Jump to content
singhbj singh

Emotional journey of an ex-army Black American into Sikhi

Recommended Posts

Jacfsing2    1,844

Not the best background music for this type of video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419

I wonder how many Punjabi and of course Hindu (why do they get a say?) bigots have posted negative comments about black not being able to become Singhs . 

I'm so happy for them ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preeet    541
9 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

I wonder how many Punjabi and of course Hindu (why do they get a say?) bigots have posted negative comments about black not being able to become Singhs . 

I'm so happy for them ...

Because our Sri Guru Sahib ji is also their Guru ji equally. He was their Guru ji before Sikhs even existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
10 minutes ago, Preeet said:

Because our Sri Guru Sahib ji is also their Guru ji equally. He was their Guru ji before Sikhs even existed.

a shisha doesn't question their Guru ji's wisdom ...so where is your theory now .

They are not SIkh by behaviour prayers or ethics because of their own manmat choice then want to tell Gursikhs how to be ....such hypocrites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simran345    2,422
7 minutes ago, Preeet said:

My theory? I was not talking about those specific Hindus that would object that guy, rather I was talking about Hindus as a whole. By that logic I don't think youd consider people to be Sikhs just because there are people like Badal (meaning you do not consider Hindus to have him as their Guru ji because of a small amount of Hindus). Believe it or not, in a lot of Mandirs they even worship our Sri Guru Sahib jis as their Guru jis. Even in Canada where Im from, they worship them in my city's Mandir even though there is a Gurdwara ji in the same area.

How do they worship them ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,844
11 minutes ago, Preeet said:

My theory? I was not talking about those specific Hindus that would object that guy, rather I was talking about Hindus as a whole. By that logic I don't think youd consider people to be Sikhs just because there are people like Badal (meaning you do not consider Hindus to have him as their Guru ji because of a small amount of Hindus). Believe it or not, in a lot of Mandirs they even worship our Sri Guru Sahib jis as their Guru jis. Even in Canada where Im from, they worship them in my city's Mandir even though there is a Gurdwara ji in the same area.

Sindhis even though they used to believe in the light of Vaheguru on Earth have now embraced mainstream Hinduism. Now the only worship of Mahraj in their system is mostly RSS Pakhand. 

2 minutes ago, Preeet said:

The same way they worship the other Gods. They wash the image, they do Sri Vaheguru jaap. When I went there I was surprised.  The aunties and uncles that go there say Vaheguru Vaheguru even in front of devta images instead of saying om namah shivaya theyd say Vaheguru Vaheguru infront of the shivling etc.

The light of God has no image. If you read Jaap Sahib you can see clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
1 minute ago, Preeet said:

Of course, but they worship Guru ji's image, you know, the ones that even Sikhs keep in their homes?

a murti or tasveer can NEVER capture Guru Sahiban anyone who is deluded enough to think that this manmat is what our Guru accepts as Guru mera pooja , Gur Govind ....are really really lost . whether Sikh, Hindu, SIndi whatever.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
Just now, Preeet said:

So you are against Sikh art?

yes in terms of elevating it above Gurbani and Gur Panth, only exception are the SELF-portraits of Guru Teg Bahadur ji , which I respect as much as the handwritten hukamnamey, letters and gurbani because of Guru ji's energetic signature .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
3 minutes ago, Preeet said:

Okay then..  Keep in mind that the art that they are worshiping also has Vaheguru written on it, they are literally worshiping Gurbani as you and I matha tek to it as well. The people there have faith in Guru ji.

do not try to misinterpret the printing of gurbani as justtification of the worship of the artists kalpana ...next people will be writing gurbani on their bodies and saying they are now pavitar by that act ....using that logic trail 

Guru lives in the Naad of the gurbani not on paper that is why we are told to sing it, say it , do its charchaa

Edited by jkvlondon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
33 minutes ago, Preeet said:

The thing is, art does not sweat or make impurities. Our bodies do sweat, and also go to the bathroom (so our bodies can never be pavitra because of sweat etc, thus keeping sikh tattoos would be not good and incomparable to art). I don't see anything wrong with people matha teking to gurbani ji. Curious, do you own any Sikh art?

only lazer reproduction of Guru Gobind Singh ji handwritten Mul Mantar  ... 

I suppose book covers are included so then Dasam Granth Q & A has a tasveer made on it but I cover it with ramala when reading so do not see it 
 

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacfsing2    1,844
1 hour ago, Preeet said:

Of course, but they worship Guru ji's image, you know, the ones that even Sikhs keep in their homes? & it's a Punjabi mandir, not a sindhi one. Even all the writing is in gurmukhi rather than hindi. 

I'm not exactly anti-pictures like most Gursikhs are, (bless me to be like them), but there are 2 types of pictures. One is the worshipping type, which shouldn't be made and the 2nd is the historical type which is fine.

An example of the first one: images.jpg.196ebdef1722ee71119bfd6c51f190f9.jpg

An example of the second one: severedheadofteghbahadur.jpg.2b3333b3ea14cc6c50a2464a99af6c48.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simran345    2,422

Guru Nanak Dev ji rejected idol worship themselves. There are pangtis in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji where Guruji tells us this. 

Pictures only become worship when one one treats them as idol worship. Have you ever seen a statue of any of the Gurus in a Gurdwara? No, right, that's because it's anti-gurmat to worship stone statues, as Guruji tells us this. 

When Sikhs bow to Guruji, it's not idol worship, but they are bowing in respect to the word of God, the shabad, which is same as bowing to God, which is totally different to what idol worship of Hindus is. There is no comparison. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
12 minutes ago, simran345 said:

Guru Nanak Dev ji rejected idol worship themselves. There are pangtis in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji where Guruji tells us this. 

Pictures only become worship when one one treats them as idol worship. Have you ever seen a statue of any of the Gurus in a Gurdwara? No, right, that's because it's anti-gurmat to worship stone statues, as Guruji tells us this. 

When Sikhs bow to Guruji, it's not idol worship, but they are bowing in respect to the word of God, the shabad, which is same as bowing to God, which is totally different to what idol worship of Hindus is. There is no comparison. 

 

matha tekna is humbling our chanchal low intellect in front of the unalienable hukham and gian of Guru Sahiban

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simran345    2,422
7 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

matha tekna is humbling our chanchal low intellect in front of the unalienable hukham and gian of Guru Sahiban

Exactly. 

“Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the embodiment of the attributes of Ever Existent Supreme Being. Worshipping Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is same as paying homage to The Supreme Being.” 

 

~ Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji 

 

Penji have you read this book ?

 "Is Worshipping Guru Granth Sahib ji Akin to Idol Worship?"

Sorry can't get the font to go smaller  

 

 

Edited by simran345
  • Like 1

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

    • Very nice post. 
    • Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah?     
    • The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs.  I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom would never have become as powerful as it did if not for non-Sikhs. The Sikh Empire was so successful while Ranjit Singh was alive precisely because he managed to integrate and secure the loyalty of the Punjabi musalman who constituted most of his subjects - and thereby ensured economic productivity and public order. The Khalsa army of the Lahore durbar was also not just made up of Sikhs - all cavalry were Sikh, but virtually the whole of the artillery was Muslim, as was a significant portion of the infantry of the regular army (included Pathans, Punjabi Muslims and Gurkhas). Secondly if not for the induction of non-Sikh European officers into the Sikh army, it would never have relinquished its fixation with irregular cavalry or its revulsion at the idea of infantry. Without the innovations of these non-Sikhs, therefore, the Fauj would never have advanced to first rank among the armies of Asia. An army composed entirely of cavalry is fine when you're fighting a guerilla war, not so much when you're building and defending an empire against men with guns and artillery.  Furthermore not all non-Sikhs in the kingdom were disloyal to the durbar, and not all Sikhs were loyal. The Muslims of Punjab routinely resisted the calls of the Afghans (and later, the mutineers of 1857) to join them in jihad against the infidel Sikhs. The Fakir brothers (Muslims) were loyal to Ranjit Singh's memory to the last, as were several of the other Hindu Dogra generals of the Khalsa army (Dogras are a race, not a family. It was one family of Dogras in particular which caused most of the trouble). And while there were good, loyal Sikh nobles such as the Attariwalas and the Nakkais, there were many more who were fickle and treacherous.  Rani Jindaan was notoriously corrupt , as were the Sandhawalias, who murdered Sher Singh, the only successor of Ranjit Singh with even a shred of competence, by blowing him to pieces with a shotgun. I think your stance is way too absolute bro.   An empire is by definition multicultural and cosmopolitan. The Vatican is not the most apt comparison here (It is a country in name only).   
    • The passage reads: Vol I, Life of Guru Nanak, p51
    •   This is indeed a good post.     
×