CdnSikhGirl

However Gurbani says only a Brahamgiani can know the state of the Brahamgiani. It also says we can only judge ourselves and not others. We are thinking by human duality thought as well. So when you meet someone, things like charisma etc tend to play a big role on how we label a person. Case in point all of 3HO consider Yogi Bhajan as a sant (some even possibly a Guru) however since stories emerged about his alleged sex scandals, squandering money, lavishing the attention etc I have serious doubts about yogi Bhajan being anything close to a Sant I posted a tuk from Gurbani in the other thread telling how people should never be considered a saint by outward deeds. Yet I can think off hand several who were declared a saint by many and it was based on their outer deeds (and charisma). Because how else are they making a judgement?? Nobody knows what is in another's mind, but they can see their actions. Personally I do not think any of us are qualified to declare someone else a Sant or not. Possibly someone who HAS reached Saint level themselves... But not the rest. Kam1825 Even if you go by a list of qualities mentioned in Gurbani, ultimately you are making an assumption. You are making a choice of whether to call someone a Sant or not when you never really know for sure. Isn't that dangerous?? Shouldn't we be more concerned with our own spirituality than trying to analyze whether or not someone else is a Sant and then worshipping them and bowing to them?? Couldn't we actually be just creating our own idols? Our minds are prone to err are they not??

@Rock You wanted a new post for fear of going off topic. Please tell me (and others) by what criteria do we determine if someone we meet on the street is a Sant or not? And how do we think we have any authority to ever make that assumption about someone?

This is why I am very against idol worship. Why worship something that is only another aspect of Maya? We should focus on the ONE alone... This is also why I am against worshipping human Gurus, Babas, and yes even Sants. Because although we should respect them for their high avastha, but they are not God. (And I don't mean this in a mean way at all) but Gurbani does say over and over to only focus on the ONE Creator of ALL. I realize some may hate me for this, but for me, Waheguru / Akal Purakh however you want to refer to Creator comes before anything / anyone else.

From Sikh Rehet Maryada: "No book should be installed like and at par with the Guru Granth. Worship of any idol or any ritual or activity should not be allowed to be conducted inside the gurdwara." From Gurmat Rehet Maryada: "5. Bowing to the shrines of ancestors/saints etc. These useless actions are not to be performed. " From Guru Granth Sahib Ji: "The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way and have forsaken the true path. They pray according to the teachings of Narad Jee, performing idol worship." (SGGSJ Ang 556) From Dasam Granth: "Some worship idols and some worship the dead. The world is entangled in false actions with no one realising the true Lord." (Dasam Granth Ang 15) So, although we established some Sikhs idol worship, is it really ok to do so?? I don't think so from the above...

I don't mean others are not on here...but I mean that anyone with ideology other than Taksal are alienated and called nindak etc. Ask Sokh Khoj how welcome he feels... Just as one example. There are members who every time they refer to Sikh Rehet Maryada call it 'so called' and call anyone who follows it false etc. That was the point it was mentioned that people automatically hate anyone and alienate them if their interpretation is dofferent. Since majority of you follow Taksal ideology, those of us who don't tend to get called the lowest every time we jump into a conversation and our viewpoint is not in agreement with Taksal.

I would say this forum is heavy on Taksal ideology. AKJ has been openly slammed on here many times as well as those who follow Sikh Rehet Maryada. Gurmat Rehet Maryada has been touted as the one that vast majority follow on here and any other has been seriously slammed (not just acknowledged as being different but actually hated on, and called the lowest). This is just my observation... but I think most of you will agree. Maybe the forum should change its name to Taksal Awareness so as to stop people from thinking it's all Sikh ideology on here.

I am guessing the idea of causing any harm to animals is the reason... Milk products causes death of cows anyway, regardless of whether you are eating them or not. And its the killing which is wrong. But its impossible to produce milk without killing the baby cows, there would be far too many to keep since the mother cow can only produce milk for a certain amount of time and when we are talking about mass production of milk... so dairy causes as much death as the meat industry (in fact many of the babies end up as veal anyway). Vegan just means avoiding ALL animal products out of concern for the animals.

@amardeep So then, it is as I was taught, that devi /devtay are symbolism only in essence * ideas * and not real tangible entities. Then how can one say that all demi gods and goddesses have done good deeds in the past so we respect them? Is it the symbolism that is being respected? As you pointed out HUMANS who do virtuous actions are known as devi. So is it the virtuous actions being respected, revered and not an entity? If so, then why have some on here referred to devi as if they were actual entities (one reference was talking about female bodies, and paapiman (sorry) stating that a devi though longs for a human body will not want a female body but only wants a male body. That sounds like 1) he is referring to devi / devtay as an entity and not an idea. and 2) if it's stated that virtuous actions make a HUMAN a devta, then why would a devta be wishing for a human body? And who is doing the wishing?? Doesn't this seem contradictory??? I get the feeling that some Sikhs are viewing them as actual living entities who existed in a tangible sense and are referring to them (and revering them) as such. This is also where some Sikhs accuse others of bringing Hinduism into Sikhi. Instead of realizing that allegory using known elements of the time, they are taking it as literal belief in Hindu Gods / Goddesses that existed. What I have encountered over the years however was what you stated, that much of Gurbani is allegory and is not speaking in literal terms. For example, references to bride or female in SGGSJ, usually is referring to the concept of soul bride, and the husband or male referred to is Husband Lord (God). So the shabad is not speaking about a physical female (wife) and husband (male) but of ALL humans (soul brides) to God (husband Lord). But then you have people interpreting it in literal sense and using it to push their point. So let's take the verse that I was talking about; ਤਬ ਇਹ ਮਾਨਸ ਦੇਹੀ ਪਾਈ ॥ Ŧab ih mānas ḏehī pā▫ī. Then, this human body is obtained. ਇਸ ਦੇਹੀ ਕਉ ਸਿਮਰਹਿ ਦੇਵ ॥ Is ḏehī ka▫o simrahi ḏev. Even the gods long for this human body. ਸੋ ਦੇਹੀ ਭਜੁ ਹਰਿ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ॥੧॥ So ḏehī bẖaj har kī sev. ||1|| So vibrate that human body, and think of serving the Lord. ||1|| I don't take the above to mean literal Gods, but just as an emphasis how important this human body is. (by the way sorry to Paapiman but it does not say a male body either). But he referred to them as actual beings. Reading the whole shabad it seem to condemn the idea. The statement seems to be saying even these beings you believe in (if they were real) would long for this human body... because this human body is what is REAL and is the chance to meet God. When how can something not real or tangible realize the divine? It seems to be just allegory to me. But watch... I am almost sure some members on here will attack me for suggesting this!

I am confused, so do these guys believe the Hindu Gods / Goddesses actually existed as real entities? (whether or not they see them as avatars or aspects of God) I thought Sikhs are to focus on the ONE Akal Purakh only? And that all the deities were just * ideas * created by humans to symbolize aspects of God. But are we now saying they all actually existed? If so, then why is Sikhi so against idol worship when even the Hindus state they are not worshipping the stone idol, but only using it as a means to help visualize the deity, that it's the deity they are actually worshipping. As Sikhs are we supposed to believe in all the gods and goddesses as actual tangible entities which really existed? I have never come across this and it seems to go against everything vast majority of Sikhs claim!

How I look at this... Some people are so stuck on maintaining things exactly as they were the day Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world... or how they THINK things were at that moment. But.... Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave decision making abilities to the panth. Khalsa now speaks for Guru Ji. Along with that he gave gurgaddi to Guru Granth Sahib Ji saying that was all the knowledge we need to make decisions. So this to me is proof that Guru Gobind Singh Ji NEVER intended to keep things EXACTLY as they were when he left this world, but that Sikhi is able to evolve for the time and society as long as it does not go against Gurbani. Its proof that Guru Ji was ok with Sikhi evolving, otherwise there would be no decision making ability given to the panth. Everything would have been black and white. This decision making was not limited to only one group. Panj Pyaras can make decisions and different groups of Panj Pyaras can agree differently on things. This gives rise to different interpretations. And I don't think this is wrong. Guru Ji would have known this would happen that there are different paths in Sikhi. And as long as nothing goes against Gurbani, then why are people so upset and wanting to force their rehet on others etc? I don't get it.

This is very true. It is impossible to jump into any topic, even though one might be knowledgeable in that topic, when majority of members on the forum already see you as inferior and in their mind think you know nothing. Case in point, every post I make, I always try to back up with Gurbani. And yes I admit I jump into a lot of the gender equality issue posts, because how can I even contribute in the other posts when many see my gender as a reason to think I am lower or inferior to them? The idea of equality of all humans is supposed to be central to Sikhi, and before that gets sorted its impossible to jump into any discussion on anything else without my gender coming into it. Another thing is ethnicity. Because I am not Punjabi and was not born into Sikhi and because I have to rely that trnaslations are correct (and that the translator is not trying to fix their own agenda) because of that I am thought of an accused of knowing nothing at all. When I have studied quite a bit, granted I have had to use translations. But it means that if I jump into any topic I am ignored because I am accused of knowing nothing at all because I can't speak Punjabi (alienated by ethnicity and culture) and any viewpoint I give which speaks of humans equally having opportunity I get shot down as being feminist (alienated because of my gender and not accepting that I should somehow have less rights). But even then, I try to contribute and I always try to reference Gurbani in my posts. What I have noticed by several members on here is that it seems ok to trash character of women openly, and it's done almost constantly like everyone are obsessed with chartiropakhyan. And it's considered more than ok and not seen as women hating. But to even suggest a negative character of men at all is seen as hatred of men. In fact you don't even have to suggest negative character of men at all and just try to counter what is being said about women, and all of a sudden you are accused of man hating. In other words, the prevailing thought is that inequality and discrimination against women is seen as more than ok and upheld as the epitome of Sikhi. But to even suggest that women should have equal rights at all (be seen as equally carrying the divine light and have equal opportunity) is seen as man hating. Or women suggesting they don't have to be in a subordinate position to men, is seen as man hating scary western feminism. When the entire forum seems intent on women bashing and obsession with charitropakhyan you can't expect women in the forum to NOT feel slagged. The question then becomes was our Guru slagging us, or could charitars be court poets etc? (you know some small hope that Guru Ji was not actually slagging us). In 404 charitars, 376 are directly pointing finger at women as deceivers, and immoral who would stop at nothing, lying, not even murder to get what they want. There are only comparatively less than 20 which point the finger at the men, and even in those there are undertones still pointing at the woman involved. Then there are a tiny few which paint women as virtuous. The overall feeling is that majority of the deceit and immorality are caused by women, not men. Painting the men as gullible in the stories as some like to point out make the men look bad too... ok but what's the final message? In order to not be gullible, be very wary of trusting women. It still hurts women's character! And one wonders why some rehetnamas tell Singhs to not trust any women, including their own spouse! Now imagine you were the female gender, not only were all the Gurus male, the first panj pyaras were male, all the main heroic stories are about Sikh men, rehetnamas are written with an almost disdain for women, some even saying women should not read Gurbani in Sangat at all. Some saying women are impure / dirty because of menstruation and childbirth. Women kept from the most prominent or leadership roles. Wives told in some rhetnamas to see husbands as God. Its no wonder some members openly post on here that women are less status than men, downgrades to male bodies, post that although women are part of mankind they will never be men (as if to suggest, women are not as good as men), suggesting that gurbani when it says to see divine light in all, they compare women to insects or pests - as in they can't see the divine light in either and that only a Brahamgiani can. just try for one moment to put yourself in the shoes of a female trying to fit in here with all of the above. How would you feel? Seriously? And yet to even try to counter any of the above as somehow untrue, you are accused to hating men. And then the hatred filled attacks start. As if to say any woman who challenges her lowly position hates men... because wanting to be treated equally to someone means you hate them. Its just another guilt trip to try to get us to drop it and accept that we are lower. It sucks. It feels like Sikhi is only for men. And in particular on the forum the men on here the hatred is all encompassing. I have never said anything hateful about chatanga or crystal as two examples. But chatanga's hatred continues to this day! As I said I post with actual Gurbani references etc. and the thread will be going fine and nobody hating on anyone and then in walks chatanga and after a few posts of hate filled spewing towards me and condemning once again any idea that women should have equal treatment, the thread gets closed and called kindergarten. And then I get somehow blamed even though I have chatanga blocked and have not said one word to him! I don't think if a thread is fine and people will disagree on things but if it was completely sane until chatanga posts, then why does the thread have to be locked because of one person getting out of hand, posting hatred? I have blocked him, so why allow him to continue to get away with it? I am using gender as an example because it is what I experienced. That and the fact that I cant read Punjabi. Others have been alienated for other reasons, Sikh Khoj for example was hated right out of the forum because he was trying to counter some things. I have seen race hatred being spewed too... about goras, etc. I have seen hatred spewed because of different religions, because of different beliefs on rehet maryadas, because of different beliefs on even which banis should be recited daily or whether someone wears a turban or not. And anyone who disagrees with someone, are called nindak or guru nindak. The names start flying. This really is not a pleasant place to be. If the majority membership want this to be a taksal specific or nihang specific forum etc, then it should be mentioned on the main page. So that unsuspecting new members won't be hated right off the forum for having a different view. Right now, the forum touts itself as being Sikhi in general, but its not.

The only thing I can find says those who had uncut hair before and have cut it. And those who smoke. Rest of transgressions it doesn't mention except to say you can't eat their leftovers. And by associate I don't think it means in the sense of shunning or completely ignoring. I think it means like you have friends you associate with, people with like minds. But it doesn't mean you ignore the person serving you at the grocery store etc. So I think it means more in the sense of being influenced by them - in other words don't follow in their footsteps or allow them to influence your own spiritual path. But maybe I could be wrong. In that case, I am not allowed to associate with a certain person on here, who openly admitted he has broken his amrit... and neither is anyone else on here who have taken Amrit.

It might be the reality but it doesn't make it right and it's not what our Gurus taught about seeing divine light in all and all humans being equal. We don't believe in forcing people to be Sikh do we? Everyone has the right to choose to follow Sikhi. If someone really finds they can not or they find another path which for them is better then why get your kacheras in a bunch over it? Guru Nanak Dev Ji taught that truth is not exclusive to specific religion and anyone can find it. Meaning Sikhi is not the only way. If someone finds a better way for them, let them go. Forcing them to stay won't help YOUR spiritual path, it won't help THEIR spiritual path so why bother? Wish them well instead!

LOL. I can't disagree with you here! But this is a different issue... I think we should ALL partake in some form of at the very least self-defence training. I used to do Tae-Kwon Do but I stopped (waiting for surgery for an injury). I don't believe it has to be Gatka etc. or what was traditionally seen as Sikh specific combat training, but at least everyone should know what to do if someone attacks them. Anything is better than nothing. Karate, Judo, Jiu Jitsu, Gatka, etc any kind of martial arts. It not only teaches self defence, but discipline and is exercise too! And I think both boys AND GIRLS should be put into these things at a young age. Start healthy habits early!

I wasn't referring to staying in shape etc. I was referring to extremes of deprivation etc. and physical discomfort as a means to obtain God. Like austerities, celibacy, highly restrictive diets etc... some religions even advocate physical pain as a means to find God. But Gurbani is condemning this idea. Finding God within yourself is ultimately not a physical endeavour at all.

A Sikh should not treat anyone badly, ever. Ordinary ex-Sikhs, it was their choice. They are only hurting their own spiritual journey, not yours. So why treat them badly? Why badmouth and call people nindak etc? It only shows hatred. If an ex-Sikh (I don't care what background they are) were in need, I would help any of them. Why would I think badly of them? It was their choice and they did what they felt they needed to do for THEIR journey. It doesn't make them less human, and it doesn't make them any less a carrier of the divine light.

There has been a lot of talk about placing the body under rigid physical disciplines like celibacy, strict diets etc. The Gurus were advocating living a normal life, while still pursuing spirituality. The way to God is within yourself and you don't need to put yourself through extremes of discomfort, depriving yourself of physical needs etc. in order to find the divine within yourself. Neither does doing those things make one 'holier than thou' even though some think it does... stop depriving yourself of life, live life, but live it while always remembering Waheguru. It's pretty clear that naam / Waheguru's grace is required, and without that, you can practice as much self restraint and extreme deprivations etc. but it will never matter. Finding God within is not reliant upon any physical hardships like some other religions teach. ਕਾਂਇਆ ਸਾਧੈ ਉਰਧ ਤਪੁ ਕਰੈ ਵਿਚਹੁ ਹਉਮੈ ਨ ਜਾਇ ॥ Kāʼn▫i▫ā sāḏẖai uraḏẖ ṯap karai vicẖahu ha▫umai na jā▫e. You may torment your body with extremes of self-discipline, practice intensive meditation and hang upside-down, but your ego will not be eliminated from within. ਅਧਿਆਤਮ ਕਰਮ ਜੇ ਕਰੇ ਨਾਮੁ ਨ ਕਬ ਹੀ ਪਾਇ ॥ Aḏẖi▫āṯam karam je kare nām na kab hī pā▫e. You may perform religious rituals, and still never obtain the Naam, the Name of the Lord. ------ ਬਿੰਦੁ ਰਾਖਿ ਜੌ ਤਰੀਐ ਭਾਈ ॥ Binḏ rākẖ jou ṯarī▫ai bẖā▫ī. If someone could save himself by celibacy, O Siblings of Destiny, ਖੁਸਰੈ ਕਿਉ ਨ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਪਾਈ ॥੩॥ Kẖusrai ki▫o na param gaṯ pā▫ī. ||3|| why then haven't eunuchs obtained the state of supreme dignity? ||3|| ------ ਜਪੁ ਤਪੁ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਸਾਧੀਐ ਤੀਰਥਿ ਕੀਚੈ ਵਾਸੁ ॥ Jap ṯap sanjam sāḏẖī▫ai ṯirath kīcẖai vās. You may chant and meditate, practice austerities and self-restraint, and dwell at sacred shrines of pilgrimage; ਪੁੰਨ ਦਾਨ ਚੰਗਿਆਈਆ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਾਚੇ ਕਿਆ ਤਾਸੁ ॥ Punn ḏān cẖang▫ā▫ī▫ā bin sācẖe ki▫ā ṯās. you may give donations to charity, and perform good deeds, but without the True One, what is the use of it all? ਜੇਹਾ ਰਾਧੇ ਤੇਹਾ ਲੁਣੈ ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਣ ਜਨਮੁ ਵਿਣਾਸੁ ॥੧॥ Jehā rāḏẖe ṯehā luṇai bin guṇ janam viṇās. ||1|| As you plant, so shall you harvest. Without virtue, this human life passes away in vain. ||1|| ------

I guess I'd be kshatriya then, not that it matters.... Anyway all I was saying is that ALL humans should be treated equally. I am not sure who Nikki Haley is. But I'd look at her the same as any other fallen Sikh who cut their hairs. And that is with empathy. I don't believe in shunning etc. Their journey is theirs. Its THEM who loses out by falling off the path, not me. So why should I take it on myself to punish anyone else? Why do Sikhs look to punish and name call and treat people like crap? In fact Gurbani says the only true judge is he who judges himself. (or herself). In fact if everyone only focused on their OWN spirituality and stopped trying to dictate to others how to live theirs, then we'd have MUCH better progress IMO. Yes that includes seeing that divine light in everyone and realizing that when someone does seva, it's not a body. It's not a gender, or a caste, or a skin colour. It's that DIVINE LIGHT within them which is doing it. And realizing its the SAME divine light in every one of us, then nobody would stop anyone from doing seva, or from occupying any post. Nobody would tell anyone else how to do their spirituality. Nobody would call anyone nindak, etc. Because its the same divine light in them as it is that person. :( I would give almost anything to see that world!

Or Soylent Green??

Exactly the guys on here only see things from their perspective and so they don't see why we feel slighted as women. Seeing the context from our side might help understand how we feel... How it feels to be told no because of your gender. Same with caste though I think discrimination based on caste is not as prevalent in Sikhi as discrimination based on gender. And everyone thinks gender discrimination is ok because hey it only hurts women. But I have seen casteism too like gurdwaras for only ramgarhia etc. I have heard of some gurdwaras not allowing low caste in either. This is all nonsense. No human should have any less than any other human in Sikhi. If they are Sikh they should all have same rights... Yes equality. Yes no matter what caste no matter what gender no matter what skin colour etc. All humans treated equally. All Sikhs given same rights. That would be a beautiful world. If you don't think so then you yourself harbour some superiority complex. Gurbani is clear: As Gurmukh look upon all with a single eye of equality for in each and every heart the divine light is contained. Paapiman thinks the above is only instruction for a Brahamgiani... Lol. There are only two types. Gurmukh and Manmukh. You can choose which you want to be and act accordingly. Saying that Gurbani is only for Brahamgianis as an excuse to not have to follow it is a lame excuse. As part of defence visible minority group and human rights training I learned about unconscious bias and even knowing about it I still catch myself. I have unconscious biases about people like if I see teenagers late at night in a hoodie I will think they are up to no good etc. Or I still feel awkward around Muslims who are visibly Muslim like men wearing the long Kurta etc. because it's out of place here in North America. But at least I TRY to see that divine light in ALL. I'll notice my bias and instead of walking away in fear I'll actually say hello and engage them in conversation. This is he difference. Paapiman (sorry no offence meant) thinks only a Brahamgiani can seek to see the divine light in all and this is reason for not seeing God in women. (could just as easily be lower caste etc) He often compares women to insects etc when he mentions seeing divine light in women ---- as if to say that he'd squash a bug rather than see the divine light in that bug and since he uses that comparison when referring to women, he feels the same towards women ...that he just can't see the same divine light in us that he sees in men. Fair enough... (He actually said this so no I am not doing nindya) it's just an example. But I think this is an excuse (not just for him but for anyone who CHOOSES to not see that light in everyone). I am not a Brahamgiani but I am trying to actively see the divine light in ALL. It's a choice you make. It's not something you need to be a Brahamgiani for! Some of you think I hate men. But I treat men same as I do women. Maybe that's why you think I hate men because maybe men deserve higher respect than women in your mind, and me not acknowledging or giving men higher respect than women means I hate men? But I try to follow what Gurbani says. I try to see (and serve) that divine light in everyone equally. I will never see male bodies as being any more deserving of anything than a female body. I will never see a low caste any different than a high caste... In fact that is easy for me being in the west since I have no concept of a rigid social structure based hierarchy. And that's all I can do in this life... treat everyone equally. I refuse to see any human as lower than another. Yes even criminals I feel sorry for. I don't believe evil is inherent. I believe that souls can be lost and I'd actually like to work with rehabilitating criminal teens etc. in future. Of course I am not advocating letting them go free (everyone should be held accountable for their own actions) but that is different from limiting someone based on something they had no control over (what body they were born into... Caste, creed, colour, gender) In Sikhi every human deserves equal treatment and rights no matter what. All souls are equal. If someone is Amritdhari it should not matter what gender or caste or colour etc they are. They are all ONE in Khalsa. If you don't think so, then you are just a horrible person. Sorry but you are. There is no shudra in Sikhi... And if Paapiman is Sikh he does not have a caste so he can't tell you which he is because he does not have one. Easiest thing you can follow when interacting with ANYONE (no matter what colour their skin, caste, gender, etc) treat them how you would want them to treat you. If you want to place limitations on people, then ask yourself if you would want those same limitations placed on yourself. If not, then think twice about supporting that limitation.

Why can't people just look at the soul instead of all these petty things like caste colour gender even financial or political status etc? Even on here why can't we all recognize that we are all in fact the same!? All humans should be treated the same regardless of any of the above. Anyway if caste is job then what is military?? Lol oh wait right I'm female therefore in caste system I'd be lower than an untouchable male.

Hmmm only if it's one of those cute Pygmy goats :) Like this one:

If you look it was not me who posted that lol. Last thing I posted was to rock that he didn't need to sway my thinking as we were in same track.

In fact I blocked chatanga ages ago so I can't even see his posts. So please note if he is posting crude comments again I had nothing to do with it.

Hmm but discrimination based on gender is not prohibited?? (Paapiman won't see this as he blocked me.. Truth hurts...) but discrimination is prohibited in Sikhism no matter what the basis.