BhForce

Right. Calling a hair cutter "amritdhari" is wrong. They are not "amritdhari", they are "patit".

By the Khalsa panth. Guru Sahib gave the Guruship to the ongoing institution of the Panj Piyare. They carry on the tradition of maintaining Khalsa rehit.

Hi, and welcome, Christian girl! OK, that is reasonable. In order to proceed, could you please state whether your goal is merely to understand the people who live around you? For example, if I lived in an area with a lot of Jews (say New York City), I might be interested in learning about their religion. But I have no interest in converting them. So I would have no ulterior motive. Now the question is: Do you have any such motive? I.e., is your motivation for learning about Sikhs to learn about (from your perspective) possible shortcomings compared to Christianity in order to convert Sikhs to Christianity? I'm sorry I have to ask, but the fact is that the vast majority of Christians think that it is their obligation to convert everyone on Earth to Christianity. Once we have that out of the way, we can proceed to your question, which I will answer.

What you're "supposed" to do is this: Say it before the other person says it. I.e., don't be the one who thinks he's more important than the other, that they will say Fateh to you. There's a sakhi which states that Guru Gobind Singh ji keeps the Sikh who says Fateh first on his right, the one who responds on his left, and the one who doesn't respond at all at his back. There's a poem quoted by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha which says you're supposed to show your "32" (i.e. teeth, i.e., smile), and press together your hands. You should bow your head. There's no need to be synchronized with them. The best is to say the entire Fateh after they do. But I think being synchronized would be OK. Yes, you should be loud. Fateh is not for sissies. Those people are fools. If they don't want to say the Fateh, they simply shouldn't. It's a desecration of the Fateh, which are words from Guru ji's mouth. You shouldn't say Fateh to such people. If someone says "Why Fateh" you should either respond "Good Morning" like the goras do, or you should tell the why it is that the Guru blessed us with the Fateh. It's to instill courage in cowards and win victories: ਸਚ ਫਤਹਿ ਬੁਲਾਈ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੀ ਜੀਤਿਓ ਰਣ ਭਾਰਾ। (Vaar Bhai Gurdas II) "They said the true Fateh of the Guru and won the huge war." But cowards who can't even bring themselves to say the full Fateh because they think "loki ki kehange" people will think they're a fanatic can never win any victory. They're the type bootlick and fawn over our killers and detractors.

Is there a single place where the "original" text can be seen?

I encourage everyone to read through Purewal's document http://www.purewal.biz/Gurbani_and_Nanakshahi_Calendar.pdf It is fairly dripping with arrogance and stupidity. By stupidity, I mean the stupidity of a technical person who thinks the entire world should revolve around them and their Brand New Idea. He gives 3 reasons for the Purewal calendar (direct quotes): "We have given up the Bikrami calendar for the following reasons: 1. Its months do not have a permanent relationship with the seasons as mentioned in Gurbani. 2. We should have our own calendar. A calendar is a part of the identity of a Nation. 3. The lunar-date system is not very practical. For celebrations of important days we should use a calendar based on the solar tropical year. The Bikrami calendar is luni-solar based on the sidereal year." By his own assertion, if any of these 3 reasons are knocked out, the reason for the Purewal calendar is knocked out. Reason #2 is simply ridiculous. By the way, he says passive-aggressively in response to the question of why didn't Guru Nanak ji just create a different calendar, "Neither did they invent the telephone, the car, airplanes, and other modern appliances like TV’s, Computers etc." Except that that's not the reasoning given in reason #2. In reason #2, he's not saying that the Purewal calendar is an incremental advance or innovation (like computers). He's saying that it's essential to the identity of a Nation. So which is is it? Is the Purewal calendar essential to the identity of the Sikh nation, or can it exist without the Purewal calendar? The fact is, the Panth did exist for 500 years without the Purewal calendar. Which means it can continue to exist without the Purewal calendar. Which means that the Purewal calendar is not essential to the identity of a the Sikh Nation. Secondly, he is a computer engineer. That might qualify him to be an amateur astronomer. But reason #2 is a value judgement which does not have to do with the technicalities of calendar science. That's how he and his fans are bamboozling the Panth, and I object to it. (Note that I am not talking about the technicalities of the Earth orbiting the Sun, etc., here.) He is taking his expertise in writing computer programs and claiming to therefore have the right to impose a value statement (that a calendar is essential to the identity of a Nation) on the Panth.

That's a possibility. If that's the case, it's another example of throwing the Panth into chaos for, really, nothing.

That's fine (that you're focused on technicalities). Re: Purewal's ego. I didn't necessarily claim that, but I said it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that was the reason for the rush. If it wasn't then let him state so live. Based merely on technicalities, he could have submitted his report and that would be that. The rush was to get his name in the history books, as far as I can see. Can anyone else tell me what the rush was?

So, not satisfied with starting up one fight in the Panth (regarding calendars), he wanted/wants to start up another: the birthday of Guru Nanak Dev ji. Maybe he's the greatest astronomer in the world (he's not, I believe he's an engineer, no?). But he doesn't have a lick of common sense or sense of priorities for this Panth. So all of our problems (Sikhs becoming patit, violent attacks on Sikhs, misrepresentation, drug and alcohol use, Christian targeting of us, police torture, 1984 issues, etc.) that's all going to be magically solved if we start celebrating Guru Nanak Dev ji's birthday in April? That's why I want him to come into the public to answer questions from the Panth, and not hide behind a bunch of technical PDFs.

Well, there's an additional consideration: That is that from his perspective, all that matters is getting his name into the pages of Sikh history. What he did not consider is what the wider Panth needs at this time and what benefit it provides at what cost. That should have been something the Jathedars were supposed to consider, but I believe they did not. I believe the benefits are meager and the cost has been high (division in the Panth). I fail to see why it was so important to ram through Purewal's calendar when we already faced with so many divisions (long/short Rehras, Amrit banis, Ragmala, Dasam Granth Sahib, nature of Naam, etc.). Why is it that we needed yet another division? Leaving aside all that Purewal may claim as the reason for his calendar, I want to know from him: What was the emergency? It's hard to see what other emergency there was than getting his calendar passed in his lifetime so that people could praise him during his funeral as "The Father of the Nanakshahi Calendar".

I believe that this is inadequate to the situation. For a change that would (ideally) be in place for tens of thousands of years (even 100,000), I simply do not see what the rush was to impose the Purewal calendar in a few years (not that that those years were spent in 24x7 meetings, rather just a few meetings here and there). The entire rushed process set up the possibility (and now reality) for the pushback. Also, the fact is that Purewal is man like any other, and he suffers from kam, krodh, lobh moh, hankar like the rest of us. It's not unreasonable to think that his desire to have his calendar approved in the timeline of years and not decades was based on his personal ego to be proclaimed through the ages as the creator of the Sikh calendar, just like Pope Gregory is for the Western calendar. I want to see his face, hear his voice, and listen to him engaging in discussion one-on-one with Col. Nishan and others and to answer their points directly, and not buried within a sentence or two of 10s of pages of PDFs on his website.

For a man that wants the entire Panth to follow him, I have never seen this man reveal his face in a large forum. If he wants the entire Panth follow his whims, he should have gone out into the Panth to build consensus and allow for people to criticize his "magnum opus". It is simply not right for him to go about what he did in the way he did it. He comes up with his desired calendar, goes through a secretive process to impose something on the Panth without the traditional sarab-samati (consensus), and then he wants to complain that people don't like it? If that's the way he wants to play it, he shouldn't be surprised at all if people attack him. Meanwhile, the only defense left for the vast majority of Purewal calendar supporters is to call supporters of the existing calendar "Brahmanists". Purewal should be man enough to do his own defense instead of leaving up to his fans (who probably don't know much about calendars).

OK, now you have credibility and we can have a discussion. Though I might not have time to fully flesh it out, might follow up as time allows.

This. The point of all that shastar talk and the bloody fights (some with the Mughals some with demons) is to build up the courage to get up off your sofa (or manja) and fight. Power is not holding a gun to every person in the country. Power is based on making everyone in the country consider the consequences of their actions. This is how police forces enforce the law. They do not have one policeman per civilian following him around.

The answer is that the ultimate source of gian (knowledge/wisdom) is God. People (prophets, avatars, rishis, etc.) obtain some level of gian. That's "Hinduism", or the Abrahamic religions. That wasn't perfect, though. The Vedas are not perfect. Guru Granth Sahib ji is perfect, however. The source was the same source (God), but Guru Sahib had a direct line to God because they were God. Your Hindu friend doesn't have to accept this, but that's what we believe. This also answers the question of similarities between "Hinduism" and Sikhism. The fact is, they got some things right.

OK, bro, I admit you are honest. Yeah, it is relevant because huge numbers of Purewal calendar supporters (it is not a Nanakshahi calendar) claim that the Bikrami calendar is a Brahmanist calendar. You might not be in that category (if you are, say so). The discussion of the calendar favored by Guru Nanak ji vs the calendar favored by Pal Singh Purewal can only proceed when proponents of the latter admit that 1) the entire Sikh panth has been using the former for the last three centuries and 2) that does not make them Brahminists.

1. You do know that that "Nanakshahi" calendar was not created by Guru Nanak Dev ji, right? 2. Secondly, could you please inform us what calendar Guru Nanak the Shah used?

Explain it by saying that they are a sect of Sikhs who practice beheadings so they can come after the jihadis. lol

What's the point of trying to tell her this? Are we expecting her to leave Christianity for Sikhism? Secondly, you gave no context for what it is you are quoting. People posted above that Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Sikh scriptures, so it would be quite confusing to read what you wrote below. For anyone who doesn't know, the quote is from a biography of the late saint Harnam Singh, a saint of the last half of the 20th century written by his successor. Finally the quote does not say that Jesus follows Guru Sahib's path, it merely claims that Jesus wants his followers to follow the Guru's path.

Seriously, bro, that's the reason? If someone makes up a religion with 20 leaders, will it be 2X as powerful as Sikhism? This is an important point. Even Christians don't claim that Jesus Christ wrote the Bible. Because it has a 100 or so more pages? That's an opinion that we might have as Sikhs, but what use is it to say to a Christian? Yes, that's true. None of the New Testament is really meant to be sung.

Thanks for the kind words. That's good, no one is trying to convert you. Most of the basic moral teachings are similar. The mode of worship or of salvation has differences.

One thing you have to watch for is people who "heard something" and are passing it on to you. The fact is no such event occurred (i.e., temptation). It's impossible to prove a negative, so if your friend insists that it did occur, have her provide the references and post it on this site so we can evaluate it. I suppose it may be possible she may be referring to the time that Guru Arjan Dev ji was being tortured to martyrdom, but that's simply not the same thing as being tempted by the Devil. Not as in an entity that stands against God. There is something called Maya, which is the attachment that humans have for the world.

Sikhs usually speak of prophets/founders/teachers of other religions like Jesus, Moses, Krishna, etc. with respect using honorifics like "ji" etc. That doesn't mean they believe in them as their saviors. There's no mention of Jesus in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

No, continue to do what you're doing. What you're doing is basically presenting one possible future. It's in our hands to possibly prevent that doom. It's possible we may not be able to fully prevent it, but as Sikhs, we're supposed to die trying. Trying to engage with the world and make the best possible future for our children is not lack of faith in God. It's God that gives us strength to face the monsters (like the Mughals).

So you're OK with mankind plunging into darkness for a few centuries? And we're to console ourselves with "it'll be just fine, 300 years after my child is dead"? I don't think you should accuse him of faithlessness in God. To the contrary, the Western liberals who are OK with jihadis in their midst (to the extent of giving them housing benefits) are the ones who don't have faith in God. It's exactly the faith of @MisterrSingh and others in God that seems to me to lead to their desire to confront the threat as opposed to just going along to get along.