Jump to content

Are certain names against gurmat?


Is it right for sikhs to have names like sexy or jatt or jatti with respect to GURMAT not personal opinion?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      8


Recommended Posts

Vaheguroo Ji ka Khalsa Vaheguroo Ji ki fateh

Please take part in the poll. This is not intended for offense but just for my curiousity over a matter.

Basically a discussion has arose as to what names are reasonable in the light of gurmat...

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 feel that by calling themselves caste names they are going against one of the main aspects of sikhi which is there is no caste...

also those names which are like sexy are there to incite kaam and show ego.

saach kehai so bikhai samaanai ||

If someone tells him the truth, he looks upon that as poison.

dass will provide 3 definitions of sexy from different dictionaries

1) Dictionary.com - Arousing or tending to arouse sexual desire or interest.

2)Merriam webster online dictionary - sexually suggestive or stimulating

3)Cambridge advanced dictionary - sexually attractive

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...

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.

And if you feel that I have done something oulth to gurmat than please correct this moorakh also.

saach kehai so bikhai samaanai ||

If someone tells him the truth, he looks upon that as poison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ sorry but I disagree. I am a Jatt, and I dislike the way people try and say that "Jatts are high caste and others are low". But at the same time, why should I be ashamed to say that I am a Jatt. For example, Canadian_Jatti has (to the best of my knowledge) never said anything bad or offensive about other jaats, so how does she see you as lower caste Orchids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well most jatts say they are high caste and recieve others as being low..

why be proud of stupid things such as caste?

its mostly jatts who go around saying meh jatt hai

do u see khatris or any1 going meh khatri aaa?

big deal if some1s jatt or any other caste

jatts even have their own forum

own t shirts saying jatts do it

cars with reg name JATT

aswell as other merchendising..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a quote from the SGGSJ

The temple priests have doubts about this, and everyone is furious with me. Calling me low-caste and untouchable, they beat me and drove me out; what should I do now, O Beloved Father Lord? || 1 || If You liberate me after I am dead, no one will know that I am liberated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Recognize the Lord’s Light within all, and do not consider social class or status; there are no classes or castes in the world hereafter. || 1 || Pause || He Himself acts, and He Himself inspires us to act. He Himself considers our complaints. Since You, O Creator Lord, are the Doer, why should I submit to the world? || 2 || You Yourself created and You Yourself give. You Yourself eliminate evil-mindedness; by Guru’s Grace, You come to abide in our minds, and then, pain and darkness are dispelled from within. || 3 || He Himself infuses love for the Truth. Unto others, the Truth is not bestowed.. If He bestows it upon someone, says Nanak,

i dont regognize any caste i only recognize gods light

i pass gods judgement to all those who consider me low caste

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, most Jatts do perceive themselves to be 'high-caste'. But that doesn't mean that those Jatts who see every jaat as equal (such as myself) shuld then be ashamed to call themselves Jatt. If anything, maybe khatri's, tharkans, etc should also start wearing t-shirts and getting personalised number plates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, most Jatts do perceive themselves to be 'high-caste'. But that doesn't mean that those Jatts who see every jaat as equal (such as myself) shuld then be ashamed to call themselves Jatt. If anything, maybe khatri's, tharkans, etc should also start wearing t-shirts and getting personalised number plates.

that would suck if every1 had number plates

the only way 2 get rid of the caste system is if u lot allowed ur children to mix marry into other castes that will eliminate the caste factor..

not most nearly all jatts i have come across view themselves as some kind of perfect person..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm... well, beast is a jatt. and i'm pretty sure he doesn't think he's some sorta "mahaan" being or other. so there's one jatt that u HAVE come across who isn't like that. and i'm sure there are others around here that don't advertise their jaat just cuz they don't find it relevant.

as per the question. ppl can do whatever they want. but wether it's right or not... tha's a hard question to answer cuz there're so many perspectives to it. if someone chooses to perceive themselves in a certain way, u can't really change it. but i don't really think there's anything wrong with it as long as u can remember that what you see isn't their entire persona, just a small bit. i try not to look at the names and labels associated with ppl but rather at what they say and what kinda ideas they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm... well, beast is a jatt. and i'm pretty sure he doesn't think he's some sorta "mahaan" being or other. so there's one jatt that u HAVE come across who isn't like that. and i'm sure there are others around here that don't advertise their jaat just cuz they don't find it relevant.

as per the question. ppl can do whatever they want. but wether it's right or not... tha's a hard question to answer cuz there're so many perspectives to it. if someone chooses to perceive themselves in a certain way, u can't really change it. but i don't really think there's anything wrong with it as long as u can remember that what you see isn't their entire persona, just a small bit. i try not to look at the names and labels associated with ppl but rather at what they say and what kinda ideas they have.

nicely said :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sardar Moderator Singh

Jassa,

You mentioned Ramgharia in the same sentence and context as Jatt -so by this token, the "title" Ramgharia given to Jassa Singh and other leading exponents of the Ramghara "Misl" is by your argument "Anti-Gurmat" -please explain so we understand fully your stance.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaheguroo Ji ka Khalsa Vaheguroo Ji ki fateh

Please take part in the poll. This is not intended for offense but just for my curiousity over a matter.

Basically a discussion has arose as to what names are reasonable in the light of gurmat...

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 feel that by calling themselves caste names they are going against one of the main aspects of sikhi which is there is no caste...

Akali Nihang Jassa Singh Ramgarhia created the Ramgarhia Misl (alliance), which consists of Tarkhan/Mistry, Jatt, Khatri, Lohar.Ramgarhia Misl is not a caste, it is an alliance of castes from different backgrounds.But because Tarkhans are in the majority in the Misl, people think that Ramgarhia Misl is a "Tarkhan caste".

It is a misl.Akali Nihang Jassa Singh Ramgarhia did not do anything against Gurmat, when he created the Ramgarhia Misl.Over and out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Wah. Impressive. I should admire your practical/down-to-life approach. And yes. I don't see anything bad in names like sexy singh.. atleast for nicknames. Almost same views goes for caste names.. If you agree that caste exist.. u should not raise any doubts about using names... It's personal choice.

Enjoy the life.. Live it!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caste ID's should be banned from all Sikh forums! Funnily enough i lashed out against Sikhs who make caste ID's on another forum only a couple of days ago.

Im glad to see this issue is being brought here also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 agree, partitions aren't necessarily bad. but the caste system is specifically a social stratification system. it was made not only to create divisions between different kinds of people, but to also rate/grade people on being superior or inferior based on what group they belong to. that's what's so wrong about the caste system and that's why it becomes problematic. the entire point is to encourage equality and humanity. the caste system doesn't really do this because it's entire purpose is to do the exact opposite.

as for Jassa's original question. i don't think Gurmat says anything about people having certain names, which is why i for one had to present my own personal views on this. let me know if you ever find something in Gurmat that concretely says that it's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

then that is how i will live my life...

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.

saach kehai so bikhai samaanai ||

If someone tells him the truth, he looks upon that as poison.

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.

YOur only response to everything is fanaticism...

fanatic

adj : marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea

I only wish that i was a fanatic. Maybe it is my maare karam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...
(emphasis mine)

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...