Jump to content

TheeTurbanator

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    255

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TheeTurbanator

  1. TheeTurbanator
    Why do you assume that I have not contemplated it when I literally posted a breakdown of it and multiple perspectives. The only reason I ask a question...is because I have failed to realize its meaning on my own. I would really appreciate if you actually read the article I linked, because it brings up your arguement about kabir adressing this to someone. I would also really appreciate if you would actually properly answer my questions instead of telling me to think about it. Thank you.
  2. TheeTurbanator
    I disagree, people should be able to vent out their opinions, thats what forums are for. If you dont like it, you can just unfollow the topic and move on.
  3. TheeTurbanator
    Which part do you want me to source? If your talking about Randhir Singhs translation, its already in the link I shared, if you havent read it, then here it is again: http://www.searchsikhism.com/islam-in-gurbani As for Bhagat Kebeer, its so obvious that he is a Sikh when you take his bani into account. Even if he and other Bhagats were around before Guru Nanak was physical born, they can still be Sikhs of the Guru, the ONE Guru (there is only one Guru as per Gurbani).
  4. TheeTurbanator
    What do you think of the aforementioned tuk? Which translation is accurate?
  5. TheeTurbanator
    Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Often times when I or many other Sikhs are debating people of other faiths, I allways hear some Sikhs bring up the line: ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹੁ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥ - Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1350 Which is translated to mean: "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false." Link to full shabad: https://www.searchgurbani.com/guru-granth-sahib/ang-by-ang I have asked many people about the true meaning behind this tuk, and most people would agree that its correctly translated, however there are some who would disagree, and translate it in a way that is directly the opposite of what the English translation means. Let me give you an example: Literal meaning breakdown ਬੇਦ = Literally meaning "Ved" referring to the Vedas from Sanatana Dharma (often called "Hinduism") ਕਤੇਬ = Literally meaning "books", however in the context of Bhagat Kabeer it means the three major abrehamic books: bible, quran, torah. ਕਹਹੁ = Literally meaning "Say" ਮਤ = Now this is the part that is often disputed. How one interprets this one word can change the entire shabads meaning, and even affect Sikhi as a whole. Often times people will say "mat" means "do not", however the same word is also used with different meanings. An example is the word "Gurmat", this word doesn't mean "Guru Dont". ਝੂਠੇ = Literally meaning "false" or "untrue" Differences in Opinion The AKJ founder Randhir Singh translated this tuk to mean that Bhagat Kabeer (who is technically not a Muslim but a Sikh as per Gurbani) is saying that this tuk is saying that the ved and abrehamic books are false, however most of the English translations that Sikhs read, seem to suggest the exact opposite. I am personalty not AKJ or any other jatha, and I disagree with some stuff Bhai Randir Singh says, however on this specific issue, I lean towards "ਮਤ" not meaning "do not" in this context. The reason for this is becuase if you take the entire shabad, as well as the life of Bhagat Kabeer, its obvious that hes criticizing Islamic practices, and fundamental ideas of the abrehamic regions, and the eastern dharmas under the blanket of Sanatana Dharma. People often bring up the counter argument that "all relgions/dharmas have some truth in them", and this is generally true, and varies on specific relgion or dharma, however in general, the reason Sikhi needed to be revitalized in the 4th age (Kal Yug "the dark age") was becuase all other religions and dharms had failed (as stated in Dasam Granth which is generally believed to be written by the Guru in his 10th temporal form). Bani also criticizes the vedas on other shabads, correct me if im wrong, but at one point it literally says that its make belief, so then why would the Guru contradict itself? Here is an example of a counterargument against the English translation of "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false." Link to counterargument: http://www.searchsikhism.com/islam-in-gurbani My questions for Sikh who are educated in Gurbani: What do you guys think of this? Do you think the English translation of Gurbani was deliberately changed to not offend others? If so, what is the correct way to interpret this tuk?
  6. TheeTurbanator
    The only type of meat I eat is Lamb thats Jhatkad by a Rehatdhari Nihang Singh using a Puratan Sarbloh Kirpan...
  7. TheeTurbanator
    Sikhi doesn’t have “cardinal sins” that’s a Christian concept. Bujjar Kurait translates to high prohibition. The only true “sin” is to forget the One and get lost in duality.
  8. TheeTurbanator
    Jus Reign is technically correct in his argument that Sikhi isn’t a religion, however I don’t think he thought about this on a deeper level, and just made a hippy edgy statement that so happens to be true once examined on a deeper level. Guru Nanak Dev Ji never intended to start a “religion”. Sikhi isn’t a “religion” it’s the Sach Dharam. This modern day “Sikhism” most people follow is an Abrahamic knockoff created by the Singh Sabah era with the help of the British, which takes away Sikhi’s universalist Dharmic framework, and replaces it with this abomination calles Sikhism. Jus Reigns statement also comes from a place of duality. For any educated Sikh, it’s obvious that Guru Nanak never “left” us, and Guru Gobind Singh Ji is just the same as Guru Nanak, who is just the same as Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The Guru is the Bani, the Bani is the Guru, and within it all the Amrit is contained. As for his comment about rocking the Turban and doing whatever HE wants, from a Sikh point of view his completely wrong. The entire point of being a Sikh is to recognize your own defincies and realize you cannot achieve anything by yourself, this is why you dedicate yourself to an enlightener (Guru) and follow his teachings. Bani time and time again tells us to destroy this false sense of self (ego) and recognize the One. Sikhi isn’t about following yourself, it’s about following the One Guru. When a Sikh, especially a “Singh” (Man who has received Khand Di Phaul) as Jus Reign claims to be, wears a Dastaar (Turban) then they are representing the Khalsa and the Gurus Saroop. Of course there are things you cannot do, like smoking, drinking (He drinks), or other immoralities because reflects back on the Khalsa. When you go out and do something retarded it reflects bad on that real Singh who keeps the 5K’s, who gets up at Amritvela, who follows Rehat, etc. The fact is that in the modern day, especially for someone who uses the Khalsa title of “Singh”, wearing the Dastaar is not a joke. It’s either you follow the Rehat and maintain proper conduct in the world, or take off the Dastaar, and remove Singh from your name (which you didn’t earn in the first place).
  9. TheeTurbanator
    They have nothing better to do with their time, so they are making stuff up to complain about.
  10. TheeTurbanator
    Take a deep breath, breath. You people are acting like Jagmeet Singh burned a puratan saroop of the Guru or something, calm down, hes just getting married.
  11. TheeTurbanator
    You are delusional
  12. TheeTurbanator
    "MHH BUT SHES NOT AMRTDHAREEEEEEE" You people are ruing the Sikh community. Seriously, shut up, and run for politics yourself, lets see how many votes you get.
  13. TheeTurbanator
    As someone who is Amritdhari, let me tell you that simply being "Amritdhari" doesn't make you a better Sikh. Look at all these SGPC politicians who have "Amritdhari" wives who lower the standard for Amrit. Its OK if someone isnt Amritdhari, its not the end of the world. We as Sikhs need to stop attacking one of our few Sikh politicians for something so stupid. Honestly. give Jagmeet Singh a brake. he got banned from India. hes being constantly attacked by others, and the last thing he needs right now is to be attacked by his own community.
  14. TheeTurbanator
    All the people who are complaining about him marrying a non-amritdhari really need to go do something else with their time
  15. TheeTurbanator
    You are trying to change the issue. You already had ample time to say no, but you waited all this time and made a rush decision that will affect your life for years. Furthermore, the excuse that you make up is just rediculous. I agree that you should abort the marriage, not for your sake, but for the Girls sake because she doesn’t deserve someone like you.
  16. TheeTurbanator
    He doesn't like this place, for reasons I have stated before. No offence to anyone here, but to outside this place, Sikh Sangat has a reputation of being a very "conservative" forum, and this is not my personal opinion. Also, I disagree with your theoretical description of him, hes not like that. If you wanna talk to him, you can create an account on r/Sikh. I think you need to go back and read my comment from last time, that wasn't my opinion, that was a friend of mine (Naamdhari supporter) who said it, I even said in my comment that it wasn't my personal opinion. As for my personal opinion on this forum, Its still too early for me to comment on things, however I didnt like the fact that a mod removed a link that I posted (to a form that I moderate) and claimed I was "targeting" someone, or even the fact that you got warned for some stupid reason and I called out that person but received no response.
  17. TheeTurbanator
    But when someone spreads false parchaar and misrepresents Bani, then thats a serious issue that we as a community need to have a discussion on. As I said before, I like to get out of my intellectual echo chamber and seek new ideas and diverse people. Ive ended up learning a lot, and its better to have a friendly debate with a friend, rather than get grilled by a person of another religion/dharma in public. I would prefer we have an intellectually stimulating discussion rather than resorting to such measures...
  18. TheeTurbanator
    Here is his response to my post:
  19. TheeTurbanator
    Mod removed my link, thanks a lot mods, you really make stuff easy!
  20. TheeTurbanator
    I definitely wasn't Dharmic "before" as in pre-2014, when I started to rediscover Sikhi, and Vaisakhi 2017 when I received initiation into the Khalsa Panth. I talked more about this in my other posts (on Reddit), but I was basically your average western Punjabi kid who doesn't care about "Sikh-ism" (abrehamic, watered down Sikhi) and frequently enjoys playing sports and video games. I didnt really care about "Sikhi-ism" or "God" (abrehamic version) until I started basics of Sikhi videos and got "radicalized" (interesting in the real Sikhi). If you frequently read my views on the internet or talk to me in real life, you will defiantly notice that I question every aspect of Sikhi and try to bring it back to the authentic primary sources, however I dont go as far as "missionaries", although I have been called one before by some Nihangs, but then got called a "radical" by progressive liberal SJW Sikhs. I disagree with a lot of ideas that were artificaly inserted into the Sikh psyche by the Singh Sahaba, and their creation of modern day "Sikhism", however I do acknoledge that they had noble intentions, but went a bit to far. With that being said, I dont give the "Puratan" rehats a pass either, and view some of their stuff as very cultural based (no red, cant be friends with muslims, etc), and do see a "hindu" influence in some stuff they do. However, I do value the universal "Dharmic" framework over the Singh Sabah Abrahamic knockoff of modern day "Sikhism". Overall, I like to take a balanced approach and gradually develop my views inline with Gurmat. I definitely do think similar to my friend, however I also take history and rehat into account, but weigh the value of the SGGSJ as way more. The SGGSJ is a great tool. however its easy to misrepresent it and take it out of context if you dont look at the 200 year history of the Guru who himself showed how to apply the teachings of the Guru. My friend is an ex-Muslim "Sikh" who doesn't follow the Singh Sahab school of though and knows how to fluently read and write not only gurmukhi, but the ancient version in SGGSJ. Hes a decent guy, and there are only a few subjects we disagree on (such as him thinking Muslims/Hindus can be "Sikh" as per SGGSJ). Hes actually he;ping me do my commentary on Anand Sahib, chill guy. Im not sure exactly what he uses, but there are very convincing and straightforward arguments one can make. Im not sure exactly what he uses, but I guess he would bring up the "having one wife he is celibate" line. I dont want to misrepresent his views, but hes basically saying that adultery, and polygamy is bad, but its ok to have sexual relations in the context of a long term relation that isnt married. and that for Khalsa, the no pre-marital rule is clear, however for non-khalsa it doesn't apply, just like the 5 ks dont apply. As I said before, he doesn't regard anything outside SGGSJ, he only focuses on it. He also uses Bhai Nanad Lal Ji as an example to say its ok for Sikhs for to receive Khand Di Phaul (not to be confused with Amrit which is only obtained by Bani, and cannot just be drank in simple terms).
  21. TheeTurbanator
    Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ. He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married. Example 1: Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274 ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥ Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr || ਪਰ means other ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife Example 2: Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013 ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥ Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others. Context: Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms. The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him? In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged. Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share!
  22. TheeTurbanator
    But he didnt even say anything wrong...
  23. TheeTurbanator
    Sikhs are declining in birthrates in Punjab, and will soon lose the majority to the Hindus. Most of the "Sikhs" that we do have are basically Punjabi Hindus or those who just identity as "Sikh", and dont meet the definition of a "Sikh" as per Gurbani.
  24. TheeTurbanator
    Please watch the video before you read my response: MY RESPONSE: Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! As someone who actually supports the concept of an independent state run on Sikh values (Khalistan), I don’t think that songs like this do anything for positive the movement. We need less gang bang hood type of music videos, and we need actual change in terms of drug addiction, female infanticide, low birth rates, lack of education, etc, all of which will actually help the Sikh community, rather than a music video in which we are waving around guns and talking about assassinating people. They put videos of Baba Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, but don’t realize that whenever people came to him asking to join the movement, the first thing he said was to pick up a Gutka before the Gun, because the real power of Sikhi comes from Bani. Baba Bhindranwale also never boasted or showed off, and and neither did he all of a sudden start demanding a separate state, but he primarily focused on major issues in the panth, and used violence as a last resort. Our community has a habit of ignoring the important humanitarian and intellectual work of sevadaars and mainly focusing on the action part. People always talk about Baba Deep Singh as a physical warrior, but forget how he had an entire life of studying Bani that led up to his legendary Shaheedi. We all like to talk about Khalistan, yet forget the main issues affecting the panth like drug addiction, farmer debt, suicide, casteism, sexism, lack of education, low birthrates, etc. The Panth doesn't have the infrastructure to build or support another country, and before we start boasting about end goals, we should at least primarily focus on our main issues. A common response that I get is that this is just a music video, and that it at least does a good job of reminding people about important issues, however I would argue that there are better ways of talking about the issue of Sikh independence without waving around weapons and acting like a gang. The last thing the Panth, and the Khalsitani movement needs right now is even more bad publicity, and videos like this only reinforce the common held belief that the main advocates of Khalistan were from the west. PS: At least they didn’t put a communist flag in this video, it was a decent song tho. TL;DR: Can we focus more on Bani and less on wearing Kaali ? Thanks! Question for the Sangat: What do you guys think of this video?
  25. TheeTurbanator
    Waheguru is the TRUE Moderator of this world
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

  I accept