Weddings: An expensive affair for guests

[dallysingh101]

Just now, jkvlondon said:

bro I meant true feminism is seeing all one in the one jot sense not any SJW stylee thing and I agree sikh feminism is to be above becoming objectified or objectifying others .

Sis, use another word for it than 'feminism'. That thing has got so much gundh attached to it now, sisters need to chart their own path forward, independent of it.  

What Sikh guy (in his right mind) doesn't want strong and intelligent Sikh women as opposed to the consumerist, sheep victims we see too frequently these days. 

 

 

 

[jkvlondon]

1 minute ago, dallysingh101 said:

Sis, use another word for it than 'feminism'. That thing has got so much gundh attached to it now, sisters need to chart their own path forward, independent of it.  

What Sikh guy (in his right mind) doesn't want strong and intelligent Sikh women as opposed to the consumerist, sheep victims we see too frequently these days. 

 

 

 

people similar to the one in the thread about dastaars....

[Guest Jacfsing2]

25 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

bro , since when have women in the west been equal? they are still fighting the two-faced nature of the misogyny around them in diverse fields . The current gen are detached from the reality of the struggle for most of the women on the planet and only consider themselves as valid benefit receivers  instead of liberating ALL women with the help of the Men . 

Sikhi respects all women equally and all men equally this is the natural justice of Akal Purakh , they have equal free will , equal opportunities to use their time to which purpose they feel drawn to and they will pay for their mistakes equally too

I still stand by my point, according to me Sikhi despite being a religion of equality is not about equality. Take it this way, school, (should be), about education, but education isn't about school. (If you get what I'm saying). In the same way equality is about Sikhi, but Sikhi is not about equality, we are the only faith in world to promote equality explicitly, something no other faith can claim.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

19 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Sis, use another word for it than 'feminism'. That thing has got so much gundh attached to it now, sisters need to chart their own path forward, independent of it.  

What Sikh guy (in his right mind) doesn't want strong and intelligent Sikh women as opposed to the consumerist, sheep victims we see too frequently these days.

I'm actually surprised that there was an objection in the Keski thread in the Gupt area.

[jkvlondon]

Just now, Jacfsing2 said:

I still stand by my point, according to me Sikhi despite being a religion of equality is not about equality. Take it this way, school, (should be), about education, but education isn't about school. (If you get what I'm saying). In the same way equality is about Sikhi, but Sikhi is not about equality, we are the only faith in world to promote equality explicitly, something no other faith can claim.

samm drist --- not based on maya level and true the only faith enshrining it

[MisterrSingh]

I reckon we (as in Sikhs) should clearly establish what we mean by equality from a Gurmat perspective, because it's a word that's thrown about too often with a meaning that's derived almost exclusively from the modern western use of the word, and I'm not certain that was its intended use. 

[Guest Jacfsing2]

3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I reckon we (as in Sikhs) should clearly establish what we mean by equality from a Gurmat perspective, because it's a word that's thrown about too often with a meaning that's derived almost exclusively from the modern western use of the word, and I'm not certain that was its intended use. 

The equality Non-Sikhs believe in is Regressive; while the Sikh equality is actual equality. Basically talking to a Non-Sikh SJW; they claim that whites today should pay for their ancestors, no Sikh has ever proposed such an idea; however, it's these Gora/Gori, SJWs, these people are basically Adharmi, (those with no Dharam), as they believe that the Christians were guilty for the Crusades, (they are guilty for many crimes, but not this, they were in the right to free their lands from the sinners known as Muslims).

[MisterrSingh]

5 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

The equality Non-Sikhs believe in is Regressive; while the Sikh equality is actual equality. Basically talking to a Non-Sikh SJW; they claim that whites today should pay for their ancestors, no Sikh has ever proposed such an idea; however, it's these Gora/Gori, SJWs, these people are basically Adharmi, (those with no Dharam), as they believe that the Christians were guilty for the Crusades, (they are guilty for many crimes, but not this, they were in the right to free their lands from the sinners known as Muslims).

Well, i hear our some of our lot use it in a way that suggests there is absolutely NO difference between Sikhs regardless of sex. When you reduce the question to its most obvious and basic of terms such as, "Can Sikh men bear children?" the reply is, "Well obviously not..." But the earlier assertion was that to even question such a thing is blasphemy. So blanket statements should be avoided. Gurmat terms being conveniently and inaccurately translated to their nearest English equivalent is lazy and misleading. We do that by keeping our language at the forefront of our existence as people. 

[Guest Jacfsing2]

12 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Well, i hear our some of our lot use it in a way that suggests there is absolutely NO difference between Sikhs regardless of sex. When you reduce the question to its most obvious and basic of terms such as, "Can Sikh men bear children?" the reply is, "Well obviously not..." But the earlier assertion was that to even question such a thing is blasphemy. So blanket statements should be avoided. Gurmat terms being conveniently and inaccurately translated to their nearest English equivalent is lazy and misleading. We do that by keeping our language at the forefront of our existence as people. 

So how would you explain it? "Manas Ki Jaat Sabhe Ek Hi Pechanbo"? We are only humans, so despite it having a deeper meaning, we have to understand what each thing actually means in wordly terms before we can get a theological explanation.

[MisterrSingh]

4 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

So how would you explain it? "Manas Ki Jaat Sabhe Ek Hi Pechanbo"? We are only humans, so despite it having a deeper meaning, we have to understand what each thing actually means in wordly terms before we can get a theological explanation.

So better to opt for inaccuracy than work hard to arrive at specificity? You can't use a placeholder definition for brevity's sake whilst working on the true definition for later digestion. That's madness. Worldly means nothing. If it's a specific religious term that's fundamental to Sikh doctrine, it should have one definite meaning based on Sikh philosophy and teachings. An "it'll do" approach is the reason Sikhi in the West is being reshaped into a form that is at worrying odds with what's always been contained in scripture. In the next 20 or so years there'll be cries that the Sikh faith needs a reformation in order to bring it into the modern era, by people who can't even read Gurmukhi. What then?