological and genetic. Are they really any different? How can you say that one biological thing is fine, but another biological thing is not? If you are going to state that Anand Karaj is a marriage with procreation as its prime intent, then you must apply that principle universally and say that people who are sterile cannot have an Anand Karaj, heterosexual or otherwise. If you're going to have such strong principles, stick to them in all cases.

As for universally applied, no one ever said we were universally applying homosexuality. You got that idea, not me. The question is, how is SIKHI universally applicable? And if homosexuals are not able to practice Sikhi because of a BIOLOGICALLY, GENETICALLY determined sexuality, then Sikhi is not universally applicable. It is applicable to everyone who is not homosexual. To be universally applicable, it has to be practicable in full by anyone. If I don't know what householder means, then let's define it. I don't see this argument going anywhere because you say one thing is true and then another thing is true. Give me a definition and stick to it. To say that love and companionship are based solely on physical attraction is grossly misunderstanding the point of a relationship, and it seems as juvenile as high schoolers in their two-week relationships. You say we are talking solely about Gurmat, but again and again you make broad sweeping statements about homosexuality as a whole. Which one is it?

I have already stated why Gurbani does not mention it explicitly. Again, it is incompatible with Gurmat i.e. it is opposite to Sikh way of life. You argue in vain that soul is genderless. So what? Is homosexual relationship soul based? No. It is same sex based. It is physical based. Hence, your argument is invalid. I can argue that since soul has no gender why cant all homosexuals marry the opposite sex and form heterosexual family units? Why do they feel attracted to the same gender which is purely physical? A Sikh and homosexual are contradictory. It is analogous to saying criminal and cop are one and the same or a saint and a sinner are the same. Not to say that homosexuals are criminals or sinners. Absolutely not. The point being that two are contradictory in nature. A Gursikh who is God oriented person can never be homosexual. This is how Gurbani defines it. Divorce, abuse, wife-beating etc. are topics which are not mentioned in Gurbani so should we assume Gurbani endorses such practices? Absolutely not. These topics are not covered because they are incompatible with true way of life. If someone was to ask what Gurbani says concerning a Sikh getting a divorce or beating his wife, the answer would be that the person is not a Sikh. Homosexuality is in the same boat. A Sikh is heterosexual by definition. His life centers around being a heterosexual person. His marriage is not founded upon physical attraction but rather is grounded in having a household sangat and procreation. God created us in balance. For man He created woman and vice versa. Why should we go against such a natural design and resort to animalistic behavior in which physical traits is the only basis for a relationship? Homosexuals are not Sikhs. Period. The path is open to them but they must follow it wholeheartedly. It is not my way but Gurus way. Guru advocated heterosexuality. This is what he preached, practiced and emulated for us.

If this is the case then Anand Karaj is not soul-based, it is physical based. You can't have it both ways. If you stick to one, I will respect it, but you are switching your position over and over to further your own agenda. You can also argue that the Gurus left certain matters up to our own interpretation and moral standards (in order TO be universally applicable, perhaps?). We have cultural differences, and a universal religion cannot squash any culture that is different. Why do they feel attracted to the same gender? Why do you feel attracted to the opposite? It's the same question. Gurbani does not say that person is no longer a Sikh, because Gurbani does not talk about these topics. It is left to the Sikh community and each individual's moral standards to determine. There is far too much inconsistency in your argument.

I think you need to calm down. If love marriage is better then why does it fail more than an arranged marriage? Shouldnt love be stronger? Clearly, what most Westerners call love is nothing more than physical attraction from which they seek worldly pleasures. They dont understand what it takes to make a marriage successful. Many marriages fall apart because they dont experience the same love or the feelings are not there anymore or one of them starts to cheat. If one truly loves another person, their relationship should go stronger and stronger every day. Love is not something that fades or weakens over time.

I think I am calm. I think I am simply defending people, as you Sikhs are also called to do. What happened to tolerance of all humanity? I never said love marriage is better. It is simply my culture, I never stated it as being superior to yours. You are the one who said that my culture is wrong. What you said about love is true, and I absolutely agree, however that is an issue in ALL cultures, not just the West.

A person can claim to be a Sikh and not follow it. Correct. But this is not the point I made. My point is that one who doesnt follow Sikhi is not a Sikh doesnt matter how religious he presents himself to be. He is called a hypocrite in Gurbani. This is not the case in many other religions especially Hinduism and Islam. A Hindu can believe in God or not but remains a Hindu. A Muslim must observe prayers but there are many exceptions. In Islam, the most sinful Muslim in the world would go to heaven (after he is cleansed in hell) but the most saintly non-Muslim would go to hell. Prophets are exempt from mistakes and sins so no punishments for them. Read the Maariful Quran commentary yourself. Hence, it comes down to labels for them. I have studied these religions from their own books written by their eminent scholars.

That is also not true, at least in Islam. I don't know enough about Hinduism to be able to speak on its behalf.

وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَهُمْ تُعْجِبُكَ أَجْسَامُهُمْ وَإِن يَقُولُوا تَسْمَعْ لِقَوْلِهِمْ كَأَنَّهُمْ خُشُبٌ مُّسَنَّدَةٌ يَحْسَبُونَ كُلَّ صَيْحَةٍ عَلَيْهِمْ

هُمُ الْعَدُوُّ فَاحْذَرْهُمْ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ

When you look at them, their exteriors please you. When they speak, you listen to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be on them! How deluded they are (from the truth)!

This is talking about munafiqs, hypocrites, ones who call themselves Muslim but do not act as Muslims.

The hypocrites who are in two minds between belief and unbelief sometimes pretend to remember Allah. However, they try to deceive Allah and show off. When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness (an-Nisa,4/142-3). They swear to falsehood knowingly in order to obstruct men from the Path of Allah (al-Mujadila, 58/14; al-Munafiqun, 63/2).

They do not accept the true words; all of them will be together with unbelievers in the hereafter (an-Nisa, 4/140), It is equal to munafiqs whether you pray for their forgiveness or not; Allah will not forgive those transgressors. (al-Munafiqun, 63/6). (emphasis mine)

"One Day will the hypocrites men and women― say to the Believers: "Wait for us! Let us borrow (a light) from your Light!" It will be said: "Turn back to your rear! Then seek a light where you can"; they will see that there is a wall between them and the believers. (Those without) will call out "were we not with you?" They will reply "True! But you led yourselves into temptation."(al-Hadid 57/13-15). Thus, munafiqs and unbelievers will come together in Hell (an-Nisa, 4/140).

God forgives not that aught should be with Him associated; less than that He forgives to whomsoever He will. Whoso associates with God anything, has indeed forged a mighty sin. S. 4:48

And this was Our argument which we gave to Ibrahim against his people; We exalt in dignity whom We please; surely your Lord is Wise, Knowing. And We gave to him Ishaq and Yaqoob; each did We guide, and Nuh did We guide before, and of his descendants, Dawood and Sulaiman and Ayub and Yusuf and Haroun; and thus do We reward those who do good (to others). And Zakariya and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas; every one was of the good; And Ismail and Al-Yasha and Yunus and Lut; and every one We made to excel (in) the worlds: And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren, and We chose them and guided them into the right way. This is Allah's guidance, He guides thereby whom He pleases of His servants; and if they had set up others (with Him), certainly what they did would have become ineffectual for them. These are they to whom We gave the book and the wisdom and the prophecy; therefore if these disbelieve in it We have already entrusted with it a people who are not disbelievers in it. These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance. Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it; it is nothing but a reminder to the nations. S. 6:83-90 Shakir

Read the Qu'ran my brother, before you speak so ill about it.

This is in contrast to Gurmat. Guru Sahibs companion Mardana became a Sikh during the odysseys. Bhagat Kabir Ji rejects Islam in his own compositions. I am not here to argue with you or offend anyone. I respect all humans but those who dont follow Sikhi are not Sikhs. It doesnt mean they are inferior or unequal. Gurmat is the path of submission to God. Dont expect it to be like Hinduism which accommodates any manmat thinking. Very easy to say you seek truth but it I shard to accept it and follow it. It is up to you to make a choice. If you choose Gurmat then follow it nearly and dearly by giving up your own way of thinking including seeing homosexuality the same as heterosexuality. Otherwise you will have to find another religion that accommodates your belief system which in my opinion is contrary to the very nature of seeking a religion. Just dont become a Sikh and start to push your own thinking over Gurmat. We already have enough of those doing internal damage. Again, I am least interested in having arguments. I only presented my answers. I am not here to convince you but simply provide the information. You can reject all of it and look the other way which would be contrary to the claim of seeking truth. Good luck on your search. Guru Rakha

Fair enough. Just do not push your values on me either, as it gets you nowhere. You attacked both Muslims and Hindus by calling them inferior in your post, as well as attacking the status of homosexuals, and I will defend them to the best of my ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Poster Bijla Singh has answered all your questions. If anonymous is an honest seeker, he would contemplate on what Bijla Singh has said. Instead of rushing to argue. Even in my post you skip over important information provided and ask a question on what has already been answered.

How do I know Gurbani is God? Because I have faith and contentment in Gurbani. I have no issue answering this question. Yet, you have faith in Buddha and Buddhism and you cannot be 100% sure it is actually Buddhism because Buddha didn't write anything down. Over the centuries many things change and concepts are lost. Sikh Gurus wrote ALL of God's teaching down on how to reach God and this makes Sikhi authentic and real and unchanging. You are blindly following 'Buddha teachings without any clue if today's Buddhism is what Buddha taught. Also lastly and not least Buddha was ONLY a seeker. The Gurus are God himself. Any honest person looking for answers would deeply consider this thought.

If I skipped over any information you provided, it means either I agree or I have nothing more to ask on the topic. It doesn't mean I was not listening. I asked questions multiple times to different people because they have different opinions and I want to hear the different perspectives within Sikhi.

I think Bijla Singh's response has been very fair and considered. It may not immediately be digestible from certain perspectives, but I think it is best to approach questions such as these with humility and an "I know nothing yet I'm ready to learn" attitude. Most of it is down to faith too. What is religion but a leap of faith? BTW, I love certain aspects of Western culture, I really do, but it is not the be all and end all of modern existence. Don't be strong-armed into thinking that, "West = great and sophisticated" whilst, "East = irrelevant and archaic." Draw from both, but derive confidence and faith from Sikhi, because it really is a beautifully serene way to live one's life. Just don't get sidetracked or lured into blind alleys by Man. A Sikh wishes to merge with the Creator; the hard work has to be done by us. Nobody can put in a good word for us and slip us through to the other side, thankfully. Thoughts and deeds, cause and effect. Simple as that. The final four lines of Japji Sahib sum it up perfectly.

Previous to his response, I was willing to do so and was humble as many of you are much more educated than me on these topics. I never said that West is great, but Bijla Singh made a statement that "everything has come from the East" which is simply not true, and is just as derogatory of a statement.

I will get to the other posts when I have time. As of right now I have too much to work on. But I did want to respond to this.

= Not so brother, Bhai Mardana Ji were the first Sikh in history (though yes they were an apostate from Islam).

= In Islamic theology it would be hard to argue that Islamic State fighters will not be greeted by 72 light skinned virgins in Heaven as they are merely doing that which the Prophet Muhammad himself did in terms of enslavement of women and minors for financial gain and beheadings of innocents and opponents alike to incite terror and invoke fear of Islam's Empire.

Alright, my misunderstanding on that one.

I would like to address this about ISIS. I would suggest you take a look at this. It is a letter written by over 130, mostly conservative, Sunni Muslim scholars on the crimes that ISIS has committed. http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/10/is-the-muslim-scholars-open-letter-to-isis-really-enough It includes an English translation of the letter as well. Here are some examples from it.

6 - It is forbidden in Islam to kill an innocent

7 - It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats. Hence, it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

8 - Jihad in Islam is a defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose, and without the right rules of conduct.

9 - It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless they openly declare disbelief.

12 - It is forbidden in Islam to re-introduce slavery. It was abolished by universal consensus.

13 - It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert

14 - It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights

17 - It is forbidden in Islam to torture people

22 - It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims

And so on.

{And those who do not invoke with Allaah another deity or kill the soul which Allaah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated.} [Quran 25:68-69]

{But whoever deliberately slays another believer, his requital shall be Hell, therein to abide; and God will condemn him, and will reject him, and will prepare for him awesome suffering.} (An-Nisaa' 4:93)

ISIS is most certainly NOT Muslim, they do not abide by the laws of Islam, they are despicable, and they are most certainly NOT going to be rewarded in Heaven for their deeds, at least under Islamic law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, you have a habit of putting your own words in others mouths and then accusing them which is nothing short of deceit and a lie. I never said Islam and Hinduism have "meaningless morals". Show me a single line that states this.

You are looking for a path that works for you. Hence, you want something that fits your viewpoint, thinking and opinions. This is absolutely the wrong way of finding the truth. In Sikhi, one has to submit, hence, mould their thinking and behavior according to Sikh ideals. You want your choice to be moulded to your thinking which cannot happen in Gurmat.

According to the rules of logic, your arguments are invalid and incoherent. Just because someone is not accepted in Sikhi doesnt mean they are entirely useless. According to Gurmat, they are on the wrong path. Period. One cannot be a Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc. and still be a Sikh at the same time. One cannot be a homo and a Sikh at the same time. No one can pick and choose. Now, it Is not impossible that there will not be orphans left for adoption. Certainly, the possibility is there and it goes to show that homosexuality doesn't work all the time. Hence, your argument for defending homosexuality on the basis of adoption doesn't work which is why you avoided it by stating "it does NOT matter now". So do you mean homosexuality should be allowed as long as there are children left to be adopted?

If homosexuals want a partner due to physical love towards another human then it is not according to the basis of Anand Karaj. I have already explained what Sikh marriage is all about. Pure physical attraction and the need or desire to have a partner does not justify having an Anand Karaj. I don't deny them marriage or any rights as long as they remain outside of Sikhi. Sikhi is a specific way of life. All the Gurus preached and practiced heterosexuality NOT because of their sexual orientation but because of its truth and validation by God. Gurus were beyond physical attractions, lust or the need to have a partner. They demonstrated the true lifestyle for Sikhs to emulate. This historical evidence is sufficient and strong enough to repudiate homosexuality. Besides, all verses in Gurbani and Vaars speak to heterosexual marriage. This is my challenge to you and anyone else who advocates homosexuality to show me a single verse from either Gurbani or Vaars that makes homosexuality acceptable.

Why can't we put homos on a uninhabited planet? Because you know humanity will cease to exist. Do the same to any heterosexual couple and do the comparison. If you still cant see the difference then you are blinded by your own ignorance. It goes to show how homosexuality harms the survival of humanity. If God approved such a lifestyle then he wouldve given men to bear children the same way as women in a natural way. Do you really think infertility is the same as homosexuality? Being biological does not prove the sameness. Inferiles are physically incapable of reproducing but homos are not. One is healthy the other is disabled. Hence, there is no comparison. Again, you fail to understand logic and rationality. The point being that homos cannot procreate. Therefore, they fail to meet one of the Sikh marriage criteria. Besides, we are not discussing validity of homosexuality from biological standpoint but from Sikhi standpoint. So stay focused on the topic. Also, I never said procreation is the primary or the only intent of Anand Karaj. You failed to read properly.

Sikhi is universally applicable which means its path is open to all and no one is disbarred from it. In other words, its message is not restricted to any human. However, every human that wishes to become a Sikh must submit to the path set forth by Satguru. Just as a Muslim, Hindu, alcoholic, drug addict, rapist etc. must renounce their way of life and adopt Gurmat in totality, homosexuals must give up their mental orientation towards the same gender in order to become Sikhs. Sexual orientation must be changed and conquered. Any sexual orientation or need to have sex stems from lust which can be conquered and mind can be subdued. Habits can be changed. This is the position of Gurbani. Therefore, Sikhi does not accept those who refuse to follow it. The path is open but only those who follow it are accepted as Sikhs.

When did I ever state that Anand Karaj is entirely soul based? It is certainly a union of two souls but the physical aspect or criteria is still there i.e. it is a union of two souls which are housed in a man and a woman. Union between two men and/or two women is not allowed. I again challenge you to show me a single verse that states otherwise. When it comes to moral and ethics based lifestyle, the Gurus did not leave anything out. Since Anand Karaj is clearly defined and has been demonstrated by the Gurus over the period of 240 years it leaves no doubt about rejection of homosexuality. You need to provide evidence from Gurbani that personal moral standards are allowed within Gurmat. This is nothing but manmat. Since a Gursikh submits to Satguru, he gives himself up physically and mentally and wholeheartedly serves Satguru. While Gurbani talks about a Sikh being a heterosexual, not a single verse speaks of a Sikh being a homosexual. The message is crystal clear. No choice, no individual opinion or standard.

I will leave Islam out as it is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that Bijla Singh is trying to convey is that a person cannot be a "true" sikh if he is under the unnecessary attachments of maya.By getting baptised a homosexual totally contradicts the point of getting baptised.

There are many relationships in Sikh history of 2 persons of same gender,that is of Guru and sikh.The relationship is not physically based but pure love based like of a son and father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that Bijla Singh is trying to convey is that a person cannot be a "true" sikh if he is under the unnecessary attachments of maya.By getting baptised a homosexual totally contradicts the point of getting baptised.

There are many relationships in Sikh history of 2 persons of same gender,that is of Guru and sikh.The relationship is not physically based but pure love based like of a son and father.

This post sounds confusing. We, Sikhs, do know that homosexuality is a biological condition. However as long as a person does not lead a homosexual lifestyle, that person can be Sikh. So in this post it seems like a homosexual person should not get baptized, when in fact it means, people living a homosexual lifestyle should not get baptized. So nothing against the person or their inclinations just against the lifestyle...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Alright. My questions have been answered. I will no longer respond to this thread, as I do not wish to continue the argument. It will not get any of us any further in our spiritual progression. Thank you for the answers, everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a dumb guy

Alright. My questions have been answered. I will no longer respond to this thread, as I do not wish to continue the argument. It will not get any of us any further in our spiritual progression. Thank you for the answers, everyone.

*People attempted to answer.

The best way is to read gurbani and study the gurus yourself. I know you already dropped Sikhi, but it should be something to remember for the next religion you try out, if you do try another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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