guv

hmmm... what did u think?

i notice u didn't come & intro ur online alter ego to me

okay, the point of having a "perfect ideal" is to aspire to it. not kill yourself if you can't make it. if you're doing that, then you're engaged in an unhealthy internal dialogue.

secondly, what's so bad about having debates about what "perfect" constitutes? if you don't discuss your own ideas with others regardless of what they're about, how do expect to get any change or betterment?

in an ideal world u would be completely right... however, unfortunately this is not an ideal world. having an internalised image of perfection with the intention of using it as a target in life is fine, but all too often that image of perfection is used to clobber others who are seen as not living up to it. u also have the possible situation where the person being eulogised may have had one or two shortcomings. if they are seen as perfect, then their shortcomings would be seen as such too.

regarding the discussion on what "perfect" is... once again, in an ideal world where everyone listens to each other with humility... discussions are feasible. but what is all too often the case is that either side sees the others views as a personal attack (as the "perfect ideal" is in their own image). ermmm... there's meant to be more to this, but i can't think straight coz i'm sleepy... will finish it off later.

i was thinking about this topic in relation to another today.

after reading a review of a film called 'the woodsman' about the problems a paedophile faces trying to rejoin society, i began to think about what drives someone down that path. now what if, just as most argue homosexuality is, paedophilia is also something that one cannot help... what if it is a genetic predisposition. if it is, then are we not discriminating against someone's inherent sexual preferences?

i can think of no solution to this problem. i can in no way see any form of paedophilia being condoned... yet that means u must discriminate against a group of ppl. hmmmm.... :?

it was yesterday... u missed it... dumbass!!!

before anyone thinks they've missed the talk... it was a joke. :roll:

What happens now? Is it all over, or will the prosecuters take it to a higher court? Was this trial in the highest Canadian court?

i'm not certain, but i believe they cannot be tried again unless other evidence emerges.

if they had been found guilty, they would have the opportunity to appeal to a higher court.

i'm not sure whether they were guilty or not... to be honest, i haven't paid much attention to the case.

what are everyone elses opinions? guilty or not guilty?

will find out 2mrw

oookay... but tha's what i was talkin about. the fact that it might seem necessary for us to view the dead as being perfect in order to challenge ourselves to be more than what we are. hence, the inspiration bit.

am i becoming confusing again?! :?

that's a valid point of view... but then we have the issue of what is 'perfect'? each person will see the dead in their own image. which can lead to a host of problems (eg some ppl find it offensive that guru gobind singh ji had 3 wives, others find it offensive that some try to say he only had 1 wife). also, over-eulogising past figures can lead to other problems like ppl aiming too high in life & then beating themselves up when they cannot live up to the image.

damn it i m soo dumb

must resist urge to cuss nthirty!!!.... LOL!

i just checked the original site, the links seem to work. so get 'em quick.

u read it wrong. house of lords is where they had the celebration... unless guru gobind singh ji came to england 400 years ago!!

u going?

if a brahmgyani is one with god, and still subject to hukam... does this mean that god himself is bound in part by his/her/it's own hukam?

that's a meaningless question... it's like saying that u are bound by ur own will. ur will is ur choice (without getting into the whole fate / free will thing) therefore it's what u choose & not a restriction.

hence they are with god

if they are with god, does that not suggest duality.

er... no he hasn't... & he admitted so himself, because he's been busy...

hs, are u reading a different thread to the rest of us?? :? :roll:

now that again is an example of how close-minded u are. u urself said...

u seem adamant in ur convictions... yet u HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT!! :shock: hs, u consistently see everyone elses views that contradict or question urs as a sign of close-mindedness... yet u base ur own views on it seems nothing other than blind faith. u also accuse pheena of mistranslating bani without even looking at it urself. someone with an open mind would have read the bani to see what guru ji was saying, instead of simply rejecting it.

Can anyone summarise all the above in a couple of easy to read words?

i'll try...

sexy: hi sukhi. who gives a f*ck bout gays. what about w*nkers?

guv: sharrap

sexy: hi sukhi. being gay is trendy.

sukhi: i miss u. i give a f*ck bout gays... nobody stops w*nkers.

hope that clears things up.

er... that was about it!... just that a change in circumstances meant that humans had to adapt very quickly, having to rely on each other & so social interactions in order to survive.

those circumstances could be sudden climatic change, disease, over-hunting leading to lack of food, competition from another species, overcrowding, migration etc.

one example of what i'm talking about is if the humans had to move out of africa to milder climates where the wearing of animal skins was vital to survival. some tribes may have lived near the coasts where fishing would bring them plentiful food, but a lack of larger animals meant they had no access to clothing. other tribes may have ventured further inland, where larger animals provided them with clothing but not a constant supply of food especiallly during the winter months. the two sets of tribes would therefore need to rely on each other to survive. the new complex social interaction of trade may have jump-started the emergence of complex language.

that is just a hypothesis i've come up with... but it's the one that makes most sense to me at the moment.

sukhi... i think u've missed the point sexy was making. he's not talking about what the gurus & other comtemporary sikhs were like, but the modern day perception of what they were like.

as the old adage goes... don't speak ill of the dead... follow that for long enough & the dead have never done anything wrong... they are the image of perfection... & so, an ideal that can never be attained. in some ways it can be a good thing... setting ur targets high to push urself, but all too often the unattainable results in ppl trying to do the impossible... leading to all sorts of problems like sexual repression, social exclusivity etc.

very insightful post sexy... of course it's only a matter of time before we become the ideal for our descendents!

i. A Sikh should, in no way, harbour any antipathy to the hair of the head with which his child is born. He should not temper with the hair with which the child is born. He should add the suffix "Singh" to the name of his son & "Kaur" to the name of his daughter. A Sikh should keep the hair of his sons and daughters intact.

http://sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_four.html

U'VE POSTED THIS BEFORE... & IT GOES AGAINST WHAT U'VE BEEN ADVOCATING. IT SHOWS THAT IF SOMEONE KEEPS THE HAIR OF THEIR CHILDREN INTACT THEY ARE SIKH WHETHER THEY KEEP THEIR OWN HAIR OR NOT.

KF, WILL U ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I POSTED EARLIER OR NOT? IF NOT, AT LEAST LET ME KNOW SO I CAN STOP WASTING MY TIME.

SORRY ABOUT WRITING IN CAPS, BUT I'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OTHER MEANS OF GETTING A RESPONSE OUT OF U.

ONCE AGAIN... & FOR THE LAST TIME, THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED U EARLIER 2 OR 3 TIMES...

kf, incase u lost my questions in the long post above... here they are again... i look forward to ur reply.

Pheena that's a beatiful shabad but from my understanding of this shabad. this shabad was said after the union not before.

This tells us that "Maryada is there to help you to union yourself with Vahiguroo" but Maryada is not Vahiguroo ...so after the union with Vahiguroo you don't need maryada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I won't judge for even second of who is united or not with Vahiguroo on this forum but this is something everyone needs to look within themselves and ask "if this shabad" applies to them or not.

just a little confused by what u've written there nthirty... is ur interpretation of the shabad that one needs to keep kesh in order to break free of duality & only once they have become one with god does it make no difference whether they keep kesh or not? just trying to clarify.

pheena - i believe khalsa fauj has answered your question already, don't just think everything is black an white the ggs is written in poetry if you aint good at that then you will have a problem understanding the true meaning behind those words.

kf hasn't answered the question... he said...

I am not getting fooled. I know what the Shabad means. I don't have time to translate it to English right now. Those interested. Read the real Gurmukhi translations.

i've read the gurmukhi translation kf linked to... & it's very similar to the english translation pheena provided... except the translator infers that the references to long hair & baldness are to different types of sadhus... some who keep dreadlocks & others who shave their head bald. hs, what is ur interpretation?

For myself i don't need to find the exact words were it explicty says you have to keep your hair although there is afew quotes stating you should from the ggs even on this thread, which is as much as i need to know that i've made the rite decision.

those are the words of a closed mind... which is especially poignant as u urself said...

The Khalsa Fauj - i dont know what more you can say to convince the monaey on this thread, specially when there so stuck to there views

it appears u may have been talking about urself. i have another question for u hs... is there anything anyone could say to u on this thread that could convince u that a mona could be considered a sikh? if not, i don't think there is any point in anyone trying to have a debate with u on the matter.

my bad!

wicked post veer ji once again ... vah ji vah

isn't pheena fem? :roll:

someone plz explain why they keep kes before I whip everyone on SA.

'coz it looks sexy! 8)

kf, incase u lost my questions in the long post above... here they are again... i look forward to ur reply.

now my question is, do u accept the rehat as laid out at www.sgpc.net ?

if ur answer is no, then do u retract ur statement above? & if so which rehat is the tukh referring to?

if ur answer is yes, then please could u provide a reference as to where in the rehat it states that one must keep kesh in order to be classified as a sikh?

from the extracts of the rehat provided earlier in the thread by urself & beast it appears that the criteria for being a sikh are:

belief in one god, the gurus, their teachings & amrit sanchar, non-allegiance to another faith & keeping their childrens hair.

there is no mention that one must keep hair to be a sikh. kf, do u agree with this definition of a sikh? if not, why not?

oh well damn...that makes perfect sense...thank you so much wise and great shiny metal ass.

bow in awe before the great shiny metal ass baby!!

I think we've heard enough evidence by guv and crew that someone with cut hair can be a Sikh

i have given no evidence... i've only asked questions. (& made stupid comments about nikker!)

what motivates you lot to keep kes? what were your reasons? please share cos Im confused which side ur on dudes.

i'm am on no side. i'm not a fan of labels... na koi hindu, na koi mussalman. so in my eyes this whole debate is meaningless. i am however very interested in finding out about other ppls point of view, especially when it comes to religious boundaries (hence my questions are directed towards those with the strictest boundaries).

i think ghost said it well when he said:

A Sikh = Universal = Human (+ others) = Learner. Everyone is a Sikh. Whether Munn Sikh (follower of ego) or Gur Sikh (follower of Guru), everyone is a Sikh.

By Universal, Sikhi is not an exclusive club, it is for everyone. Let us not turn our backs to anyone, exemplified by the Humanity shown by Bhai Ghanaya.

the way i see it is if you have two sikhs one mona and a proper singh which is amritari etc and say they both are decent in terms of humanity' date=' which one would be more excepted by god, i know which one i think.[/quote']

i wouldn't have a clue... i would never dream of being able to know how god would choose to 'judge' someone. it is beyond my puny intellect. hum nayee chunge, burra nahee koe. hs, if u are able to know god's 'thoughts' then i prostrate myself before u... for u are a much greater soul than i.

http://dessent.net/btfaq/

long read, but very extensive & thorough guide

hahahhaha... are u sure u're not talking about urself?

deservice

it's disservice...

i quite agree with u sexy, taking the concept of equality to its logical extreme results in exactly the ugly discrimination it sought to remove, in the form of positive discrimination.

but u seem to be arguing against something that isn't there. the thread is whether homosexuality is an issue in sikhism & was started due to comments made on another thread. as u have said urself, it is not an issue... but u seem to also have a problem with someone asking the question itself. :?

so u guys think that chance or random accidents are what gave rise to complex language?

imho, i reckon it had to do with something to do with a drastic change in the environment/surroundings, which lead to our ancestors having to fundamentally adapt to survive. for example having to learn to trade with other tribes to get what they needed.