sexy_singh

hey jassa, i wrote several replies (rather long ones infact) where i went through and addressed your points, each single one and gave examples of past rehit name that would now be considered utterly rediculous. for example i think bhai daya singhs rehitnama from the 1700 had the command "do not place any oil on your hair". this wasnt the exception but the rule. anyway, for some reason time my browser died just before i hit submit.. so maybe i was never meant to post those replies.

rehit name do go out of date. this is a fact. and i dont see why you have a problem with this. as to the case of mone within the sangat. well, if i lived in punjab, which maybe you do and then if i saw so called sikh kids going aroung doing nashe, cutting their hair, not having any morals but still claiming to be sikhs, i'd be pretty pissed off. i might even react to it by saying all moneh are useless ppl. and so on. ok, so i understand where you might be coming from.

also as screwed as the climate is, with all the stuff that has happened to the sikhs over the centuries you might take up a insular view and i can appreciate this also. 1984. attacks from brahmincal forces throughout the history of the sikhs. mughal oppression. and now you might, well the panth is falling apart. we should be more hardcore, more strong. moer unified. more true to the guru. i get this sentiment. i've had these thoughts in me as well.

but then i also think a true gursikh wouldnt let the circumstance affect his conduct and hist hinking. he wouldnt become a reactionary to the enviroment. especially wirth respect to his morals and his ethics. and these sorts of things. so i still think us sikhs, who are sikhs, in your way of seeing things, those who are keshdhari, that THEY shouldnt ALWAYS be so judgemental. i mean, is it too much to ask that not all moneh be treated like crap? or anyone for that matter. a hindu, a musalman. just give ppl a chance. if our gurdware are gonna be run so strictly, then we should be clear that we do love all ppl equally. its just we wish to run our gurdwara in line with the panth.

i also think the panth is sccrewed up. and some say it was always screwed up. thats probably true as well. but anyway, im no longer concerned about these issues.

if the panth is screwed, because we have made it ok for ppl like you, to have the views you have, to accept these. then the panth is just another religious body. it has lost its characteristics given by our gurus. its just another group. it has lost its highness of character. richness of humility. quality of tolerance. beauty of love. its now just a thing thats under attack and it reacts to it by trying to save itself.

so you can have your panth, and run it the way you want. that isnt my problem any more.

im just gonna try to be a good sikh, and try to treat ppl well. and stick to that. im not a mona btw, im amritdhari, just so you know, jassa.

last post. good luck everyone!

If a Sikh cannot follow Guru Jis message of wearing the 5 K's, what chance do they have following Guru Ji's messages of being a good person? It is much easier to wear the 5 K's, than to mentally disicpline yourself and align yourself with Guru Jis message. Hence those that do not have enough love and faith in Guru Ji's simple message to even bother wearing the 5 K's, i wander how much these people are actually going to follow the other messages Guru Ji.

These are my opinions devised from my own experiences, am not participating in any arguments

Thanks Gurjit Singh, appreciate your thoughts. i understand what you say. do you not think it cuts both ways though?

if its very easy to wear the 5ks and if ppl dont even do that, that shows that they arent genuine, isnt it also the case that its easy for ppl to wear the 5k and not "going to follow the other messages of Guru Ji"?

personally i'd rather ppl take guru ka roop only if they are gonna live the way of the gurus too. otherwise we risk diluting the veracity of khalsa. im sure we all agree about this though.

oh and i forgot to say something.

you posted the following which i googled for to determine the source and came to the site http://www.sikhpoint.com/religion/creatert...rthofkhalsa.php

just near to the quote you pasted,

Also Guru Gobind Singh Ji says

Nishan-e-Sikhi ast in Panj har kaf

Hargiz na bashad azin panj muaf

Kara, Karad, Kacha, Kanga bi dan,

Bina kesh kes hech ast jumla nishan.

[These five letters of K are emblems of Sikhism.

These five are most incumbent, Steel Bangle,

big knife, shorts and a comb; without

unshorn hair the other four are of no

significance]

is this quote also attributed to guru gobind singhji:

"You are now of one creed, followers of one path. You are above all religions, all creeds, all castes, and all classes. You are the immortal soldiers of true dharam. You are messengers of God. The honour of the honourless is entrusted to you by Waheguru. Mix freely with the world, but remain of one soul, one ideal and one mind, so you act as one soul and one mind in the service of Waheguru. You are members of the Khalsa brotherhood. You are all brothers, all equal. No one is superior to the other. Work for the supremacy of His Will with one mind. Success is sure. From today your salutation will be : Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fatah.

pretty sure this is just as important as keeping the 5ks.

I have not dictated anytihing...nor am i in a position to do so... the akaal takht does the dictating and i follow what they say.

No? You dont need a personal opinion when yours is exactly teh same as the status quo. then yuo can sit back and attack others for having personal opinions because that is such a bad thing. i dotn know abuot yuo, but most smart ppl i have met or read bout are AGAINST following authority blindly. yuo end up with horrendous results. read einstein on the matter wrt pre ww2 germany. its the same sort of thinking that gives us the situation where ppl say "i was just doing my job. read abuot the "Milgram Experiment".

im not using human standards, im using sikhi standards...i dont care what human standards are only what my Guru's acceptable standards are.

right. make sure when you are advertising sikhi to the westerners that you bring up thsi point. because equal rights and tolerance have no place in your "Guru's acceptable standards". and dont lie or deceive. be completely honest and upfront and say this. iam still shocked that you continue to speak for the Guru. but i guess anything goes when you are defending your empire. i am probably a threat to the sovereignty of your sikh world with my dangerous warped views.

Who are you to say is devoid of spirituality...You seem to be always suggesting that moneh are always good natured people who want to learn but its the Gursikhs who adopted the roop of their Guru that are the ones who know nothing about their true religion. I think not.

i can do it by looking at the actions of these people. i can do it by looking at what they say. and what they are saying and doing - it tramples the virtues of compassion and tolerance. their actions are manifested in the rules that fix roles within a gurdwara. their thoughts are expressed in those rules.

i suggest moneh are always good natured people and gursikhs dont know anything about their true religion? nice try. i say true gursikhs would not go about denying ANYONE who truly wishes to perform seva in a gurdwara in whatever role it maybe.

you were condescending about personal religion many times. especially when you accuse me of manmat in the other discussions. and in this thread to when when yuo made the below statement. this is condescending.

The Akal Takht have the say on any matter in sikhi and can not be ignored.Fact is, whether it suits your personal brand of sikhi or not..what they say goes.

I didnt give my definition of a sikh...I gave Gurbani quotations for my definitions of a sikh with the aid of rehitnamas. Therefore if you want to blame me for my definition ask Guru Ji.

again, your definition is compliant with errorful authority. i know enough about rehitname to know that they are dynamic in nature and limited in scope to a time period. now if whenever there was a rehitnama for whatever reason that stipulated "a sikh iff said sikh == khalsa" then thats fine for that time period. maybe it was a time of great urgency and war. you'd need a definite way to identity your fellow warrior. these are merely speculations because i lack all the necessary information. what im saying is, that your rehitnama quote doesnt change anything int he discussion we are having now.

I didnt give my definition of a sikh...I gave Gurbani quotations for my definitions of a sikh with the aid of rehitnamas. Therefore if you want to blame me for my definition ask Guru Ji.

Yes, i will definitely ask Guruji why it is acceptable these days to go around accepting ideas that are contrary to humanity because they are said to come frm his authority. evne though NO ATTEMPT is made by these ppl to JUSTIFY the ideas on any basis whatsoever, apart from choice quotes of gurbani that on their own are supposed to convince us of their validity.

There is no hiding from this line

Rehit pyaara mujhko sikh pyaara nahee

Nope, no hiding behind this line. Dont you think this means that ones actions and conduct is more important than what religion they are? dont you think guruji would rather see good ppl doign good things rather than ppl who say they are sikhs doing bad things (such as denying others from performing seva and ptuting them down). because that is how i see this quote. it emphasises conduct over religious membership.

which means the rehit is beloved to the Guru...Not the sikh.

yes, agreed.

I do not consider people who cut their hair to be on a par with Amritdharis as amritdharis have given their head to their Guru. They have followed what Guru Ji's hukam was. If they are of the same statues what is the need for amrit?

with all due respect jassa, it is none of your business on who you consider to be better and who lesser. the sangat is of the guru. the guru is in power. everyone else is nothing infront of the guru. we come together in company of the guru to learn and be blessed. and its not up to us students to compare and rate and subjugate roles infront of the guru.

amrit is naam. the best gift anyone can get. its undescribable. iam at a loss of words when it comes to describing it. it is a gift from waheguru. if you are lucky enuogh to get it. then your life will be complete. I'll tell you what it isnt though.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT MAKES YOU AUTOMATICALLY BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.

no. if anything it flows with humility. compassion. love. tolerance. all these good things that are characteristic of a true gursikh. Its NOT elitist.

and then what do you make of rehit bina nahee sikh kehaavai...which means without rehit one cannot call himself sikh.

i think its a perfect thought. it means good conduct is neccesary to call oenself a sikh. you cannot be a sikh unless you live the way. and the way is free of thoughts of superiority.

Frankly I am not concerned with your welfare.I once was concerned but since your very attitude to my help towards you was to argue I feel no need to consider your welfare.

i still hold that your motives werent to help me, but to help your community. you want a community that thinks the exact same way. one that is unaccepting of the process of learning. the milestones of becoming a sikh dont matter, what matters is the final outcome, regardless of why you got there. even if you lack spirituality, thats ok, as long as you look the way and agree with the herd. that is why yuo have given up on me, because im fundamentally opposed to following the crowd just because iam told to. ie. without reasons. and against my morality.

I never said you dont look the part. so i dont know where you got that from.

nah, that was just me speaking in first person as a generic sikh confronted with the option of conform or be disowned.

When did these sikhs who want to follow maryada become self serving,...I think that there are roles for non keshadari sikhs within a gurdwara but these do not involve the main activities or for Guru Maharaj's Paath. They may do there paath in Gutkeh but it is beyadhbi to allow a patit to do paath from Guru Maharaj's swaroop.

ok. as far as i can remember, the latter was allowed by amritdharis. but what about doing kirtan? im not sure exactly what else they've changed. i'll give an update when i check it out myself. what about doinnf Chaur seva? is that cool? Because a big part of me falling in love with sikhi was a memory as a child of five or six doing this as a monah kid. i'd not have had the chance, if i'd be banned from doign so.

Ive shown you bani quotes but all you have shown me is your personal opinion.i.e your own mat. trying to argue against how Guru Ji has defined it...

the reason i havent given gurbani quotes is because i'd never go that far just to win an argument. but ok, personal opinion isnt good enough then thats cool. that is all i can offer.

Even without hearing the quote you are trying to find excuses to hold it to your viewpoint...

not fair. re-read my response to that comment. i was quite clear how i felt.

Either way...ive heard your views...dont agree with what your saying and would like to see some Gurbani quotations to back up what you are saying.

alright then. that wont happen. for the reason mentioned earlier.

I didnt say the couldnt learn from Guru Maharaj...They may study it through other means but as yet are not allowed to read from Guru Maharaj saroop as per maryada. I did not say they were not allowed to read full stop. Stop putting words in my mouth.

im pretty sure i was talking about the task of doing seva, without restrictions on what it is. thats such a valuable thing. i dont want to see it being split up so only only certain ppl can do certain things.

love you jassa. thanks for the replies guys. fateh.

now you are going on to say that all sangat isnt equal, some is more equal than others.

yes i wrote this. no jassa, read more closely.you made the distinction between between keshdari and non-keshdari sangat. that was in your comment.

whether or not guru gobind singh ji made that comment, im sure it came with a context. and without knowing it or the exact comment i wont comment further. it could be quite specific in scope.

how are their ways non-humanitarian...by which standards?western standards??

by human standards jassa. stopping ppl from doing seva because of how they look is non humanitarian. its in every way discriminatory. its treating sangat differently. its lacking compassion. completly devoid of any sense of humanity. i hope you are never the victim of this sort of prejudice. especially by so called religious ppl who according to them, are supposed to be above such practises.

If this is what Guru Ji says, then why should the people who do not follow Guru Ji's rehit, and therefore are not his beloved be allowed to do his sewa.

no this isnt what guruji "says". guruji doesnt say run gurdwaras to privillege self proclaimed and self serving sikhs. and dont deny it either. your chain of implications suggests exactly what i write here.

you want my definition of a sikh? my definition of a sikh doesnt exist. i have a guru and im his discipile. nothing else means much to me when it comes to defining a sikh.

the sgpc definition allows you to go about ranking ppl in a sangat which is nice for those whos purpose it serves. i doubt you know anything about empathy to see this far though. try wearing others shoes sometime. i conform to your sgpc definition but we differ fundamentally in our religous outlook. i dont want to think im better than anyone else in a sangat. after all why should i be arrogant about things i've learnt thru my life. a sangat is a sangat, despite its composition. anyone can learn from the guru. it doesnt matter how they look. and serving a guru? anyone can do that too. no monopolies please.

In the light of all this i think that a person who has committed a bujjhar kurrehit i.e. cutting hair should not be allowed to read from Guru Maharaj in a gurdwara. What one wishes to do outside the gurdwara in their own homes can not be enforced.

ok. so lets see what this says about people who were born into a religion and taught nothing about it. i'd say thats a good proportion of sikhs. then what of people who've been sikhs according to ways that would please you, but are devoid of any spiritualism and lack of application of truths given by the guru. with that last catagory i've probably covered the majority of sikhs that exist.

you would wish to hold these people guilty for not living their lives to please you. even though they have never really experienced sikhi living. how can you can possibly do that? dont threaten them to become religious. this is rediculous. you cant demand someone to have spiritual enlightenment on cue. it doesnt work like that. you cant demant this from anyone.

now what is the role of the complement of this set of people. those who are fortunate enough to found purpose to their lives through service of their guru. who are lucky enough to be happy and enlightned. their role isnt to look down on the rest of the sangat. on the contrary, they should live their lives and let everyone else see the value of living that way. they are true gursikhs.

ofcourse then there is the group of people within the complement who arent spiritual at all. tehy are like me, who sit around thinking they are better than otehrs just cause they look the act. people like me suck. we are ruining it for everyone. i argue that i shouldnt. i refuse, now to go judging others on how much of a sikh they are. this isnt my role. i should just try to fix my problems, and i got lots of them. instead of interefering and ruining things for everyone. in fact no one should listen to me, i just wish to stop others like me who are out to ruin it for everyone else.

and stop being so condescending about personal religion. that is all it should be for a majority of ppl. why should anyone else be concerned about my moral welfare. its my welfare. let me make my mistakes and let me learn from them. let me discover truths and let me grow. you cant possibly help me by putting me down and saying you dont look the part, you suck. that cant be good, and it can be definitely and absolutely negative for my welfare.

you still havent offered any reasons apart from following authority. i'll accept if you say that you have none.

i think any sikh in the world would agree that wherever there is Guru Ji and sangat...that is a gurdwara..

there is nothing else required.

ok, so if we are agreeing on this and we agree that its a sensible thing to agree on then how are we supposed to feel about accepting commands from a body which are divisive. why is it ok to allow them to dicate on how a gurdwara should be, when its clear their ways arent even humanitarian. arent we supposed to welcome any kinds of sangat. now you are going on to say that all sangat isnt equal, some is more equal than others.

i also reject the argument that just because something is common that it is right. surely there are many examples on why this is so. just look at the historic examples of non conformance by the early sikhs. i feel that sikhi has become a religion in the way that makes religions have similar problems. and thus we must look at how our gurus went about describing and suggesting fixes for obvious errors. especially when it comes to exclusiveness and intolerance.

SGPC have surely made mistakes, as does anyone...but they are with good intentions.

what are the good intentions behind limiting the participation of certain members of sangat here? my friend once corrected me after we attended a kirtan program held in a school hall when i said "that wasnt a gurdwara, was it?" to which he replied "anytime you have guruji and sangat together that is a gurdwara". i thought that was a good way of seing things. free of any uncecessary clutter and elegant in its simplicity. i dot know anythink about Budda Dal so you cant accuse me of political motivation.

is it so hard to believe that there are more people like you that are convinced they must "guide" everyone else in their religious life?

if you really are interested in the gurdwara you can private message me and ask. i'll be happy to give the details to anyone else who asks too.. why YOU wish to know this i am not sure. are you going to go congratulate them?

i have to go do a three hour exam now. i'll be interested in reading your response, i expect you to tell me something to do with sgpc though

so whats a gurdwara then?

yuo seem to be saying i made the whole thign up. i resent your accusation. you have a us (people who think exactly the way you do) vs the enemy (anyone else) mindset.

also as i mentioned in my first post this is a small community and with that you'll find that members of the sangat would participate directly in kirtan for example. so you'll find kids working hard and preparing a shabad or two, various tabla players and so on. i liked the way roles were shared within the community. everyone had a chance to get involved.

now, sadly, this isnt the case.

appreciate teh replies guys. harpreet hmm, i'll think over teh money thing - seems like a petty thing to raise! but i see your point. i fully intend to go back and attempt changing their minds.

sukhsingh apart from the hukamnama is there any other reason why you feel that only keshdari ppl can run stuff? if only guru valey sikhs should run gurdwara then how come there are so many gurdwaras out there and so few guru valey sikhs? and furthermore, your idea of a guru vala sikh seems to be a kesh dhari person without any other qualities.

jassa why should paath only be done by amritdharis? what is the reasoning behind this. surely what is important is that it is done correctly and faithfully. i dont see the relavance of location in the discussion.

hari i like your thoughts. sure you might say its just a brick building but this building comes with a history and a community. the latter is what im concerned about the most.

Sadh Sangat is always tolerant and does not proselytize

nice. i wish to make this case to them. any help will be much appreciated!

at this point i dont want to give up - without even trying! but if reasoning doesnt convince them then there doesnt seem to be any other decent way to go.

for all those advocating following the edicts of sgpc - can i inquire for the basis for these wrt to gurdwaras.

akali sodhi for your information, non kesh daris werent running the gurdwara exclusively. it was a good mix of both. and it might make some of you happier - a majority of kesh daris. isnt it sufficient to just want to do seva for one to be a member of a gurdwara committee (for the lack of a better word)?

i also find my self distancing myself from sgpc because of these rulings that seem to defy the basic principle of inclusiveness. please explain.

hi guys i've got a bit of a problem. i've recently come to know that my gurdwara in my home town has been undergoing some reforms under the persistence of a vocal minority and it is no longer the way it used to be.

im told that the new policy is to to remove completely the role of any non kesh dhari sikhs. this is suprising to me because i never expected this to happen since we have a small community and we usually get along despite our differences in appearance. im also saddened to know that instead of building a community of love and tolerance it is becoming one of arrogance and elitism. i think this is contrary to the sikhi spirit.

as ive mentioned elsewhere on this forum, i feel that one shouldnt be demand others to change their lives wrt to external religious mattters so that they may be acceptable. this pains me very much. i fear all it will do is drive good people away. and its not necessary in any way. after all if these uber religious folk think they need to set an example or enforce their way then they shuold do it elsewhere. instead of destroying whatever community dynamic already exists. this is a good gurdwara with happy people who do seva, participate in kirtan, etc. there is a good proportion of kesh dhari people. probably a majority. in fact i think they might have even gone as far allowing only amrithdaris to do things like kirtan and paht and so on.

i will be returning back home soon and i will express my disapointment at these changes. have any other people experienced this sort of thing before? what is the best way to reverse it?

please note im not advocating people shouldnt try to be gurmukhs. everyone should strive to reach their own spirtual home as best as they can. i also admire the gurmukhs etc. iam all for sikhi. i think sikhi should be personal and private. between a sikh and guru. im against these public displays of elitism where religion becomes something to divide and rate people in a community.

(i love sikhi and i love life - how do i save my gurdwara!)

yeh ok, you are a better sikh than me. happy?

okay you've systematically twisted everything. not once did i say your not a sikh

if im guilty of twisting anything please show where and refute..

you do say iam not a sikh, as long as i dont conform to YOUR idea of a sikh. this is the same thing as saying iam not a sikh.

veerji i will NEVER consider calling oneself sexy acceptable to gurmat...but it does not make you a ikh, it makes you a sikh who is confused over a matter. Call me a non sikh call me a fundamentalist..

aha. and there it is in plain words for all to see. you quite clearly express what i describe above. no i cannot call you a non-sikh because iits wrong for me to say who is a sikh and who isnt. i'll leave that bit to you!

Oh and how can gurmat be only for the Guru..WEare instructed to follow gurmat. and my definition of gurmat is living life according to what gurbani says. So if Gurbani says ... then that is how[highlight=red:fff6eba993] i[/highlight:fff6eba993] will live [highlight=red:fff6eba993]my[/highlight:fff6eba993] life...

Yes! Excellent. this is all iam trying to get at. btw its [highlight=red:fff6eba993]Gur[/highlight:fff6eba993]mat not [highlight=red:fff6eba993]Jassa[/highlight:fff6eba993]mat or [highlight=red:fff6eba993]jassa-like-minded-people[/highlight:fff6eba993]mat. it is you who is twisting my words. i didnt say gurmat is only for the guru. but that is belongs to the guru alone. it is the gurus mat. not mine. not yours.

i believe you are fooling yourself if you believe that you mean sexy as in proud and since you are being so arrogant as to criticise someone whos only intention was to help you, and i can honestly say with my hand on my heart that i set off with good intentions. However Gurbani has spoken about people in this situation.

fine. im fooling myself. are you happy now?* heh. in actual fact iam true to myself when i say sexy is ok. and please, if you think iam responding to your objections solely out of arrogance then you are mistaken. you say you are trying to help me? well ive been trying to help you. your good intentions werent exactly alturistic. i've been trying to show you why through my posts. why its selfish to demand others to change to make you happy. why its wrong to demands others religious life be ok by you. im trying to make you see that religion is personal and IT IS FANATICAL to demand others to be RELIGIOUS in the way YOU'd like to see. my heart is clean too. i have no guilty conscious about this either. your argument about "people like me" is not worth responding because you have not shown what people like me means and what we are doing wrong.

People who follow the ideals of gurmat are judged by dharamraaj to be gurmukhs...people who follow thier own beliefs, their own mat. What you done in a previous post was twist the meaning of gurbani to suit what you wanted. Therefore that was man mat and im not gonna beat around the bush now... If you wnt to go on pretending you are right so be it...You will be the one to give lekha for following your own mat.

lol. nice one. so this is how you "compel" me to think like you. try to scare me off . tell me iam not a gurmukh. that i'll give lekha (ie the sikh equivalent remark of "ur going to hell"). thankyou for offerring your helpful "guidance." its not your call to make on whether or not im a gurmukh. if i use my mind to question to your ideas on religion applied to society you say im using MANMAT. this is your religion? where is the place of ones conscious in this religion? do you think the gurus gave life to sikhi only to fix the ills of other religions alone? do you think this means that the sikhs are beyond the same scrutinity?

are the sikhs like the borg with one MAT? is sikhi a religion of conformance?

iam 100% sure sikhi isnt a religion of blind faith. i refuse to believe or do anything if i dont think agree with by my MAT. if your guru asked you to kill him would you do so? you view says you wouldnt think twice. you wouldnt think. you would just do. wihtout thought. without thinking do anything. thats basicalyl what i see of your view. there is no room for own reflection. decisions are not made through delibaration and reflectinon but instead on impulse.

and i have a big problem of this idea that using your mind is against sikhi. testing the sikh religion to rationale is such a crime.

ofcourse i hear you disagreeing. saying no, i support free thought EXCEPT when it comes to SIKHI. this is fanaticism pushed too far. only those who have something to hide would deny the possibility of alternatives. yet, this is exactly what is happening here.

in fact i think you are so busy defending your religion and struggling to cultivate it in the face of adversity that you forget what it is that your religion says about religion. sikhi doesnt say dont think. if this is what sikhi says, then im not a sikh.

you accuse me of twisting around gurbani. this implies you find something wrong with my candid off the cuff analysis. elaborate if this is the case. otherwise retract your accusation.

does the guru always speak explicity without use of metaphor or analogy. is the guru supposed to be taken literally word for word? are not not supposed to think about what you are being taught. this is called learning. the process of learning involves thinking.

if your religion is free of thought, free of thinking then it cannot lead to learning. and this comes to my first point and the only reason iam arguing with you. ones relation with his guru is between them alone. so as to the matters of rules for dtermining who a sikh is and who isnt. there is no place for this. unless you want to set up another sort of caste system. and i mean the kind where people are partitioned into groups so that some groups are supposed to be "better" than others. in your words, the sikh who doesnt drink is a betetr sikh than one who does". btw can you make a list of all these rules so that i can go through and tick each one i conform to so that i can be a super-sikh? i'd appreciate such a list! i think even if you made a list like this, it wouldnt make you a sikh, let alone a good one. you can conform to any number of rules and this wont me you necessarily betetr than soemone who conforms to none of them.

this reminds me of a thought. you know how in some places they "Teach" students by getting them to partipate in rote recitation of material. and this is calling "teaching". is this process learning? i would argue no, because there is no thinking involved.

no im sorry i dont agree....sikhs as a nation need a voice...we are a minority and as such will often get pushed to the side....the world view of sikhs is that we are just violent terrorists..

sikhs as a nation? what nation is this.. i am ignorant of this. so what if we are a minority? who pushes the sikhs to the side..

if that is the world view of sikhs, why does this matter? how would you have people think of sikhs? because putting out whatever self congrutulatory propaganda will never substitute how ppls own experience of sikhs is. how we really are. the way we live. etc.

if we dont educate people about who we are.what we believe and how we are peaceloving before anyone else we'll have this unjust reputation for life.

riiight.. do you truly believe telling something means they'll believe you? has this been your experience? most people when confronted with another idea, or philosophy (esp to do with religion) will take to it with distruct and apprehension. you act suspiciously when some missionary is giving you the sales pitch. what makes you think sikhi propaganda is any different? its the same thing. btw this isnt education. this is propaganda. dont pretend you mean education. would you go as far as describing your faith as being superior in some way? this means you are indulging in salesmanship. think about it. you have something to gain. you want something from the transaction. you want to tell the person how good sikhi is so that they too thjink sikhi is so great. i reject this sort of thing because its dishonest. religion should be a personal experience that brings you out from darkness. it should come from your own experiences and reflections on the state of things. not from propaganda.

i dont know why you feel its a bad thing to tell people about your religion.

the fact that you see the need to tell others about your religion is the bad thing. you feel as though they are missing out on something. and you can help them. you have others interests at heart. well, not really in reality. because all you are interested in is building a bigger team. or at a least sympathetic outsiders. that is the bad thing. or maybe you feel superior that you have the ultimate faith. these are marks of a fanatic.

infact i was once talking to a jamaican woman who was asking me about why i wear kirpan keep dari, wear dastar.i explained this all as ebst as i could and she was really interested.she told me how she once asked a jewish person about his faith but there reply was to go to the synnagogue and find out herself...she was put off by this remark. so if someone wants to know explain to them with patience and pyaar.

thats great brother jassa. i hope you successfully managed to convert her into the fold of sikhism.* THing is i've had these sorts of conversations before. several times. they cant go well. you want to explain all that is good about yuor religion and with feigning enthusiasm you blabber on and sound like an idiot. iam bothered by the idea of being a salesman. its unsettling.

i have found the best response is the direct one. just say that you have this guru and that you are the disciple. if further pressed on questions of philosophy then you may tentatively give your thoughts on elements of religion. but stress these are personal views. gurbani is the final(and only) authority on sikhi.

if she asked specific questions, that might not have been so bad. but that wouldnt mean she not be completely ignorant to begin with. and if she is completely ignorant to begin with, then its her issue and she need adress it. its not that hard to pull up a book from a library or some keywords in google.

When in university people constantly ask me why i dont drink...they seem to feel that all we're good for is getting tillah. To me this is digusting, and shows the need for education. Ignorance is so dangerous.

why, dont you drink? are you saying it is commonly thought that sikhs drink and that this is digusting? isnt that true that many sikhs drink though? but no amount of propanda can change reality. you see, sikhs do in fact drink. so are you upset about the fact that people think sikhs drink, or that sikhs drink? if upset that people think sikhs drink and you wish that "education" will fix this, then thats silly. it will not. if you wish to educate sikhs not to drink. then thats a different matter.

sikhs drink - is that a bad thing? maybe. abuse is the worst thing. it may lead to serious problems in the community. but lots of people manage to drink socially without leading to any serious problems. i dont have a problem with this. its between them and their morality - none of my business really.

what i have a problem with is the idea that if someone drinks they are automatically lesser of a sikh. i have this prejudice in me and iam trying to remove it. i know its wrong to think this way. and im coming around to it too.

FYI, i dont drink either. but if many sikhs choose to drink and that this means that people in general think sikhs are drinkers than that is a consequence of reality. i must accept it.

veerji i am by no means fanatical...i just believe in gurmat...

can you tell me exactly what you mean by "i just believe in gurmat". everything including what the words mean to you so that i can understand.

Look dont get defensive i merely stated my opinion you stated yours oif we disagree than fine theres no need for you to start telling me about tolerance and comparing me to bin laden.

lol. iam not getting defensive man. iam just trying to speak my mind on these important issues. did you even understand what i was trying to say with the bin laden and toelerance thing? you might not think you are telling people how to live and all that. but do you realise you are endorsing a particular way of living that you sanction as the "right way"? surely this isnt so subtle. its either this way or no way. either this way, or you arent a sikh! you say any other way isnt gurmat. well excuse me! but who are you to say what is gurmat or not. and no i dont think a bunch of like minded people equal gurmat either. no, gurmat belongs to the guru along.

no amount of well wishing sikhs, even well intentioned ones can comeup with a view that amounts to describing the sikh way. or gurmat way. sorry. thats bs. all that does it rule out ppl from being acceptable in the commnity. and this acceptance isnt based on how good your heart is. or how you treat your fellow brothers and sister. no its based on how well you subsribe to some vague model of "gurmat" that the overzelous hold.

its infinitely better to aim for respect and tolerance within our communities. this is a universal thing that can be attained. societies, any of these, probably agree. this will go a long way in fixing problems. idealism doesnt fix anything, not really. it isnt a big ask either.

lol whats funny is that i live at the moment with some people who dont eat meat or eggs. this means they are really holy*. and you'd probably consider them wholesome sikhs. they know everyting and anything about gurbani but yet know nothing about what it really means. they can tell you about the date so and so lost his horse to the mughals yet fail to tell their kids that white people are to be respected just as much as brown people. they are ideologues who think the world is a terrible place to live because no one pays attention to the ideals. and this means they think everyone else is not good enough. because they dont live it up to their standards. and i wanna ask you if this is a good thing. hardly. it doesnt CHANGE things for the better.

i hate hypocrisy. its almost always hypocritical to try to say what is right by sikhi or any other religion and what isnt. think about it like this. imagine someone you really like, whos a good person and a positive influence in your life. now imagine they say they are sikh, but they dont look like one. do you still like this person? yes? well then you have a clean heart. no? then your religion is about superficial things.

if you think it is wrong for people to help eachother than fine. but i personally feel that we are all prone to making gultiah and we should support each other as much as possible.

its not wrong for people to help each other. and yes, we all make mistakes. and we should support each other. but where does it fit in to have arbitrary rules to determine if someone is worthy of love or not.

Veerji you said most of us are not saints...it is exactly this reason that people need guidance from each other...

i suggest we need guidance from the guru more than anything else. because people arent good enough to guide. if they were, then they'd be gurus. people just get greedy and do thing to make themselves feel better and others feel worse.

if you felt that people dont need guidance and advice from others than why do people come on discussion forums to ask questions.

to feel that they are smart. or that they are part of the crowd. or somethig ike that. maybe to get their ideas across. maybe just to see what others are thinking. i am not really sure why people do it. i do it because i want to explore my own ideas and it helps to sit down and think sometimes.

if you don not agree then fine. i would never dream of compelling anyone to do anything. HOwever guidance i would offer with clean intentions and to the best of my knowledge of gurmat and likewise i would accept it from anyone, whoever they may be.

yeh but its not so simple is it. you wouldnt compel them? you honestly think that? because you quite clearly think that your view (even if shared by many others) is gurmat and that this is the only way to go if you are a sikh. surely by saying this you are enforcing your view as being right. if you dont do it your way, then you arent a sikh. and most people dont want to be told they arent something. how would you like it if someone told you, that you arent a sikh? sounds like a pretty strong compulsion to me.

curious. would you accept it from a non sikh? what if they were the most kattar bahman*?

and veerji dont take me for a fool...when referring to a person there is only that definition of sexy, sexy does NOT mean proud...or wlse you would use the word proud...

*sigh* maybe this is a cultural thing.

* indicates sarcasm...

i agree with your definition of pride guv. i think you are spot on focusing on the lustee. waheguru made me this way!

sikhphilo i agree. there is no harm in discussion of faiths for those who want to participate in something like that.

jassa you misunderstood. i wasnt poking fun at the guy who died. i think that would be in bad taste and not called for. no what i was sayin gis that you finding the tragedy to be sikh-mistaken-for-arab-murderd and not simply victim-of-intolerance-and-lack-of-respect-for-other-cultures/people.

that is all is needed here. and its easy to make that case.

there is no need to advertise sikhi to make this point and this point goes for the benefit of all humanity. not just sikhs..

It is my opinion that names like the following:

Jatt , Jatti, Ramghariya or any caste for that matter sexy or words of that nature are not really right for singhs/kaurs to be calling themselves...

i think its ok to call oneself sexy if done with the right intentions. if your intentions are based on self confidence and pride for your appearance then thats cool by me.

if people want to go by ambigious names (such as sexy_singh) and their intentions are decent then its YOUR fault for taking offense without adequately empathising and understanding them.

i think its silly to take offence to the word sexy when it widely regarded nowadays in the same sense as cool etc. you might hear someone say, " i want an ipod - they're so sexy!", or "that shirt is hot". etc. its just another word for appreciating the aesthetics of something.

jassa, i also feel its unfair to bunch with casteism in the poll. surely this is an underhanded tactic to incite support for your view. being sexy has nothing to do with your caste. does it?!

i must say if someone is happy with their caste (say the people who are around you or the music of them or the historic background) then thats fine with me. as long as its done with the right intentions. if you are going to set up a "us against them" by supporting your caste, then this is the wrong intention. anything that unites humanity without hurting others is ok with me. or is there a rule that says partions of people must, be, by defnition wrong. in which case you should carry this out to its rightful conclusion and see no partitions at all whether religious or, well, even human. supporting a particular team. liking the food of a certain kind of people. etc. this is ridiculous. afterall even our gurus partitioned people into gurmukhs and manmukhs. partitions arent necessarily bad.

i absolutely reject anyone who plays moral policeman for a group of people. anyoen who sets up to say what is acceptable a name, or dress or thought is a fanatic and their influence cannot be good for society. this is true for all fanatics, even sikh ones. to legitimise your view by quoting gurbani is a strawmans tactic. gurbani must appreciated in context. no amount of quoting can suffice in presenting GURMAT view.

to claim your view is the one in line with gurmat is wrong as well. surely the only authority on this matter is the guru himself. no exceptions are admissible.

in response to your posting of dictionary meanings. yes, you paste well but this ignores that language is a dynamic thing that bends and changes with those who use it. the current usage of the word sexy does not only mean to arouse sexually. that is a very narrow minded definiton of the word that (coincidentally), in this case supports your view.

If that is not acceptable than we see what our guru says

kaaeiaa rath bahu roop rachaahee ||

Those who love their bodies and try different looks,

thin ko dhaeiaa supanai bhee naahee ||2||

do not feel compassion, even in dreams. ||2||

mahuraa hovai hathh mareeai chakheeai ||

Pride in one's status is like poison-holding it in your hand and eating it, you shall die

It is clear to see that these do not sound like the things a gursikh would describe himself as...

iam convinced that if you read these translations literally then you'll reach the incorrect meaning. i do not say this because i know exactly what the guru says here, but because i disagree with the translated meaning. if they mean to say no pride is acceptable then this taken literally means you cannot have any pride at all, including that of being a sikh. is that acceptable by you? if you believe that, thats fine. the other matter of changing your body or looks can similarly be argued incorrect for the 10th guru made the appearance of a sikh a fixed thing and thus it must follow that either the guru is in contradiction OR certain amount of leyway is allowded in influencing ones appearance.

in fact i think the mesasge being given here is that if you are obsessed with your looks and your body then you'll miss out on a lot of cool things like finding compassion, love for humanity and service for the guru. these you'll miss if you are living your life concerned solely with how you look. i agree, ofcourse. but simply maintaining that you look sexy and being proud of being a singh isnt necessarily bad.

If dass is wrong than please accept my apologies. I hope noone takes offense to this. I feel that Singhs and kaurs should help each other out in following gurmat as much as possible, thats what sangat is for.

i feel that most of us are not saints. i know iam not. so why make divisions on religiousity based on superficial trivialities. it doesnt help anyone. its better that people get along agreeing on things like tolerance and mutual respect THAN craving some sort of sikh utopia where everyone is a singh or kaur and having a heaven on earth type thing going. you see what i mean? not that the heaven on earth thing is gonna happen anyway. so in ened you just get bitter and angry and no one wins. idealism is good, but sometimes its dangerous because it stops things from being better now, rather than, maybe, later.

so i am against talking about gurmat, and using this to put people down, or make others look better. its not necessary. the only authority is the guru and we should just be honest with ourselves and our guru and not demmand too much from others around us.

even bin laden thinks hes going about trying to help muslims. to show them what the koran really says. he probably thinks he doing the right thing. but that doesnt make it right, does it? and you might think, well iam not bin laden, i dont kill or hurt people. sure, no one said you did. the issue is that he thinks its his role to help the others who are lost and truly this is the cause of problems all around. people are resentful that they those who claim to be religious in their communities walk around thinking they are better than others. that they will help the weaker ones. that they will show them the way. and make them like you. it never works out that way in any case. thats the wrong way to go about building a community. you should just do what you think is right and ok by yuor guru. and leave it there. no point trying to "convert" others, acting like they need you to be acceptable. this was probably the big problem with the brahmans back in the day. arent our gurus the models of humanity and compassion? part of this must mean they dont go about making others feel inferior. surely.

i also wish to say that iam not condoning pragmatism when it comes to personal faith. you should try to be the best sikh you can be and this is between yuo and your guru. mainly. it should stay that way. there is no need to have a metric to compare the sikhiness of yourself against your neighbour.

i have a really good immune system thankyou mere rabh seriously, i never get sick. does this mean i dont need the cold showers?

thanks beast and guv, iam glad someone can see over trivialities.

sukh if iam disrecpting true singhs, then i'd like to apoligise to them. are you their spokesman? how much do they pay you

jassa. do you always go by dictionary meanings? if so, i'd like to know which dictionary you refer to. because dictionaries are updated and changed every so often. one from the 1800's would be different from one compiled in 2004. dictionaries dont occur in a vaccum. they are made by people sitting down and deciding on what is an acceptable (to them) defintuion of a particular word. if someone says the word "ass", it might mean someones buttocks or it might mean an abbreviation to assignment(have come across this unfortunate usage..), or it might refer to a donkey. or it might have been a word taken from another language and its original meaning might be "hope". ...

if soemone asks me about sikhi. i'll say, well iam a sikh of the guru and if you want to know about my religion well you should go to my guru and find out yourself...

science, like it or not is the only way to go about the task of predictiing the future. it doesnt do a perfect job. but its the best way to do it.

this has nothing to do with sikhi. get over it. you are just sounding off as someone whos anti thought.

i always thoguht our gurus encouraged freedom of thought. that is why they defended those whos views they didnt really agree with. yes, thats gurmat too.

and i love sikhi too. so dont make this a sikhi vs science debate. what a joke..

fanatics think their way of seing the world is right and others need to see it the same way. open minded people like our gurus did not..

jassa because no one will believe you anyway. what are you gonna say? oh sikhs are these really peaceful people. except we are really good warriors too. yeah, actually sikhs are more like knights who look after the weak and stuff. but wait, we dont realyl do that anymore cause timez-r-changed. we once did though. yeah, remember the mughuls? oh who where they? well these ppl who went around commiting gross injustice against non muslims. yeah, pretty bad huh. we really kicked their asses. and then the british came along and screwd us forever.

anyways, so we are sikhs and we arent terroiists or muslims or anything like that. we are just different. some people say we are hindus, but we arent really. we believe in one god and we wear these strange things that yo might have noticed. wanna see my kirpan? pretty cool huh? its made out of super strengthened steel. its nto supposed to rust.

some sikhs cut their hair, others dont. we are an ecletic people. we come in all sorts of colours and backgrounds. like my kara? all sikhs wear these.

anyway, we think our religion is pretty cool. we are really proud of it. one of the things we were taught is that all religions are ok, that we should celebrate the common features of our faiths and so on. but then, i also think sikhs who dont keep all of the five k's and cover their heads all the time arent evry good sikhs. they are just posers. yeah, i say this cause iam better than them. i wont admit it to you though, why? oh because sikhs are humble and we believe in equality. i dont like hindus though. they believe god is a rock. dumb a*s hindus. they dont know anything. hahahah. just kidding. some of them are ok, i suppose.

... uh.. dude iam confused. you people look different. yet yuor religion is just like all the others ones ive ever seen. its full of the same sort of people who think they know what is best for others. its got people who think sikhi needs to spread. and anyway, keep your religion to yourself.. dude why are you trying to convert me with your propaganda. yuo are just liek the rest. heh. what a joke.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

jassa if the singh was killed because someone thought he was an arab. oh no, if only all the rednecks knew SIKHS arent ARABS. thats the biggest tragegy. you are completley wrong. you dont need to educate anyone about anything. people need to educate themselves. only fanatics thinks others need to be educated or taught the right way.