cul

=o

edit - thos coals are incense

Western clothes are similar? Really? I think not.

Kakaars are the same for everyone, but a few kids in Ca/UK have fallen for the usual feminist BS that equality = similarity and started telling stories about how keski is a kakaar.

Why don't you guys buy some jumpsuits, black up your faces and have yourselves a night fight.

urgh

you realise that republic and democracy are not the same thing right?

We are a monarchy.

Guru Sahib may have travelled but he tried to convert no one, they led by example.

Proseytism (real word?) is not compatible with Sikhism. If you want to 'spread' Sikhism the only way to do this is by living the life properly. With all this political petty bullshit that seems to be innate in Punjabis it is not surprising at all that no one wants to be involved.

ooh it worked

fancy

I'm seeing an increasing amount of articles on the BBS where they lump us in with Hindu rituals and beliefs.

Look at the caption on the picture here:

"Some Hindus and Sikhs believe the caste system is divinely-inspired"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8089287.stm

Here's how you complain, go for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

EDIT they changed it =D

Problem is, if he is trying to reply to my post and doesn't understand what I said in the first place, his whole reply is irrelevant. He's just proving your point, think of him (or her, we shan't have any sexism here!) as an in-house labrat, perfect for observing the behaviour of the aforementioned villagidioticus crapchuckitus, a species unfortunately not quite on the brink of extinction.

Funnily enough he is the most irrational person on this thread...and has magically shifted the focus from rational argument to Sants (again, typical SS behaviour; despite their hatred for Sants it's all they seem to talk about).

Can you supply some sort of documented proof from Gurbani or Panthic Rehat Meryada that requires a Sikh to be defined by his attire only, especially the Chola. Where does it says that sants can only be defined by Cholas? Guru ji actually rejected this concept of being “religious” based on your outer look and dress code.

If you read my reply (rationally of course) you will see that this is what I said; and if you read your post to which I was replying (also rationally, of course), you will see that it was you who implied that the chola makes the Bhramgiani, and not I. You also imply that a Bhramgiani can't wear a chola (you may want to look up false logic). Now, you're probably going to come on here and make all sorts of noise about how you said no such thing, to which I must point out that your lack of understanding of what it is you have written is not my responsibility (I have seen you attack people for having a better vocabulary than yourself, so I feel I must point this out; which leads us to another point - if you yourself don't know the meaning of what it is you say, how can anyone else? Assuming, of course, that I am right.)

You are so narrow minded in your views that you hone in on one single word and lose the actual concept being discussed. In order to accommodate more Gurmat Gyan, you will need to open up your mind.

You're telling me! haha I love irony (in a wholly rational manner of course).

You are so defensive, misconstruing every reply to your posts as an attack ('rationally' of course), that you don't realise you're behaving like the village madman throwing his crap at everyone that passes by. I thank you, wholeheartedly, for proving every single point I made in my first post on this thread.

Guru Da Sikh

Your inference that it is the Chola that makes the Bhrahmgiani is so resoundingly rational, with such little trace of ignorace that I am forced to bow to your 'wisdom'.

Of course, anyone that disagrees with you is irrational; I reiterate, dogma is anathema to rationality.

Ah, SikhSangat

What a bunch of retards, srsly. You can't expect retards to be rational.

On a serious note though, they are blinded by their new ideology, dreamt up in student's unions in Canada and the UK, and labour under the delusion that only their ideas and no other interpretation that has come about in the last 500 years is valid. Dogma is anathema to rationality.

Like shaheediyan said, probably carved by Sikh soldiers

How is that "Spurious"?

http://www.answers.com/topic/spurious

It's my opinion, and you can say you do not agree, but I cannot understand how it is spurious?

You need a better dictionary =p

spurious (adjective): Of a line of reasoning apparently but not actually valid.

Replace it with specious or fallacious if you prefer.

You cannot say that something does exist because you believe it is unnecessary.

I believe chavs are unnecessary but they sure as hell exist.

People have this 'them and us' attitude regarding sants, whereas all a Sant is is someone that has acheived Bhramgian; if you don't believe they exist then how will you ever achieve this point yourself. Whether they are 'needed' or not is irrelevant.

"students denied admission to a medical college on the grounds of plucking eyebrows or trimming beard"

what the shit? Slightly excessive don't you think?

What [shaheediyan] said.

Inferring that Sants do not exist because 'there is no need' is spurious.

I agree that they are a Christian sect.

Is Christianity not a religion?

pics?

Strange, the rastafari I know wake up before sunrise to meditate, are vegegatarian and practice 'one love' to all.

They must be a bunch of fad-obsessed idiots, according to you. Now go educate yourself.

Isn't it interesting how pop culture in various countries is eventually transformed into a 'religion' borrowing heavily from antecedents while maligning the very sources it plagiarises and representing itself as the original gospel truth and not some new pop invention?

I may be 'popular' now, but that is not how it started.

The original rastafari were persecuted for their beliefs and their interpretation of the bible.

Why are people so obsessed with forcing women to wear a Keski? Are these just insecure men who need to keep their women in control? Sound like Wahabis, fed up of people telling me its the only Sikhi roop and how everyone else is too hindufied.

I think you'll find it's 'feminist' 'Sikhs' that think to 'equal' is to dress like a man.

Countries have immigration laws, you can't just rock up and proclaim 'it was prophesied' at the airport and be allowed in.

ALthough I see your point.

I never thought I'd say it, but I agree with Randip Singh.

"Bibian seduce us..." blah blah

pile of BS.

Please give me there email addresses I will happily tell them they are a bunch of kanjars under the title of Sikhi, thank you.

Ever heard of google?

Looking at the society's page it says 'Celebrating the religious and traditional aspects of Sikh and Punjabi culture.'

Why people think punjabi culture and being Sikh are related, God knows.

So i was wrong, to really live up to their name and celebrate punjabi tradition we need to get them hopped up on opiates and beat the shit out of each other, and then the next day organise kirtan.

This is why I never joined a 'cultural' soc in uni.

I have heard pir buddhu shah converted to Sikhism and desired Gurus darshan, so if we go along with the understanding that they were convertees, but in janamsakhis Bhai Mardana says he desires to see Mecca and all the "turks" go there and say this and that. But we understand Bhai Mardana was muslim, there words like muhammaden to describe muslim, maybe it referred to the actual primal Muslim invaders of India people like arabs, or maybe the actual turkish people or who looked turkish were called turks. There are some other funny rehatnamas around so its hard to know if they are genuine or not. But how about Guru sahibs Na koi hindu na koi muslaman, the denial of religious label, would it be applicable?

No such thing as a Sikh convert. Sounds like the usual revisionist BS you get spoon-fed by the 'yoof' in the west.