dallysingh101

95% of Sikhs living stupid lifestyle?

33 posts in this topic

He makes valid arguments.

I tell you what's worrying: the coalescing of a certain brand of western liberalism with the exclusively progressive aspects of the Sikh faith, that conveniently eschews the complex and grey areas of Sikh philosophy. It's practically a forcible rewriting of our history. There's something quite insidious transpiring right under our noses.

Edited by MisterrSingh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully our people don't get into the same collapse the Hindu Kahashatriya people did where all they did was nothing. (Daas may be ignorant due to having not knowing many Sikh people, but what percent actually makes Pakhand in the Bhangra crowd).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

He makes valid arguments.

I tell you what's worrying: the coalescing of a certain brand of western liberalism with the exclusively progressive aspects of the Sikh faith, that conveniently eschews the complex and grey areas of Sikh philosophy. It's practically a forcible rewriting of our history. There's something quite insidious transpiring right under our noses.

I believe this process started during colonialism. Anglos pretty quickly started to emphasise their perceived analogous relationship between Sikhs and Hindus as similar to that of Protestants and Roman Catholics. Many prominent people amongst our lot brought into this hook, line and sinker. And so began this strange relationship where influential apnay projected Sikhi through the lens of their imperial masters creating 'Sikhism'. So this is no new process but the culmination of a process that has been going on for at least a century.  

It explains a lot. Especially the subtle sidelining of Dasam Granth. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagraj bhai ji (of BoS) points out that Anglos played some weird Jedi mind tricks on our lot (like 'Sikhs don't preach and convert!") and we quickly brought into it despite our own Sikh culture and history clearly being the very opposite direction. It's the same with all the 'race' theory crap our people brought into. I mean it so obviously goes against Sikh conceptualisations of Sikh society but many of our lot jumped on it because it made them feel 'special'. It's really cringeworthy to see how our lot are so easy to manipulate like this. And the other side must be in hysterics at our gullibility (I don't know about half devil but 'half child' for real!) 

We're only seeing people starting to question a lot of obvious bull5hit put in our heads now. When any outsiders (like the English) can come in and in effect set the very fundamentals of our faith, and that too for decades/centuries, we're clearly in deep trouble and missing something VERY important. 

How many things that we consider as Sikh are actually Anglo additions or influence? Like the whole Charitrio Pakyaan prudery! Given this, are we really surprised that we still have hordes of apnay that think that Sikhi is somehow in complete alignment with western liberal thought. Though I should point out that the other extreme of narrow minded clannishness isn't much better of an option long-term either.

 

 

Edited by dallysingh101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I believe this process started during colonialism. Anglos pretty quickly started to emphasise their perceived analogous relationship between Sikhs and Hindus as similar to that of Protestants and Roman Catholics. Many prominent people amongst our lot brought into this hook, line and sinker. And so began this strange relationship where influential apnay projected Sikhi through the lens of their imperial masters creating 'Sikhism'. So this is no new process but the culmination of a process that has been going on for at least a century.  

It explains a lot. Especially the subtle sidelining of Dasam Granth. 

The Uncle Toms in our community (more so the apparently smart, younger generation) have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker. It's like a Diet Sikhi version of the faith that's being peddled; a watered-down interpretation that's filtered exclusively through Western thought. Why are our bhandars doing the other side's work for them when they should be rallying against it? Is it really so basic as throwing out centuries of quite nuanced and considerate tradition for something that's less of a hassle to digest and follow, regardless of whether it's rooted in any genuine precedence? We're a cheap, shallow people, and it disgusts me. Bunch of mugs.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

The Uncle Toms in our community (more so the apparently smart, younger generation) have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker. It's like a Diet Sikhi version of the faith that's being peddled; a watered-down interpretation that's filtered exclusively through Western thought. Why are our bhandars doing the other side's work for them when they should be rallying against it? Is it really so basic as throwing out centuries of quite nuanced and considerate tradition for something that's less of a hassle to digest and follow, regardless of whether it's rooted in any genuine precedence? We're a cheap, shallow people, and it disgusts me. Bunch of mugs.

That's also a long term consequence of the post-annexation 'dumbing down' of Sikhs through the newly introduced 'british educational models'. I mean they either hung, imprisoned or interned any freedom loving free thinkers and put more conformist types on a pedestal for the masses. 

It gets hard to even blame people for being mugs when they've been led for centuries by people who've compromised themselves. What can we expect under those circumstances? 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

What can we expect under those circumstances? 

Yes, ultimately it's the sellouts that play both sides for their own gain that have let the side down. They're still at it to this day, a prime example being the Badals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought sikhi was a way to god not to live in a time bubble .Must not use technogy watch football and live in a mud hut to be religiously cleansed.I want the happy things in life not a boring existence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/01/2017 at 0:57 PM, joker said:

i thought sikhi was a way to god not to live in a time bubble .Must not use technogy watch football and live in a mud hut to be religiously cleansed.I want the happy things in life not a boring existence

being a sikh is very interesting you learn masses of different languages to communicate with others, you socialise with people and help the unfortunate instead of wasting time sitting in front of a box which hynotises you and indoctrinates your mind to consume more and destroy the planet . Sikhi is timeless just like God , football as a formal sport is only about one hundred years old and TV only just over 60 years , do you think people didn't have fun or happiness before ? Just use your talents and body in a positive, life-enhancing way , become skilled in martial arts , physically stronger /faster , challenge yourself . Sports on TV and the other programming is designed to brainwash and anaethetise humans so they don't notice the shackles being put on them mentally , finanacially and physically. Be awake , watch sports , play sports , use tech but be aware and in control

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

I feel what you are saying but surely the coalescing of abrahamic dogmatism is just as much as a threat? 

The thing is dogmatism isn't the exclusive preserve of the Abrahamic faiths. It's human nature that's afforded a certain type of legitimacy by religious conviction (I'm not saying it's right), in my opinion. Christianity, Judaism, etc., weren't in existence when Hinduism was decreeing who was pure and unpure based on their social status, etc. That's the worst form of dogma. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're forgetting one important thing here : The mind condition of normal humans . Unless you're sant, we're all stuck in 5 vikaars and its various manifestations.

In this day and age, it becomes tough to be gursikh with rehat and not to waver , because there's more people out there to waver you and less to keep you stable. Friends these days would rather offer you alcohol and help you "try it" rather than tell you "don't drink/smoke bro, its not good for health". All of this passes in name of 'punjabi culture' and peer pressure . 

I myself have at times wavered. Maya puts its very strange magnetic effect on people, its hard to describe . So keeping all the "fun" aside (gidda, bhangra, drinks, parties) and expecting them to live a purer , elevated lifestyle and where fruits of it are not foreseen .Most people are simply not ready for that ! 

We would rather get immediate short-lived joy from the aforementioned things rather than doing bhagti and rehatvaan jeevan and promise of "forever-lasting parmanand". Its hard for most of us to believe in, unfortunately :/ 

PS: BTW, its not just sikhs, almost every other religion is facing same in modern day society. I keep coming across swamis, mullahs and pastors who keep complaining of how their flock don't follow it anymore ! 

 

CURE : Wet clay can be fashioned easily, if you try to alter a baked pot, it will break, but it can't be changed. Kids are the only place you can sensibly invest your time in. Don't expect change from grown ups ! I have personally seen kids raised proper gursikh life and they're amritdhari and living modern day lifestyle side by side and there's no conflict ! these kids don't waver. 

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

True, but it had genuine precedence in scriptures which definitely were as old as the hills. The Brahmins may have collated and enforced a set of teachings relatively recently, but those teachings originate from a prior period. The Brahmins can claim they "only" meant to document various practices, but its purpose was more than that: to allow them dominance over a social hierarchy. My original assertion stands: dogma is human nature lent conviction through theology.

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/02/2017 at 11:51 AM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I think we're forgetting one important thing here : The mind condition of normal humans . Unless you're sant, we're all stuck in 5 vikaars and its various manifestations.

In this day and age, it becomes tough to be gursikh with rehat and not to waver , because there's more people out there to waver you and less to keep you stable. Friends these days would rather offer you alcohol and help you "try it" rather than tell you "don't drink/smoke bro, its not good for health". All of this passes in name of 'punjabi culture' and peer pressure . 

I myself have at times wavered. Maya puts its very strange magnetic effect on people, its hard to describe . So keeping all the "fun" aside (gidda, bhangra, drinks, parties) and expecting them to live a purer , elevated lifestyle and where fruits of it are not foreseen .Most people are simply not ready for that ! 

We would rather get immediate short-lived joy from the aforementioned things rather than doing bhagti and rehatvaan jeevan and promise of "forever-lasting parmanand". Its hard for most of us to believe in, unfortunately :/ 

PS: BTW, its not just sikhs, almost every other religion is facing same in modern day society. I keep coming across swamis, mullahs and pastors who keep complaining of how their flock don't follow it anymore ! 

 

CURE : Wet clay can be fashioned easily, if you try to alter a baked pot, it will break, but it can't be changed. Kids are the only place you can sensibly invest your time in. Don't expect change from grown ups ! I have personally seen kids raised proper gursikh life and they're amritdhari and living modern day lifestyle side by side and there's no conflict ! these kids don't waver. 

Baljit SIngh (BOS) put it like this : SIkhi is like licking a stone , for many there is no reward of sweet taste but that doesn't mean don't try to do your best to keep rehit . The rewards will come ...

I find that those kids who get sikhi into the hearts and bones will not waver as adult because it is so enmeshed with their personalities and outlook and if they have been taught well it will be unconsciously present , so no haumai about it . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2017 at 10:34 AM, Sukhvirk76 said:

Mathematical truth is dogma. True some theological traditions present things as absolutes. However dharmic religions don't really do that, there are not absolutes. I personally think abrahamic lean more towards this as in those traditions the idea of divine revelation is central. Within sikhi bani, is written in a poetic form and set to raags, which acts as a inbuilt check and balance against absolutism and dogmatism 

Really interesting points, particularly your first assertion. Are you viewing the term dogma as a pejorative? The word itself perhaps does lend itself, quite naturally, to a sense of inflexibility, but surely mathematical dogma is fact, as opposed to the other kind, which is an interpretation based on individual (or collective), personal judgement? I guess I should amend my definition of dogma to a narrower version in regards to the concept of faith, and just leave maths out of it, lol.

Could you expand on your idea of poetry and raags being safeguards against misinterpretation?

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Dogma is irrefutable fact. So mathematics has dogmatic fact.. In meta-physics one can in some sophisticated cases express a truth which cannot be disproven and is congruent to the collective body of evidence.. (I find mool mantar a perfectly succinct expression of truth that is all encompassing whilst not dogma, for me it expresses the intellectual genius of guru sahib ). By adopting a poetic form (which by its nature requires a listener and reader to contextualise, forces the audience to undertake 'khoj' to be a sikh /seeker of gian/guru) and using ragas (which whilst having structure also demands improvisation) from  which bani cannot be separated was a conscious creative act... So as 'dur ki bani'  that transcends dogmatism of abrahamic religions ie. Islam which because of the idea it was divine and the messenger is merely a vehicle.. By using poetry and music guru sahib's expressed, encapsulated and articulated the futility of trying to find absolutes.. Whilst demonstrating through pure, heartfelt expression how we should free ourselves of lazy tropes.. Again and again in bani we are told that if we try to define, enclose and encapsulate in a dogmatic way we will fail 

So you're one of the subjective truth types?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Dogma is irrefutable fact. So mathematics has dogmatic fact.. In meta-physics one can in some sophisticated cases express a truth which cannot be disproven and is congruent to the collective body of evidence.. (I find mool mantar a perfectly succinct expression of truth that is all encompassing whilst not dogma, for me it expresses the intellectual genius of guru sahib ). By adopting a poetic form (which by its nature requires a listener and reader to contextualise, forces the audience to undertake 'khoj' to be a sikh /seeker of gian/guru) and using ragas (which whilst having structure also demands improvisation) from  which bani cannot be separated was a conscious creative act... So as 'dur ki bani'  that transcends dogmatism of abrahamic religions ie. Islam which because of the idea it was divine and the messenger is merely a vehicle.. By using poetry and music guru sahib's expressed, encapsulated and articulated the futility of trying to find absolutes.. Whilst demonstrating through pure, heartfelt expression how we should free ourselves of lazy tropes.. Again and again in bani we are told that if we try to define, enclose and encapsulate in a dogmatic way we will fail 

Do you believe that in certain instances a certain form of religious dogma is necessary to lend structure and support to what might be described as intangible and abstract truths steeped in theoretical idealism? Also, what's your belief regarding a certain type of dogma being utilised to promote Sikh interests on occasions when Sikhs are under the cosh, as it were, i.e. a survival and longevity tactic? 

Edited by MisterrSingh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

I definitely don't believe religious dogma is necessary in fact for that matter any type of dogma unless verifiable ie. Mathematics is acceptable. If we want to rely on 'religious dogma' and just accept what we are told is truth what is the point of 'khoj', what is the point of having a guru to educate and develop from, how are we sikh, seeking shishya, we can just pretend to understand, just memorise and repeat, ritualise without ever searching 

In theory, yes, I agree. But you place too much emphasis in something as fallible and unreliable as human nature. The 'truth seeking' you refer to is indisputably a considerable constituent of what defines a Sikh, but let's be honest, how many of our people follow the faith not out of a conscious decision taken after weighing up the pros and cons of following other viable faiths and paths, but because they were born into a community belonging to that particular faith? Such easily herded people aren't interested in khoj, or anything that requires introspection. They want salvation in the most effort-free manner possible. It's in those type of individually-centred scenarios that I believe your ideas are more than meritorious. Where I differ with you is when it comes to subject of the masses, namely when it comes to safeguarding the interests of a bloc or a mass of like-minded people, and if that means working with the stark, occasionally undesirable reality of a situation, as opposed to its idealised variant, then I do believe tough decisions must be made for the greater good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

The truth is eternal, akaal does not need defending. As Sikhs our gurus taught us to be selfless and altruistic, if we politicise bani, manipulating it and bending it to temporal needs we subvert the very essence of the message.. 

 Fair play is only possible when both sides adhere to the rules of a game. If one side plays dirty, whilst the other clings to a code of ethics and morals, then does one hurtle knowingly into oblivion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Surely the idea that we should manipulate the doctrine because we think we know better is the 'original sin'  may be the idea that 'i' am enlightened and the 'other' is wrong or weak is a contradiction. If someone does namaz five times a day or wears janeau or Amrit shaks, waves a banner of self-righteousness because it is a badge of honour as opposed to having a true..  altruistic belief, and faith. Nirbhau, nirvair... Surely our desire to want to control and capture is a reflection on us as opposed to those who we seek to 'reform' ultimate display of 'krodh' ego.. 

I think we're coming at this from completely different perspectives. My desire is to protect, not to control or distort. Again, you're applying idealised, perfectionist methods to people and situations that are the complete antithesis of such behaviour. You aren't acknowledging the base attributes of human nature that must be taken into account. You're ascribing godly qualities to ungodly situations and individuals. If anything, that indicates a fear of taking tough decisions that are at odds with a mentally soothing sense of self-righteousness; at worst it's sticking one's head in the sand and hoping for the best. I apologise if that's not the case, but from my experience those who espouse beliefs of non-action in the face of a threat or a decline, do so not due to any concrete conviction, but because they are riddled with fear. I'm not applying that to you, of course.

 

25 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

When the kashmiri brahmins tested guru tegh bahadur ji to see if he really believed in altruism he demonstrated it with the ultimate sacrifice. Who are we to argue with that? 

So we should immolate ourselves on the bonfire of our beliefs and convictions until we've completely destroyed ourselves, to prevent the enemy from doing so? 

From a spiritual perspective, Guru Tegh Bahadhur sacrificing himself is a wildly different scenario to a fella from Cornwall doing the same thing. To understand why requires a conversation that occurs on a level beyond conservative rationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

Please expand upon what you mean by 'subjective truth types'.. Forgive me I'm a real pedant. 

Are you suggesting that you are not subjective? And your truth is and understanding is objective..? 

 

 

Truth isn't truth because you want to believe it to be true, truth is truth regardless. What do you mean I'm subjective, I've never called myself truth, the truth is Guru Sahib; I'm just a Paapi without him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the OP. Do people think we've become weak bhangra paa-ing clowns now? Is the author of the video right in his statement regarding the Delhi Sikh men who were massacred because they'd failed to live up to the physical/military aspects of the Sikh way of life?

I've experienced that demeaning thing where someone finds out you are Sikh and points their fingers in the air, moves their shoulders up and down and goes 'balle balle'. 

Do you think people actually see us as warriors when they meet us in the west? Or sticklers to an archaic religion/way of life? (in their eyes not mine!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:grin

Edited by CHaamCHrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CHaamCHrick said:

Well, if they don't, then there is definitely somefink wrong with their eyes, I'd say. A Sikh is never to be mistaken for an ordinary civilian ever.  He/she is a warrior first and a civilian after.  A lion or a lioness first always.

Come on man. Be realistic. On the ground, how many weak apnay and apneean have we got? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

When bhai khaniya ji gave water to enemy soldiers he was praised by guru sahib for living to the higher principles of sikhi.. If we politicise our actions and say 'well we are under threat so need to be pragmatic', does this mean that we can pick and choose which parts of gurmat to uphold at anyone time? 

You can't hide from the fact that during the havoc of the 1700s, Sikhs did act VERY pragmatically to counteract threats to their existence. By this I mean they organised themselves dynamically. Had no problem in identifying who the enemy was. Made and broke alliances as best suited the situation. Carefully selected which battles to take part in and which not, strategically allowing one enemy party to weaken/destroy another enemy. Were harsh and severe when required. All this led to their emerging as leaders in the power vacuum that followed all the invasions that took place. Here one of the Sikh leaders emerged as a powerhouse and established the security and prosperity of the region, albeit ruthlessly - a prosperity which may well have continued to this day had the Anglos not turned up and attacked and robbed the place blind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Do you mean, "What is Hukam exactly"? The videos may help you to understand it better:         
    • Yes, because that's not the topic here. The point prokharkoo started was bigteras hardon for Jatts. He is saying some Jatts are good, some bad. Nowhere did he mention pride, or that other castes are inferior. But you, as always, start rambling on. If you go to post secondary, these habits will bring some very low marks.  I'm glad you finally dropped the Daas act. It seemed very forced, almost like you had a reminder to use it whenever possible. When you are truly there, then use it, until now keep from making a mockery of the term. 
    • I don't talk to cognitively challenged people. Take your retarded comment to your Hindu masters.  
    • WJKK WJKF I had visited city Brampton in Ontario few years back to visit my massi Ji and there was a store I can't remember the name now. But they were run entirely on non profit (they had a big yellow sign if that helps if anyone who lives there can comment) and they had them for sale. Sorry I can't remember more.    WJKK WJKF
    • WJKK WJKF Well I can see the resentment you harbour toward females (and the sense of entitlement you feel for having the luck to be born male). You and previous poster chatanga have in the last few posts managed to compare women to animals, disabled, and homosexuals or eunichs. Let me ask you brother why do you feel that male gender is so above women? And why do you think some souls are born male and some female? It is some big prize to be born male and we are above females on spiritual ladder? Because I thought gurbani says human body is precious not just males ones. The way you are both talking makes it sounds like no different than our Hindu casteist neighbours who think a woman was born only to serve and has to wait future lifetimes to have any chance to know liberation.  But aside from that your tone made it sound like women are supposed to be the ones hiding behind us? Is this what you want? You think Is it what Sri Guru Gobind singh Ji Maharaj wanted?? Because bro I want nobody hiding and want us all standing together and think that's what Guru Ji wanted. I won't change my mind and I've spoken or rather typed my thoughts why. I don't see any other explanation than haume to explain you and his thoughts.  Abnway my only purpose posting in this thread was not to engage in nonsense arguments. But to just point out about Lucknow Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and the decision to uphold this principle and they have had several females do this in last few months as an example so it's not mere talk. Other cities will follow and have started to implement as well in india.  Please forgive any mistakes.  With Waheguru Jis kirpa we will all come to understanding.  WJKK WJKF