So what if you're protecting us and shedding your young blood for us, you're just one skidmark created for protection of our existence

[jkvlondon]

https://www.facebook.com/panth.pratham/photos/a.116611499936307/153566732907450/?type=3&theater

 

[MisterrSingh]

It's good to be exposed to these stark and upsetting glimpses into what external groups truly think of us in the modern age. The extent of the task ahead of us comes into focus. Unfortunately, it also highlights the significant mistakes we've made, and are making, that allows such people to shoot their mouth off so brazenly. But it's important to remember that some of these internet heroes are extremely timid and unassuming in real life. The distance afforded to online interactions and the apparent non-consequence of their boldness means even a mouse can larp as a lion. These same people if encountered offline wouldn't dare squeak.

I'm going to look into my crystal ball and predict that the next 20 or so years for Punjab's Sikhs will be a battle on a relatively new front against an unfamiliar enemy: the Christian missionary. And I'm not referring to the ex-Sikh NRI conducting cack-handed conversion operations, lol, in rundown villages against the poor and vulnerable. No, we'll be looking at extremely intelligent and well-informed agents who will be armed with knowledge about our religion that even the average Sikh does not possess. They already have picked up on the scent of blood; that out of all the contemporary Vedantic faiths ripe for targeting, the least amount of resistance will come from us after having been softened up for them through years of Indian GOI demoralisation and subversion. 

I pray the loyal soldiers of the panth such as AkaliFauj and his senior Singhs will pursue and confront these scoundrels with the same vigour and tenacity as he does his own people.

[Guest]

 

So these people compartmentalize indian sikhs who serve the mother land without question vis-a-vis "traitor anti-national, anti-hindu, denying their hindu roots" type of Sikhs in the west.

Even if they win all of akhand bharat , they wouldn't give sikhs 5 villages, just use and throw .

I feel sorry for the sikh family  

 

EDIT --

If god's court really is true , one day he will do justice to the sikhs . and bless them with sovereignty again . If not, then I have to say .. with a lot of daring that ... even his house is FALSE.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

The distance afforded to online interactions and the apparent non-consequence of their boldness means even a mouse can larp as a lion. These same people if encountered offline wouldn't dare squeak

true lol. In reality , they're cowards 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

I'll repeat what I said a while ago: we'd have been better served at the inception of Sikhi if all links to Hinduism were disavowed much like how Islam drew a line underneath its links to Judaism and Christianity. But, if that was never meant to be the divine plan by the founders, considering how our iconographic lexicon is inextricably Hindu-based, what exactly was the point of it all? We can swear until we're blue in the face that we reject the Hindu pantheon, but for an apparently distinct entity, we sure seem to refer to it and draw our underlying philosophical basis from its existence on an inconveniently intimate basis. To be truly separate from Hinduism we would have to erase ALL Vedantic influences, but then what remains of the religion aside from surface practices?

For me, it all comes to back to geography. If only we had some physical breathing space from the overwhelming non-Sikh influences that bleed into our reality, we might have been able to forge ahead with a clear vision. Now, we're just surrounded on all sides.

Islam never disavowed links with Judaism or xianity . Their creation story is same, most of their prophets are same , stories related to them are same. Its just that judaism only accepts line till moses, xianity goes one step further with jesus , and islam goes one step further with mohammad. Nuns and muslim women have same dress. Don't mistaken christianity is what it looks like now in west, with mini skirts and the like. lol. 

But the thing about abrahamics, they never deny each other's existence. Quran even acknowledged jews as "children of israel". So they fight with each other blood fights, but never try to erase each other's identity because all 3 are monotheistic, and thus insular. They're inflexible.

Hinduism is a bunch of thoughts ,many times often contrasting each other , and sikhism is insular due to its inherent monotheism. So for hinduism it becomes really easy to appropriate indic religions thereby swallowing it. just my thought 

[Ranjeet01]

4 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

Islam never disavowed links with Judaism or xianity . Their creation story is same, most of their prophets are same , stories related to them are same. Its just that judaism only accepts line till moses, xianity goes one step further with jesus , and islam goes one step further with mohammad. Nuns and muslim women have same dress. Don't mistaken christianity is what it looks like now in west, with mini skirts and the like. lol. 

But the thing about abrahamics, they never deny each other's existence. Quran even acknowledged jews as "children of israel". So they fight with each other blood fights, but never try to erase each other's identity because all 3 are monotheistic, and thus insular. They're inflexible.

Hinduism is a bunch of thoughts ,many times often contrasting each other , and sikhism is insular due to its inherent monotheism. So for hinduism it becomes really easy to appropriate indic religions thereby swallowing it. just my thought 

Islam considers itself to the correct version of the Abrahamic version 1.0 and 2.0 as they consider them to havw been corrupted.

[MisterrSingh]

10 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

Islam never disavowed links with Judaism or xianity . Their creation story is same, most of their prophets are same , stories related to them are same. Its just that judaism only accepts line till moses, xianity goes one step further with jesus , and islam goes one step further with mohammad. Nuns and muslim women have same dress. Don't mistaken christianity is what it looks like now in west, with mini skirts and the like. lol. 

But the thing about abrahamics, they never deny each other's existence. Quran even acknowledged jews as "children of israel". So they fight with each other blood fights, but never try to erase each other's identity because all 3 are monotheistic, and thus insular. They're inflexible.

Hinduism is a bunch of thoughts ,many times often contrasting each other , and sikhism is insular due to its inherent monotheism. So for hinduism it becomes really easy to appropriate indic religions thereby swallowing it. just my thought 

Yes, that's true, but what I meant was that although there are constant references to Christian and Jewish figures in Islamic religious texts, we are left in no doubt what Muslims are expected to think of these non-Islamic revered figures. There's a certain amount of respect, of course, but Muslims are left in no doubt that these figures are in subordination and inferior to Mohammed and Allah.

It's a little less cut-and-dry for Sikhs. On one hand we are reminded that beings like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are not timeless; there have been many iterations of these individuals throughout the ages (therefore by their transitory nature they aren't comparable to God), while on the other hand there's a preponderance toward using certain Hindu legends which illustrate acts of unwavering religious devotion. But this unfortunately ends up implying to simple-minded individuals that a certain reverence is due to these personalities, the case of Harnaakhsh, Narashima and Bhagat Pralahd being one that I hear so often being used by kathavachaks as an example used to convey that God provides for and protects his devotees. The problem is that Vishnu's role in the Pralahd episode is unavoidable. So what some Sikhs do is to lean towards the Vishnu aspect instead of focusing on the being that is above Vishnu. 

Would it not make more sense and bolster the Sikh identity if we used actual Sikh figures and moments from our own history that convey the same lessons of unwavering faith and devotion, without muddying the waters by showing the so-called glory and magnificence of divine beings that we are technically supposed to believe aren't that special after all? Don't erase that which can't and shouldn't be erased, but equally don't send out mixed messages to a religious populace who aren't known for nuance and discernment. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Islam considers itself to the correct version of the Abrahamic version 1.0 and 2.0 as they consider them to havw been corrupted.

We do same in Sikhi . We put all of their six schools under one umbrella of satguru lol. 

ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
Raag Aasaa, First Mehl:

ਛਿਅ ਘਰ ਛਿਅ ਗੁਰ ਛਿਅ ਉਪਦੇਸ ॥
There are six schools of philosophy, six teachers, and six sets of teachings.

ਗੁਰੁ ਗੁਰੁ ਏਕੋ ਵੇਸ ਅਨੇਕ ॥੧॥
But the Teacher of teachers is the One, who appears in so many forms. ||1||

The six schools being referred are six schools of hinduism. All the complex rituals of brahminism being replaced by just naam simran at amrit vela.

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

Yes, that's true, but what I meant was that although there are constant references to Christian and Jewish figures in Islamic religious texts, we are left in no doubt what Muslims are expected to think of these non-Islamic revered figures. There's a certain amount of respect, of course, but Muslims are left in no doubt that these figures are in subordination and inferior to Mohammed and Allah.

It's a little less cut-and-dry for Sikhs. On one hand we are reminded that beings like Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are not timeless; there have been many iterations of these individuals throughout the ages (therefore by their transitory nature they aren't comparable to God), while on the other hand there's a preponderance toward using certain Hindu legends which illustrate acts of unwavering religious devotion. But this unfortunately ends up implying to simple-minded individuals that a certain reverence is due to these personalities, the case of Harnaakhsh, Narashima and Bhagat Pralahd being one that I hear so often being used by kathavachaks as an example used to convey that God provides for and protects his devotees. The problem is that Vishnu's role in the Pralahd episode is unavoidable. So what some Sikhs do is to lean towards the Vishnu aspect instead of focusing on the being that is above Vishnu. 

 

LOL. Do you think muslims /jews/xtians have no shared heroes or bhagats ?

Job/Aayub was tried by god but was of unwavering faith even in midst of diseases, poverty and losing family. uruHe's regarded as pinnacle of faith in all 3 religions

Jonah/Yunus was swallowed by a whale but survived. And Abraham / Ibrahim was tested by fire but it burnt him not (just like prahlaad).

So all these are shared bhagat by abrahamics.

In the case of prahlad , we open a can of worms. Was Prahlad even real ? Did he exist ? He's first mentioned in vishnu puran . But considering most of puranic stories are just moral lessons , what is to say he's just figment of someone's imagination. But even if so, does it make his story any less credible for bhagti ? Even more than connundrum of prahlad/narsimha are the few shabads of Guru Arjan dev ji which are seemingly and for some "undoubtedly" revering krishna and vishnu. "Kamal nain madhur bain" being one of those. 

Hindus are quick to jump to bandwagon to say "see this proves gurus worshipped hindu gods" but then I say there's also a passage which ridicules krishna's birth or the concept that god can be born by same Guru Arjan dev, and Guru Arjan dev abstracting vaishnavism (shaali-gram passage) . 

I think what sikhism did honestly was see the ONE behind the many facets of hindu gods.

 

EDIT ---

Considering most hindus like to put Sikhism along with vaishnavism, my question to them is what does word "vishnu" mean ?

Vishnu (or Viṣṇu, Sanskrit विष्णु) means 'all pervasive',^[9] and according to Medhātith (circa 1000 CE), 'one who is everything and inside everything'.^[10] Vedanga scholar Yaska (4th c. BCE) in the Nirukta defines Vishnu as 'viṣṇur viṣvater vā vyaśnoter vā', meaning 'one who enters everywhere', adding 'atha yad viṣito bhavati tad viṣnurbhavati', meaning 'that which is free from fetters and bondage is Vishnu'

"Vishnu" is related to words "Vas" (reside) , meaning universal deity who resides everywhere

Then they just gave him an anthropomorphic form of 4 hands (depicting omnipotence in 4 directions) and so on.

And this concept of "vishnu" itself evolved so many times. In vedas , vishnu is servant of indra. In puranas they did inverse, indra happlessly runs to vishnu everytime he loses to daits.

So its a complex thing they did over thousand of years LOL.

 

EDIT ---

schools and thoughts within hinduism, and scholars often fought each other bitterly . It wasn''t docile debates, if a debate is held and your side loses to other side in complex scholarly debates , then sometimes your books were burnt and you might have to commit suicide by drowning lol.  And then they also used to demolish each other's temple. Only recent islamic invasions of 1000 yrs unified them , but even then not properly

[MisterrSingh]

45 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

LOL. Do you think muslims /jews/xtians have no shared heroes or bhagats ?

Job/Aayub was tried by god but was of unwavering faith even in midst of diseases, poverty and losing family. uruHe's regarded as pinnacle of faith in all 3 religions

Jonah/Yunus was swallowed by a whale but survived. And Abraham / Ibrahim was tested by fire but it burnt him not (just like prahlaad).

So all these are shared bhagat by abrahamics.

Yet, something as seemingly insignificant as changing the pronounciation of the name according to the localised dialect confers OWNERSHIP of the personality in question. That's what I'm getting at. The confidence to -- if these figures are an immutable part of our religion -- to boldly acknowledge they are part of a greater mythology YET clarify that we are not beholden to these figures as symbols of worship and respect. We've lost this distinction somewhere along the journey, which is why you have Singhs worshipping Kali and Durga!

[GurjantGnostic]

4 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Islam considers itself to the correct version of the Abrahamic version 1.0 and 2.0 as they consider them to havw been corrupted.

Which is true..about both groups...one of them from the beginning...