MrDoaba

Interesting, I never knew that...I suppose thats not bad, it's quite sentimental. My mum had full-on chund when she got married.

@jkvlondon In that last picture she is doing pardah, no?

Fashion is more important that the Anand Vivaah itself. They are paying for a service which earns the Gurdwara lots of money. Customer is always right attitude. Gurdwaras allow people to bend a lot of rules for weddings. They don't want to harm their most lucrative income stream.

@dallysingh101 Articulated very precisely. On point. Unbiased. Dhanvaad Ji. Gurbar Akaal!

Arya Samaj is not the predecessor of the RSS lol even if they do cross paths today. RSS does not equal Arya Samaj or vice versa. Most Hindus think Arya Samaj are a bunch of whackjobs. They are a minority within Hinduism. The ironic part is that Arya Samaj and Singh Sabha have so much in common in terms of thinking and approach lol...they are basically the same people except for a different cause.

Doing Prachaar and proselytizing is almost the same thing. But there are some key differences. In no particular order: The is no gain or reward for the Prachaarak unlike in Abrahamic proselytizing There are no negative or deceitful tactics employed in Prachaar whereas in Abrahamic proselytizing there is Prachaar cannot be done without (asli) Sat, Daya, Nimrata, Prem whereas Abrahamic proselytizing can and is Prachaaraks do not have hankaar where as Abrahamic proselytizing is all about hankaar Prachaar makes one come to their own realisations i.e. makes you use your Buddhi but Abrahamic proselytizing does not Prachaar is not insulting or offensive where as Abrahamic proselytizing is Prachaar isn't about forcing you to accept or shoving things down your throat whereas Abrahamic proselytizing is Having said this, Prachaar can be critical, however, only when the above points are taken into consideration. Prachaar is not always flowery and can be straight up/blunt but it's never hateful or guilt-inducing. Sadly, many of todays "prachaaraks" do not differ much from the Abrahamic types. Maharaaj Ji, Guru Mata Ji Kirpa Karn. Gurbar Akaal!

£80 a month! For T.V?!!! If this isn't evidence you're on the RSS payroll then I don't know what is.

What is the maksad of your post? It has no relation to anything I stated. You have listed all the groups I mentioned and added some irrelevant captions. You missed the point entirely. Those Sampardas are on a totally different spectrum to Singh Sabha Sikhism. They have not, do not, and will not ever preach that Sikhism. They may not mention the words "ohh jehre Singh Sabhia ahh" but there are plenty of references to that revisonist-reformist thinking and they regularly preach things and do Katha which would not be considered acceptable by Singh Sabha standards by a long shot. All you have mentioned and alluded to in your captions are stereotypes of those Sampardas which you believe are not a problem. You seem to have no idea of their interpretation of Sikhi and Gurmat Sidhant and overall vision/essence of Sikhi. Nor do you have any idea of, or, experience with people of those Sampardas lol. I can't be bothered speaking on this matter with you any further. You're simply not going to get it. You wanna follow that watered down nonsense? Be my guest. It's not very popular in the west anyway amongst serious Gursikhs lol. But hey, it never hurts to do Ghar Wapsi every now and then. Did I just say Ghar Wapsi, my bad. However on the off chance you want to know what I'm talking about (for reference of course), go and spend time with people who follow Sampardaic Sikhi, do Sangat with them. Listen to Katha by them. See things from their perspective. Then you will get it. Gurbar Akaal!

Lol no. I couldn't care less what people say on twitter...who sit there all day posting nonsense. People who have a buddhi can read and find out history for themselves should they have any doubts. Do these kind of comments change facts? No. Who listens to this kind bakwaas and actually believes it? Other people who say it and people who are thick. Why do they post this stuff? To trigger you. You give far too much credit to these people. The best way to combat these people is with Gyaan and not just the typical slamming. One fact is Hinduism itself will never be united as they wish...all the philosophies which come under (khaas) Hinduism will never agree with each other. Most of these radical types actually know jack all about Hindu Mat. I don't know why you care about this sensationalist bulltutti propoganda. It's not the first time someone has claimed Guru Sahib or Sikhi to be a part of their religion lol.

You said: From which I made an inference. The groups I listed rarely have anything good to say about Singh Sabha for a number of reasons, one being because they were and are considered the opposition...the Singh Sabha marginalised them due to their own paranoia and warped view of Sikhi. Often you will also hear them try to correct the kind of thinking that has crept into the Panth...the insidious mindset which I have spoken about, the mindset which is a direct result of the Singh Sabha. They will also mock the typical Singh Sabhia approach to Sikhi, their framework, and again..the kind of thinking they introduced. Barring a few things here or there, in general these groups are against Singh Sabha, and I would go as far as to say some do actually despise "Singh-Sabhaianess". And no for Christ's sake they are not RSS. Seriously, why do you think everybody who is against Singh Sabha has something to do with the RSS? Just because they were against "Hinduism"? Being anti-Singh Sabha does not equal Sikhi = Hinduism. There are many many Sikhs who see the Singh Sabha "Sikhism" the way I do. I myself was raised with this "Sikhism" and have direct links to the original lehar. You have a personal issue with Hinduism (and I'm not saying none of it is valid) but people these days cannot even seem to accept the parts of Sikhi which overlap with Hinduism, hence, they try to remove it. There is a very deep rooted hysterical paranoia which is damaging to Sikhi. Who is responsible for this?

Apologies. Even still, by allowing the harmonium and making the exception on a large scale is technically going against Maryada. If the Raagis cannot play in Raag then that is their problem, not Sikhi's. They should endeavour to learn Raag. Obviously they don't because being a Raagi is just a way to make a quick quid or two these days...God forbid it matter what they are saying and actually learn Raag lol. Gurbar Akaal!

ਛੋੜ - Release ਚੋਰ - thief Generally people who speak these languages know what is says and how to pronounce it. Then again many of those who are not fluent and cannot pronounce ੜ might assume it says chor - thief. Shor is probably the better spelling. Transliterating Indic languages is often a mess. Gurbar Akaal!

I would re-evaluate this statement. It very much does matter if Raag is used, else Guru Sahib wouldn't have written Gurbani in Raag. I'm not against some other forms of Kirtan e.g. Dharna, but Raag should be implemented as the standard. I could mean what I say but I could sing it in the wrong tune...does that make it acceptable? Imagine if someone was doing Mool Mantar Jaap to the tune of, lets say, Jingle Bells. Would you not object?

What has conversion, and monotheism got to do with this? Few points for you: 1) I've never stated Sikhi is not monotheistic, nor have any vidhavaans of Sampardaic Sikhi. Nor has any Sikh for that matter. 2) The term "monotheism" is an overly simplistic word. Sikhi cannot be defined by western standards or terms regardless lol. 3) You clearly have no clue of the theology of Sikhi. Round of applause for the Sikhism we have today! If that's what you want to believe that's your prerogative. Although I like to think of it more like they poured tezaab to plant of Sikhi. And if by Qaum de dushman you mean the RSS and some Sikhs within the Qaum, and by some Sikhs within the Qaum you mean: Akali Nihangs (Buddha Dal, Tarna Dal, Sursingh Dal etc) Hazoor Sahib, Patna Sahib, Damdami Taksal (Mehte, Bhindran), Nirmale (Bhai Daya Singh Upsamparda & Bhai Dharam Singh Upsamparda and all branches under this banner...Nanaksar, Rara Sahib, Harkhowal, Nirmal Akhara etc), Sevapanthis, Udasis and many many more...who have all brought to the Panth a beant treasure trove of information (which everybody seems to wanna make use of nowadays), done prachaar, and actually properly done veechaar with Hindus AND actually convinced them...and who have also given countless shaheediyan..................................................... IF, to you these are, and I quote "Qaum de dushman" then you are seriously misguided and have just spoken words verging on beadbi lol. I have no interest in trying to tell you or others like you of your folly. Wish you all the best. Maharaaj Ji, Guru Mata Ji Samatt Bakhshan. Gurbar Akaal!

Ahh yes I remember clearly! You also made up a word which I still use to this day. It ended in -ni....

While not copyright infingement...this is one of the most obscene foodstuff I have seen: I mean...how would you offer this to someone in Punjabi?

This is a moot point given what I said earlier - everything about Singh Sabha et al was British/Christian lol. Their whole framework, their education, their sochni was all Abrahamic/British. Now we have their successors, the Mahaan SGPC who are doing excellent work in the preservation and promotion of Sikhi. You live in London, and I'll assume you've been to the Singh Sabha Gurdwaras dotted around there...they hardly uphold Maryada or preach Sikhi Sidhant. Most of it is watered down nonsense and skewed prachaar. That's entirely up to you but I would have to say matha tek'ing is a bit extreme lol. What about all the Sampardaic Vidhvaans and personalities who they marginalised and sidelined almost to the point of non-existence? What about the actual scholars who taught and preached Traditional Sikhi? They labeled them as wrong and fringe groups...and had the audacity to label themselves as "mainstream Sikhism" and the universal standard. Sampardaic and Puratan works were hardly known of until recently. The only thing that comes to mind is the words ਸਤਿਆ ਨਾਸ.

Fair enough, I'm not saying every single Udasi/Mahant was ucha sucha. Nor am I saying that everything was perfect at the time. The Gurdwaras that were illegally held should have been under the Panth's control. But removing one corrupt bunch only to replace it with another...what good did it do? There is still a mountain of problems, if not more than there was at that time, most of which are either indirectly or directly due to them. Can you wholeheartedly deny that Singh Sabha didn't revise and reform Sikhi in a negative way? That they didn't whitewash Sikhi? That they didn't use a Abrahamic/British framework? That they didn't attempt to change the very nature of Sikhi with their own mat? You and I are on different ends of the spectrum Sikhi-wise, that's a given, but surely I don't think even you would agree that they "saved" Sikhi and rid the Panth of so many terrible problems.

Interesting you mention "British sponsored"...people regularly claim that the Singh Sabha did not have British involvement...that might well be true, maybe it was only the Udasis but everything about Singh Sabha et al was British/Christian lol. Their whole framework, their education, their sochni was all Abrahamic/British. People can sing their praises all day long but the fact remains, the harm Singh Sabha did far far outweighs any perceived good. It was a radical and hostile revisionist-reformist campaign, tremendously insidious...and we are dealing with the kales even today.

I've always found it weird that there was never any pictures taken of these idols that were there. I mean sure I'm not denying there may have been an idol there somewhere but I'm very suspicious of the claim that Harmandir Sahib had become some sort of fully fledged Hindu Mandir. It's actually funny how some Sikhs call out other Sikhs for falling prey to the RSS agenda...yet they cannot see Singh Sabha also had an agenda; they added plenty of masala to boost their claims...it's called sensationalism.

ਲਗਦਾ ਜਰੂਰ ਐ! ਜਲੂਸ ਕੱਢ ਤਾ ਲਿਆ...ਹੋਰ ਕਿੰਨਾ 'ਕੁ ਕੱਢੂ ਤਾ ਮੈਨੂੰ ਪਤਾ ਨੀ। ? ਜਿੰਨੇ ਮਰਜੀ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ਨ ਪੁਛੋ, ਉਹ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਤਾਂ ਪੁੱਠੇ ਉੱਤਰ ਦੋਊ। ? ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਕੇਂਦੇ "ਮੂਰਖ ਸਿਉ ਨਹ ਲੂਝੁ" ? ਸੁਣਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਸਾਨੂ

ਪਰ ਕੌਣ ਮਦਦ ਕਰੇ? ਪਾਗਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਿਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਆਹ?

ਬੀਰੇ...ਕੰਧ 'ਚ ਮੱਥਾ ਕਿਓਂ ਮਾਰੀ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਐ?

Please elaborate on what this "mainstream Sikhi" is. Ranjit Dhandri, or anybody for that matter, is under no obligation to follow or believe the opposite of whatever kind of Sikhi you think he preaches but that doesn't mean that you do complete khandan mandan of Traditional/Sampardaic Sikhi. This is not the Sikh way of doing veechaar/prachaar. His extreme 180 on his viewpoints, deliberately provocative and controversial speeches/videos etc, baseless challenges, and as I said shameless khandan mandan makes many suspicious of his motives which come off as underhanded and deceitful. I'm not trying to insult him but the farce he calls prachaar/katha is just him ignorantly running off at the mouth. If he was a figure in a different arena, he would have unconditionally lost all credibilty. I mean Jeez the guy doesn't even know what Merry Christmas means lol instead confidently giving his own whacky, erroneous (but hilarious) arth...that should be an indication of this guy's avastha and level of gyaan. Ehna hankaar? Gurbar Akaal!

Dear oh dear Ajeet. That was sarcasm you plonker! Sorry you missed it. Odd you say I was "crying" though, that's what you do with your RSS/Brahmin conspiracy topics. Seems like you're the confused one...shall I write "LOL" also? Anyway, you're 100% right, Dakhni Oankaar does explain what Oankaar is. I also completely agree with your statement that like Hindus we believe this sound created the universe. But technically you're wrong when you say we don't call it Om, because neither do they. ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੧॥ Onam akẖar ṯaribẖavaṇ sār. ||1|| The Universal, Imperishable Creator Lord is the essence of the three worlds. ||1|| Onam stands "On(g) Namah", which is a Mantra used by Hindus. - ਓਅੰ ਨਮਹ The historical context of this Bani is important. Guru Sahib is explaining the Arth of Oankaar and giving Updesh. Guru Shaib is not saying "oh Pandit, you almost got it right, it's not Om, it's On(g)...you Hindus are wrong". You see, the "Hindus" did have that part (the sound) right, they always have, that isn't the issue, because surprise...Om and On(g) is the same thing. Guru Sahib is instead explaining, as you quite correctly said, what Oankaar is. More on this later. Now then, you, and others may be thinking "that doesn't make sense because Hindus say Om not On(g)/Oan....of course they're wrong!". But unfortunately (for some lol), they're not..."why not?" you may ask. It's because there is no such thing as "Om". First of all, there is no "M" sound in the character ॐ...it is not represented in the Om symbol anywhere. Secondly, if you read about the way Sanskrit and other Indian languages were and are transliterated, you would find that in many cases the nasal sound produced by Bindis and Tippis, and in this case the Chandrabindu (a type of Bindi used in the Devanagari script which indicates a strong nasal sound), have been incorrectly transliterated in the Roman script with the letter M. Even now, when you read transliterations of Sanskrit or Hindi, many times where there is a Bindu or Chandrabindu, it is transliterated as M. Over time this corrupt form has become the popular way of saying it. Obviously you're not supposed to pronounce the M as an English one though. However, having said all this one could still argue that many people, Hindus included, still pronounce Om with the English M sound...and yes many do. But many people also pronounce Oankaar differently (or wrong depending on your perspective). Those who have had Santhiya will pronounce it correctly, just as those Hindus who have studied Sanskrit and learnt to read their scriptures properly will (if you listen carefully enough to recitations you will notice this). So, the fact remains ॐ and ਓਅੰ are indeed pronounced in the same way and have the same sound! Lastly, and going back to the historical context or Uthanka of this Bani...people had started to equate ॐ/ਓਅੰ to Shiv Ji...it had become synonymous with him, hence the name "Omkareshwar" or "Lord of Om". Guru Sahib was correcting the Pandit there and giving Updesh on the true nature of Oankaar; that the true Omkareshwar is Akaal Purkh. In Madhya Pradesh stands a Gurdwara that marks Guru Nanak Dev Ji's visit called Gurdwara Sri Omkareshwar Sahib located near the main shrine dedicated to Shiv Ji. Again as we can see, the transliteration is "Omkareshwar" but in Devanagari it is spelt ओंकारेश्वर...with a bindu, of which the actual transliteration would be Onkaareshwar. Amazing what you can learn when you don't be so Hinduphobic, isn't it? Gurbar Akaal!