Guest London jwaan

Sikhi becoming backward and non progressive

41 posts in this topic

42 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

if you know your history :

you know the sikh kaum considered him a tankiya for Marrying a muslim dancing girl, For which Akali Phula Singh was prepared to carry out the punishment of whipping him under the orders of the Akal Takht  when he presented himself.

You know he disregarded Guru Sahiban's warnings to not embellish the Harmandir Sahib with maya  Some people read it as desire to show love for Sikhi ...but surely following Guru Sahiban's wishes and financing the spread of parchaar would do the same . 

You know that he had SLAVE girls which no sikh ever had and Guru Nanak Dev ji was totally against , some who commited satti thinking they would go to swarag i.e. superstition.

He drank sharab and according to accounts did opium

so you tell me was he a sikh or a king from a family of sikhs? If we are saying we agree with Bhai Gurdas that a Guru Says and a Sikh does 

 

 

So for the avoidance of doubt jkv, and in summary, seeing as you are unable to answer a simple yes or no question without losing it back to me, what you are saying is that maharaja Ranjit Singh was actually not Sikh? Nice one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Guest London jwan said:

So for the avoidance of doubt jkv, and in summary, seeing as you are unable to answer a simple yes or no question without losing it back to me, what you are saying is that maharaja Ranjit Singh was actually not Sikh? Nice one. 

 

I think he was a good administrator and did well to keep his subjects happy  but he did too many things which were definitely not sikh in spirit or action . It was clear what I said only you would have asked for a reasons I gave you a fair few ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Guest London jwan said:

Jagsaw Singh,

Whilst my comprehensive reply to your ignorant post was moderated out by the mods, I would like to point out that lazily copying and pasting your rambling nonsense about inferiority complexes from an entirely different thread on February 1st 

 

Thank you 

 

Mod Edit: Come on bro. On one side you make some good points about toxicity of Punjabis in the diaspora and then you spit toxicity. Keep it objective...

The fact that I needed to re-paste my previous message about certain <banned word filter activated> Sikhs having an inferiority complex about 'fighting in the gurdwara' should tell you how little you understand the first time around as well as giving a good indication of the dire level of your inferiority complex.

The fact that I needed to re-paste my previous message about certain <banned word filter activated> Sikhs having such a lack of knowledge about their own religion that they confuse abrahamic and bhuddist ideals of serene and quiet places of worship as their own should tell you how litle you understand the first time around as well as giving a good indication of what a laugable travesty it is for a person with zero knowledge about 'Sikhism' to be lecturing 'Sikhs' on 'Sikhism' on a 'Sikh' forum.  Whoever you are Guest London Jawan, it is clear that one could easily replace you with any one of the billion Indian Hindus on this planet.and none of us would know the difference. You are them and they are you.

Tip: If you want to seriously push the idea of 'progressivenes' among Sikhs you need to separate yourself from the official Hindu India line that you firmly follow and embrace the idea that the aversion to free-thought and critical thinking, our destruction of the environment (which Gurbani tells us is Waheguru) ,cult of personality, self-absorbed parcharaks, sanctioned pursuit of personal wealth and rules and regulations drawn up by mere men in contradiction of our Gurus' teachings is what is keeping us as a community back(wards).  For your present point of view, we could all just read the Hindustan Times or Indian Express and get that viewpoint and probably get it better articulated and with a bit of personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

I think he was a good administrator and did well to keep his subjects happy  but he did too many things which were definitely not sikh in spirit or action . It was clear what I said only you would have asked for a reasons I gave you a fair few ...

Actually no. What you said was not clear, it was essentially a copy paste of https://www.telegraphindia.com/1100307/jsp/7days/story_12187144.jsp

And rather than give a Yes or no, you deflected the question back to me. For the avoidance of doubt, yes I believe maharajah ranjit Singh, the maharajah of the sikh Kingdom was sikh. I dint agree with the fact that he had multiple wives, but that does not make him non-sikh to me. It means he made personal choices that I wouldn't.

Once again, are your saying he wasn't sikh?

A simple Yes or no will suffice rather than a tony Blair type answer......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Guest London jwan said:

Actually no. What you said was not clear, it was essentially a copy paste of https://www.telegraphindia.com/1100307/jsp/7days/story_12187144.jsp

And rather than give a Yes or no, you deflected the question back to me. For the avoidance of doubt, yes I believe maharajah ranjit Singh, the maharajah of the sikh Kingdom was sikh. I dint agree with the fact that he had multiple wives, but that does not make him non-sikh to me. It means he made personal choices that I wouldn't.

Once again, are your saying he wasn't sikh?

A simple Yes or no will suffice rather than a tony Blair type answer......

I didn't read that particular article so no copy paste involved just knowledge from other sources including memoirs of his generals .  Guru Gobind SIngh said himself if a sikh marries and/or has carnal knowledge of a muslim woman he stops being a sikh . Both Guru Teg Bahadur ji and Guru Gobind SIngh ji told sikhs to have one woman and stay true to her until she passes , to never go into the bed of another woman even in a dream ....so how it even possible to recouncile the massive disobedience? You cannot, no one can he made marriages and still had illicit relations with dancing women . THAT is Bujjar Kurehit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2017 at 3:46 AM, Guest London jwaan said:

Just reading through the posts on this board, watching the sikh TV channels and reading what is happening in punjab, leads me to the conclusion that at a higher level, our community is set for destruction, largely through our own stupidity. Sikhs are our own worst enemies.

These days there is simply more publicity. One little happening spreads everywhere like fire. This does not mean that new events are taking place, it simply means that we are becoming more aware of them taking place. Fights and disagreements in the Guradwaras have always been there, only more publicised now. 

The true Sikhs still exist, however they are not too keen on publicising themselves. Youngsters are more educated and know more about religion than the older generation. Online learning has created more learning opportunities for youngsters than ever. Online harmonium tunes, online path, online shabads are easily available to those who wish to learn sikhi. Online katha is there for youngsters and elders alike to listen whenever they desire. 

Publicised news does not necessarily carry out the opinions or convinces the majority. We now live in a more informed and educative age than ever before. Any willing soul has resources available to them abundantly online. SGGS can be referred to and read in one instant. Thanks to those Sikhs who have tirelessly worked to make this possible. 

There have always been divisions amongst the Sikhs. Even in the Gurus times, there was always a family member who was opposed to the Gurus, right from the time of Guru Nanak Dev JI. His sons Lakhmi chand and Sri chand had their own version of what sikhi is. However that did not mean that sikhi was going to die out. The same applies today. It is the small steps which each one of us takes as an individual which will determine what the future of sikhi will be for our youngsters when they take control. 

There are lots of people performing constant seva in some Guradwaras, and keeping them up and running. These skirmishes when publicised also give our youngsters a good example of what is right and what is wrong. As future leaders they will need to take decisions and sort out their differences themselves. For all these uneducated masses there always arises one educated person who eventually takes control and provides the right guidance. Therefore the role that every individual plays is of utmost importance, be it even by just providing suggestions.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Guest London jwan said:

Actually no. What you said was not clear, it was essentially a copy paste of https://www.telegraphindia.com/1100307/jsp/7days/story_12187144.jsp

And rather than give a Yes or no, you deflected the question back to me. For the avoidance of doubt, yes I believe maharajah ranjit Singh, the maharajah of the sikh Kingdom was sikh. I dint agree with the fact that he had multiple wives, but that does not make him non-sikh to me. It means he made personal choices that I wouldn't.

Once again, are your saying he wasn't sikh?

A simple Yes or no will suffice rather than a tony Blair type answer......

If Ranjit Singh was a Sikh, he would be worse of a Sikh in terms of Sikhi than that Sunny Hundal, maybe even worse than the ones we consider Ghadars today. If he just had a few extra wives it would be alright, (many of the Khalistani Gursikhs had to marry more than once as unmarried women weren't allowed to fight), but he didn't just have extra wives, he had sexual relations with women who weren't any of his wives. There are only 4 Bhujer Kurehits and he did at least one of them. Maybe even more, as he'd probably take intoxicants, and since he was an SJW probably had Halal to please the Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

If Ranjit Singh was a Sikh, he would be worse of a Sikh in terms of Sikhi than that Sunny Hundal, maybe even worse than the ones we consider Ghadars today. If he just had a few extra wives it would be alright, (many of the Khalistani Gursikhs had to marry more than once as unmarried women weren't allowed to fight), but he didn't just have extra wives, he had sexual relations with women who weren't any of his wives. There are only 4 Bhujer Kurehits and he did at least one of them. Maybe even more, as he'd probably take intoxicants, and since he was an SJW probably had Halal to please the Muslims.

Sunny hundal aint sikh though he is a very low iq pendu atheist punjabi jatt. The lowest form of lifs is one that denies God and sikhi. And hundal is that.

As for maharajah ranjit singh he started off as a sikh then progressively became a hindu punjabi due to excesses of wealth, intoxicants, hindu dogra/brahmin advisers infiltrating his darbar govt. Multiple wives is allowed in sikhi so thats no real argument but his other antics push him in to the camp of hp's in his mid to later life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Guest Logical said:

Sunny hundal aint sikh though he is a very low iq pendu atheist punjabi jatt. The lowest form of lifs is one that denies God and sikhi. And hundal is that.

As for maharajah ranjit singh he started off as a sikh then progressively became a hindu punjabi due to excesses of wealth, intoxicants, hindu dogra/brahmin advisers infiltrating his darbar govt. Multiple wives is allowed in sikhi so thats no real argument but his other antics push him in to the camp of hp's in his mid to later life.

Is this fact about hIm from some old or some new rewritten literature to lead astray the young?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like JKVlondon, I'm afraid Guest Logical, that youre talking out of your Jagsaw. Where exactly in Sikhism is it written that you can have multiple wives??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Guest Logical said:

Sunny hundal aint sikh though he is a very low iq pendu atheist punjabi jatt. The lowest form of lifs is one that denies God and sikhi. And hundal is that.

As for maharajah ranjit singh he started off as a sikh then progressively became a hindu punjabi due to excesses of wealth, intoxicants, hindu dogra/brahmin advisers infiltrating his darbar govt. Multiple wives is allowed in sikhi so thats no real argument but his other antics push him in to the camp of hp's in his mid to later life.

Where is it allowed? Even the Khalistani Shaheeds that had to marry more than once because unmarried women couldn't fight for the movement were hesitant about what they were doing, but this Ranjit Singh just marries people like it's him buying a near pair of jeans.

22 minutes ago, Guest london jwaan said:

Where exactly in Sikhism is it written that you can have multiple wives??

Nowhere! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2017 at 9:47 AM, Jacfsing2 said:

If Ranjit Singh was a Sikh, he would be worse of a Sikh in terms of Sikhi than that Sunny Hundal, maybe even worse than the ones we consider Ghadars today. If he just had a few extra wives it would be alright, (many of the Khalistani Gursikhs had to marry more than once as unmarried women weren't allowed to fight), but he didn't just have extra wives, he had sexual relations with women who weren't any of his wives. There are only 4 Bhujer Kurehits and he did at least one of them. Maybe even more, as he'd probably take intoxicants, and since he was an SJW probably had Halal to please the Muslims.

He didn't eat halal. He was very careful about what he ate. I remember reading that only certain people were allowed to cook for him and that the food would be locked up afterwards. Being poisoned by his competitors would be a real issue for him. 

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dailysingh101, there is no point trying to highlight facts. The modus operandi on this forum is madness, ie make up your own historical facts, suppositions etc. And if anyone disagrees, they are not sikh.

Based on the same lack of evidence, jacfsingh Maybe even more, as he'd probably take intoxicants, and since he was an SJW probably had Halal to please the Muslims I could just as easily declare that you are probably high on drugs when you make such claims.

If Carlsberg made nonsensical forums, this would probably be the best in the world............

I'm afraid you too sir, are talking right out of your jagsaw...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guest london jwaan said:

dailysingh101, there is no point trying to highlight facts. The modus operandi on this forum is madness, ie make up your own historical facts, suppositions etc. And if anyone disagrees, they are not sikh.

Based on the same lack of evidence, jacfsingh Maybe even more, as he'd probably take intoxicants, and since he was an SJW probably had Halal to please the Muslims I could just as easily declare that you are probably high on drugs when you make such claims.

If Carlsberg made nonsensical forums, this would probably be the best in the world............

I'm afraid you too sir, are talking right out of your jagsaw...........

No man, there is a mixture of people here. Ket information out, and those that are blessed with buddhi will know how to evaluate it. Those that Guru ji hasn't blessed with this will think within the parameters of their limitations. 

Anyway, here is a quote from Honigberger who was one of Ranjit Singh's doctors talking about food prohibitions:

 

Quote

 

Food prohibitions of Sikhs and Hindus.

The spirit produced from Cabul grapes, for the use of Runjeet Sing, was distilled in that place in my presence, by his own people, because everything eatable or drinkable, destined for Sikhs and Hindoos, must be prepared by their own hands, no Christian or Musselman being permitted to touch it, lest they should pollute it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It amazes me how people cannot see any of the above. Are they so blinded by partisanship? Is it only objectionable if the other side does it? So, doesn't that make them bigoted when they adhere to a code of silence when their preferred candidate enacts the same policy? Yet... it's also obvious that Trump is taking baby steps, and he is indeed testing the waters. What his endgame is I have no idea. 
    • which gurbani lines you referring to ? please post.  Also I don't think anywhere any of bhagat, guru ji or bhatts baanis refer to women in any sexual way at all !  It is just example to help us understand jeev-aatma (often referred to as 'jeev-istree' in sikh literature) relationship with param-aatma (god) .  Since we have no inkling of what relationship to god feels like , those who have felt it have tried to pen it in comparison to earthly relationships we do understand ! and what more intimate relation than that of a spouse !  In Gurbani , at places, baani sometimes go along the lines of "Dear sister, tell me how you impressed your husband ? ... he doesn't like me, but likes you, tell me how you impressed ...." something along these lines ! and final closing line is of joy of how the wife finally impresses her husband and the typical shabad would close so ".. and then he came to bed and finally I enjoyed him ... " ..  I think I have read atleast one such shabad although I don't remember which exactly. but trust me, there's no sexual undercurrent in this shabad AT ALL ! it just helps us relate to our bodiless relationship with creator (something we don't understand) by comparing it to a relationship of intimacy that we do understand and often live !  Same can be said of krishna and gopis in hindu literature. Some say krishna had 16500 wives. Its not possible literally ! so again a hidden metaphor . Gopis revolving around krishna in play dance. Trust me, this often gets sexualized, but subtle metaphor is lost, namely that of souls (gopis) enjoying the spiritual bliss of krishna (god) and all of creation revolving around the creator. Rigveda and some upanishads mention the relationship of soul (jeev) and parbrahm as such :  "On a tree bearing multiple fruits, both bitter and sweet, sits two birds of a kind, eternal companions. One , of golden plume and luminous sits serenly on topmost branch, unperturbed and in bliss. On the lower branches, jumping from branch to branch, is its companion, who sometimes eat sweet fruits and sometimes bitter.  When it eats bitter fruits, it sometimes looks up and see its undisturbed , blissed companion of golden feathers. However , it soons forget its sorrows and starts eating sweet and bitter again .  Sometimes, again it eats bitter and this time flies on top branch , approaches the golden plume companion and when it goes very near, it realizes its golden plume is itself only, its inner-most self, the atma !"    the tree refers to body or world, the golden plume companion is the real self, the bird moving from here and there is jeev . the bitter and sweet fruits are dukh and sukh respectively which we bear in this world. When the bird goes on top branch (higher avastha) , it realizes its own self, and attains liberation and bliss, which gurbaani refers to as "mann tu jot saroop hai, apna mool pachaan"  Quite good example these seers made ! many such metaphors throughout in gurbani also.  The bigger question is "Can we believe ? truly?"
    • Exactly, it makes me kinda confused on how in some Gurbani lines it talks about sadhus leaving their wives but then they still keep thinking of women in their mind as a sadhu.. Can the same thing be said for gay people who try to 'leave' the marriage concept while becoming celibate & 'dharmic', but still think of guys? So does that not mean that they should get married as well.... bhul chuk maff kijye
    • Also you assert it took him decades to accept his ineligibility. . Please provide your sources. . How many decades exactly? Are you suggesting he wanted to create a parallel gurgaddi?
    • Now as I have qualified my assertion can you please qualify yours.. what evidence do you have that he didn't accept guru Angad Dev ji?