Can someone who knows more about Sikhi than me educate me on a few things?

[californiasardar1]

8 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I respect your intellect. I don't have to agree with you on everything to acknowledge that you're a smart guy. But why do you identify Sikh males as the "problem" when it's Sikh females who've caused you grief? Doesn't that seem a little off to you?

 

I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Where did I say that Sikh males are the "problem"?

[MisterrSingh]

3 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Where did I say that Sikh males are the "problem"?

Okay: when it's Sikh women doing the rejecting, why is there hatred for Sikh males who cut their hair?

[californiasardar1]

16 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Okay: when it's Sikh women doing the rejecting, why is there hatred for Sikh males who cut their hair?

I rail against "monay" in general (men and women), not just males. I also rail against "singhs" like the Badals and KP Gill (before someone brings them up).

If you do want me to start "dividing the blame" by gender, let me point out that Sikh men began cutting there kesh in large numbers when it was still virtually unheard of for a Sikh woman to cut her hair. Before getting haircuts was widespread, Sikh men trimmed their beards in large numbers. Even before that, it was commonplace for "singhs" with long beards to drink regularly and engage in all sorts of other anti-Gurmat behavior. Sikh women have been much better about keeping rehat until relatively recently. To be fair, part of that was probably just socially conservative cultural norms that prohibited women from doing certain things, but it is what it is.

SIkh women have also in general been much better at doing path regularly. I think for a long time, it has been Sikh women who have passed down the more spiritual aspects of Sikhi to children. Perhaps that comes down to a natural gender dichotomy where males gravitate towards worldly/social affairs and women gravitate more towards spirituality.

Now, I don't think any of that applies to the current generation . But if we want to have this discussion and look at how we ended up here, I think it is only fair to point the finger at the group that took the lead every step of the way in normalizing degenerate behavior.

Do you think a Punjab filled with hair-cutting women wearing skirts, drinking openly, dancing like idiots etc. would exist with a bunch of men who don't engage in such behavior? No, of course not. But a Punjab with men engaging in degenerate behavior and women behaving respectably existed for a long time before the women joined in the degeneracy.

[Redoptics]

15 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

I rail against "monay" in general (men and women), not just males. I also rail against "singhs" like the Badals and KP Gill (before someone brings them up).

If you do want me to start "dividing the blame" by gender, let me point out that Sikh men began cutting there kesh in large numbers when it was still virtually unheard of for a Sikh woman to cut her hair. Before getting haircuts was widespread, Sikh men trimmed their beards in large numbers. Even before that, it was commonplace for "singhs" with long beards to drink regularly and engage in all sorts of other anti-Gurmat behavior. Sikh women have been much better about keeping rehat until relatively recently. To be fair, part of that was probably just socially conservative cultural norms that prohibited women from doing certain things, but it is what it is.

SIkh women have also in general been much better at doing path regularly. I think for a long time, it has been Sikh women who have passed down the more spiritual aspects of Sikhi to children. Perhaps that comes down to a natural gender dichotomy where males gravitate towards worldly/social affairs and women gravitate more towards spirituality.

Now, I don't think any of that applies to the current generation . But if we want to have this discussion and look at how we ended up here, I think it is only fair to point the finger at the group that took the lead every step of the way in normalizing degenerate behavior.

Do you think a Punjab filled with hair-cutting women wearing skirts, drinking openly, dancing like idiots etc. would exist with a bunch of men who don't engage in such behavior? No, of course not. But a Punjab with men engaging in degenerate behavior and women behaving respectably existed for a long time before the women joined in the degeneracy.

I'm a mona, whats the beef Keith?

[SinghPunjabSingh]

4 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

Here are some questions for you:

1. Do Sikhs believe in "shrines"?

2. Do Sikhs believe in pilgrimages?

3. Is Amritsar a "Holy City"?

4. Is it important for a Sikh to visit Amritsar?

5. Is Harmander Sahib the "holiest shrine in the Sikh religion"?

1. No

2. Emphatically not!

3. Not really - how holy could a City where Muslims were the majority before 1947 (and Hindu's are the majority since 1947) possibly be?

4. It is not essential (after all Amritsar is not our version of Mecca or Benares as Sikhi opposes the "pilgrimage" concept)

5. In terms of what Harmandir Sahib means to the Qaum it is "primus inter pares" (first among equals) for what it means to our Itihaas but if you matha tek before Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj at any other Gurdwara in the world daily that is in no way any less a positive and equal blessing.

PS: I will answer your other posts as soon as I can later and just by answering your questions does not mean I know more than you. We are all students (Sikhs). And yes I'm including as fellow students even the moneh you hate so much!

  

[MisterrSingh]

25 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 But if we want to have this discussion and look at how we ended up here, I think it is only fair to point the finger at the group that took the lead every step of the way in normalizing degenerate behavior.

More than fair points. Good arguments. I'd add a few caveats but it's late. Maybe tomorrow.

[Jai Tegang!]

33 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

I rail against "monay" in general (men and women), not just males. I also rail against "singhs" like the Badals and KP Gill (before someone brings them up).

If you do want me to start "dividing the blame" by gender, let me point out that Sikh men began cutting there kesh in large numbers when it was still virtually unheard of for a Sikh woman to cut her hair. Before getting haircuts was widespread, Sikh men trimmed their beards in large numbers. Even before that, it was commonplace for "singhs" with long beards to drink regularly and engage in all sorts of other anti-Gurmat behavior. Sikh women have been much better about keeping rehat until relatively recently. To be fair, part of that was probably just socially conservative cultural norms that prohibited women from doing certain things, but it is what it is.

SIkh women have also in general been much better at doing path regularly. I think for a long time, it has been Sikh women who have passed down the more spiritual aspects of Sikhi to children. Perhaps that comes down to a natural gender dichotomy where males gravitate towards worldly/social affairs and women gravitate more towards spirituality.

Now, I don't think any of that applies to the current generation . But if we want to have this discussion and look at how we ended up here, I think it is only fair to point the finger at the group that took the lead every step of the way in normalizing degenerate behavior.

Do you think a Punjab filled with hair-cutting women wearing skirts, drinking openly, dancing like idiots etc. would exist with a bunch of men who don't engage in such behavior? No, of course not. But a Punjab with men engaging in degenerate behavior and women behaving respectably existed for a long time before the women joined in the degeneracy.

All fair points. But isn't this true of all ethno/religious groups? The vast majority of men of any religion are only observant in the orthodox sense if there is a heavy-handed religious authority that wields actual power over them. Left to their own choices, the number of "true followers" is never in majority. Maybe there are only a few hundred "true Sikhs"  if we apply more stringent  criteria, but where does that take us as a group? You can keep applying rules to prune down our numbers to no end. First it'll be kesadhari only. Then it can come down to only Amritdharis are Sikhs. Lets take it one more step and say only those Amritdharis who have weapons training and keep atleast 5 weapons at all times are Sikhs. Then we can jump into the spiritual realm and start pruning out those who don't get up early enough. Pretty soon the definition is going to end up at only a well trained brahmgyani khalsa is a Sikh. 

[SinghPunjabSingh]

3 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

1. I don't want to embarrass amritdharis by joining their group.

2. They deserve better than me.

3. I am already a huge embarrassment to the Sikh community (> 90% of the posters on sikhsangat have said so at one point or another). I don't want to make it worse by becoming an embarrassment to the amritdhari Sikh community.

1. Good on you that you are not rushing to become Amritdhari without feeling ready in your heart to do so.

2. That's actually a sign of humility and I respect you for that but whenever you are ready to lay down your life to protect the oppressed and downtrodden like our Panj Piare decided to do then your mind should not think in terms of the Khalsa Panth "deserving better than you". That more so applies to those that chak Amrit one day and drink alcohol the next.

3. You are not an embarassment to the Sikh Panth. I hate the tone of some of your posts as other young Sikhs imbibe that same spirit it would be very worrying and dispiriting for the Qaum. But I am proud of you for not cutting your kes during the time you have been looking to get married. It also takes bravery to put your personal life out there. I support you as a brother and I know everyone else does too (regardless of intellectual disagreements).

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

I am content with my fate to not marry and have children partially (largely?) because it will ensure that I don't "contribute to" (pollute) the Sikh gene pool and further weaken the quam.

You having children would not weaken or pollute the Qaum. It would strengtehn it. If your kids discover the cure for cancer or HIV you never know that might even erect a statue to CaliforniaSardar in Fresno (or Turlock or Ceres at least). Before you ask let me state that Sikhs should not be wasting money on nonsense statues either!

[GurjantGnostic]

2 hours ago, Jai Tegang! said:

All fair points. But isn't this true of all ethno/religious groups? The vast majority of men of any religion are only observant in the orthodox sense if there is a heavy-handed religious authority that wields actual power over them. Left to their own choices, the number of "true followers" is never in majority. Maybe there are only a few hundred "true Sikhs"  if we apply more stringent  criteria, but where does that take us as a group? You can keep applying rules to prune down our numbers to no end. First it'll be kesadhari only. Then it can come down to only Amritdharis are Sikhs. Lets take it one more step and say only those Amritdharis who have weapons training and keep atleast 5 weapons at all times are Sikhs. Then we can jump into the spiritual realm and start pruning out those who don't get up early enough. Pretty soon the definition is going to end up at only a well trained brahmgyani khalsa is a Sikh. 

Amen bro. That's why the order of closeness, or innerness, not elevation, is Real Amritdhari at the core. Keshdharis, then Sehajdhari, then Mona, then family members and allies. 

Satguru Ji's system is perfect. We're just <banned word filter activated> it up with "collonial" systems. 

It's like a military or a gang's chain of command structure, combined with truly representative governance and meritocracy. It's what they wish they could be. 

[GurjantGnostic]

6 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

I don't want to embarrass amritdharis by joining their group. They deserve better than me.

I am already a huge embarrassment to the Sikh community (> 90% of the posters on sikhsangat have said so at one point or another). I don't want to make it worse by becoming an embarrassment to the amritdhari Sikh community.

I feel that.