AjeetSinghPunjabi

How can we educate sikhs who go to hindu mandirs ? ... How about using reverse psychology ?

153 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, Kira said:

No one's raging, I  just called you out on your nonsense. You've not even bothered learning Gurmukhi but you seem to take it on yourself to lecture others about it. You accused others to taking things out of contexts but you've never even bothered reading the context. You harp on about Nindaks but you're in the same boat being a huge hypocrite. Feel free to lecture others about free thinking after you have the tools to do it, A child isn't going to lecture a professor on the differential calculus without having actually mastered the concepts himself (no this isn't an analogy for you and I, its an example). Free thinking my <banned word filter activated>, by that absurd logic even non-sikhs with no Gurbani knowledge can "free think" about Sikhi and start who knows bastardising concepts. 

Maybe learn the texts before coming on here to lecture others about what's right and what's wrong.

As usual rather than address the fundamental contradiction the poster made and how the position is antithetical to sikhi in the most obvious ways you would rather just attack me. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

As usual rather than address the fundamental contradiction the poster made and how the position is antithetical to sikhi in the most obvious ways you would rather just attack me. 

Not attacking you Sukh, but it does seem monumentally crazy that you haven't tried to seriously interact with Gurmukhi texts including historical ones. When you do, you'll probably find that a lot of concepts that you thought were Sikh, actually aren't. And that a lot of our puratan ancestors didn't exactly act like you might think they would according to your current thinking. 

Until you do, people will say stuff like the above to you (and not without justification). 

You're at an advantage if you come from a Panjabi background in that the syntax and even some of the vocabulary won't be a million miles from what you already know. A lot of it will involve simply swapping modern Panjabi lexicon with their older forms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

As usual rather than address the fundamental contradiction the poster made and how the position is antithetical to sikhi in the most obvious ways you would rather just attack me. 

I did address your points but the fact that you've yet to engage properly with the very core of Sikhi and then have the audacity to come here and lecture others just shows you as a person are ignorant and/or arrogant to what you think you know.

This is the Sheikh Farid thread all over again, you asked for proof, got it and then went off to throw a fit over the fact you were wrong, @dallysingh101 has put it in better words than I. Maybe study the texts before trying to even comment on Sikh Philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kira said:

I did address your points but the fact that you've yet to engage properly with the very core of Sikhi and then have the audacity to come here and lecture others just shows you as a person are ignorant and/or arrogant to what you think you know.

This is the Sheikh Farid thread all over again, you asked for proof, got it and then went off to throw a fit over the fact you were wrong, @dallysingh101 has put it in better words than I. Maybe study the texts before trying to even comment on Sikh Philosophy.

You did not address any of the issues.. You made no comment on the actual topic. 

What is your opinion that Sikhs should not attend or visit other places of worship or reverence.

How does this proposition remotely reflect the alignment to Sikh principles? 

So please provide me with a learned response drawing upon your studies of Sikh philosophy 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

Not attacking you Sukh, but it does seem monumentally crazy that you haven't tried to seriously interact with Gurmukhi texts including historical ones. When you do, you'll probably find that a lot of concepts that you thought were Sikh, actually aren't. And that a lot of our puratan ancestors didn't exactly act like you might think they would according to your current thinking. 

Until you do, people will say stuff like the above to you (and not without justification). 

You're at an advantage if you come from a Panjabi background in that the syntax and even some of the vocabulary won't be a million miles from what you already know. A lot of it will involve simply swapping modern Panjabi lexicon with their older forms. 

I have studied Sikh philosophy for over 30 years and in particular the mool mantar for over 25 years.. 

I have a opinion and I am open to someone providing me with a academic intelligent response to challenge it and provide me with a reason to modify it 

I provided a explanation of my own reasoning behind my position so people should challenge the logic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

You did not address any of the issues.. You made no comment on the actual topic. 

What is your opinion that Sikhs should not attend or visit other places of worship or reverence.

How does this proposition remotely reflect the alignment to Sikh principles? 

So please provide me with a learned response drawing upon your studies of Sikh philosophy 

 

Quote

Visiting Religious sites is fine, but going there and bashing your head against the stones and proclaiming the certain deity of that temple is lord is really contrary to Gurmat.

If you read what I wrote I answered why this proposition reflects Sikhi, further more I even referred to an entire bani speaking about worshipping Devtas. Now if you had bothered to read that you'd have noticed that, rather than screaming that about "not actually commenting on the topic" . In fact I did it in layman's terms with the minimal amount of my own words while utilising Gurbani.

Edited by Kira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I have studied Sikh philosophy for over 30 years and in particular the mool mantar for over 25 years.. 

I have a opinion and I am open to someone providing me with a academic intelligent response to challenge it and provide me with a reason to modify it 

I provided a explanation of my own reasoning behind my position so people should challenge the logic 

Dude you made a start which is the most important thing. Now go dig little bit deeper. See where it takes you. Don't make this about other people's opinions by all means, but put in the work yourself and get better informed. These are serious times we live in, there is falseness all around, do yourself a big favour, and don't fall to misapprehensions due to lack of effort. Because these days when a brother or sister falls in one way or another, it hurts the panth deeply. 

Go deeper in your journey. That's advice for all of us I guess, not least myself. 

Guys, lately although I've kept up my simran (but reduced the time), I've gone slack as crap on reading nitnem bani and haven't done it in ages. 

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kira said:

If you read what I wrote I answered why this proposition reflects Sikhi, further more I even referred to an entire bani speaking about worshipping Devtas. Now if you had bothered to read that you'd have noticed that, rather than screaming that about "not actually commenting on the topic" . In fact I did it in layman's terms with the minimal amount of my own words while utilising Gurbani.

Yes but the original post referred to going to mandir full stop.. I challenged that idea.. You attacked me on something I did not speak about.. 

I agree that doing murti puja.. 

So actually it seems like we agree.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Yes but the original post referred to going to mandir full stop.. I challenged that idea.. You attacked me on something I did not speak about.. 

I agree that doing murti puja.. 

So actually it seems like we agree.. 

OP is clearly referring to sikhs who WORSHIP there. I also challenged the the fact that you claimed OP was taking quotes out of context. Which he was not.

Quote

I have studied Sikh philosophy for over 30 years and in particular the mool mantar for over 25 years..

without learning Gurmukhi? That's not studying, that's toe dipping. If you want the truth behind anything go to the source. You need to start fresh my friend.

Edited by Kira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kira said:

OP is clearly referring to sikhs who WORSHIP there. I also challenged the the fact that you claimed OP was taking quotes out of context. Which he was not.

without learning Gurmukhi? That's not studying, that's toe dipping. If you want the truth behind anything go to the source. You need to start fresh my friend.

I think your being obtuse. He clearly positions the argument to suggest Sikhs should be like Muslims and Christians and not visit the churches of others 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I think your being obtuse. He clearly positions the argument to suggest Sikhs should be like Muslims and Christians and not visit the churches of others 

I think you need to learn to read the whole thread (or even the first page) before throwing that accusation around.

on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes

 

Quote

When you have contact with CEO , would you butter a manager ? nopes. when our guru showed us the path to true parbrahm waheguru , then why do we go to the hindu devi devte who're mere creations of waheguru ji .

clearing referring to performing idol worship. He then further reiterates this.

Quote

How foolish of a sikh to go and worship idol of someone who herself has taken a refuge in the feet of the lord ? How can such sikhs even justify it ?

I don't think I'm being obtuse, I'm outright sure that you just jumped in here and started virtue signalling because you couldn't be bothered reading the entire thread properly. If you had you would have realised OP said nothing wrong.

 

Further more, in this context the proper use of grammar indicates the deployment of You're not Your.

Edited by Kira
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

@Sukhvirk1976

 

This might help when you'e ready to develop your language skills a but more. 

 

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/14814-learning-to-read-write-gurmukhipanjabi-tips-on-getting-started/

Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh! I know this isn't really related to the topic at hand, but do you know a tool which allows people to type Gurmukhi fomt from their phone or computer? I saw there was a video posted in the link you showed, but I can't seem to play that video. Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kira said:

I think you need to learn to read the whole thread (or even the first page) before throwing that accusation around.

on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes

 

clearing referring to performing idol worship. He then further reiterates this.

I don't think I'm being obtuse, I'm outright sure that you just jumped in here and started virtue signalling because you couldn't be bothered reading the entire thread properly. If you had you would have realised OP said nothing wrong.

 

Further more, in this context the proper use of grammar indicates the deployment of You're not Your.

This simply isn't true.  in his first post he doesn't refer to in his 'book' as you put it say visiting is fine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

This simply isn't true.  in his first post he doesn't refer to in his 'book' as you put it say visiting is fine 

I quite literally dissected his post for you, showing you how it was an attack on idolatry being done,  I used basic reading comprehension acquired from the most basic English level, if you're honestly too dim to see or understand that then its not really my issue. Then I linked a comment where he agreed with someone who said that. What more would you like? I'm sure OP can easily come on here and profess it, if it'll stop you whining about it. 

If you bothered reading ahead and used your noggin then you'd see that as well, If the initial post flew over your head the ones below where he AGREED with another poster who put those exact words there should be enough. I linked it, read it and weep. 

 

Here it is again if you missed it.

 

 

Edited by Kira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes

This is what you wrote..

So using that as a starting point Please show me where in the original post he says "visiting is fine.. 

Original post!

This what you wrote and challenged me on.  so please show me where  from the very first post that was made please show me where this distinction was made. That he says visiting is OK. 

I look forward to your response to demonstrate this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

This is what you wrote..

So using that as a starting point Please show me where in the original post he says "visiting is fine.. 

Original post!

This what you wrote and challenged me on.  so please show me where  from the very first post that was made please show me where this distinction was made. That he says visiting is OK. 

I look forward to your response to demonstrate this 

I think you need spectacles, do you notice the words "first page" there. That's in references to first page of the thread, to which I linked a comment where he agreed with it. OP= Original Poster in this, so let me further simply that sentence and add in a bit more words for the more dim-witted.

 

On the first page of the thread the Original Poster said visiting was fine in his books, to prove this I linked a comment where he agreed with the statement. 

 

You asked for the distinction and I gave you a fully dissected post from it, honestly it isn't my fault you're hellbent on trying to have the moral high ground here. He made distinctions within his post, a child could see that. Yet Mr "30 years as a Sikh scholar" seems to have trouble understanding the most basic linguistics behind it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kira said:

I quite literally dissected his post for you, showing you how it was an attack on idolatry being done,  I used basic reading comprehension acquired from the most basic English level, if you're honestly too dim to see or understand that then its not really my issue. Then I linked a comment where he agreed with someone who said that. What more would you like? I'm sure OP can easily come on here and profess it, if it'll stop you whining about it. 

If you bothered reading ahead and used your noggin then you'd see that as well, If the initial post flew over your head the ones below where he AGREED with another poster who put those exact words there should be enough. I linked it, read it and weep. 

 

Here it is again if you missed it.

 

 

BTW the op could come on here and clear things up about what there opinion was. Which is why I don't understand why you are getting so worked up. 

I replied to the original post, backed up my thinking with a rational.. Which has not been challenged.. All that has happened is a faux rage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sukhvirk1976 said:

BTW the op could come on here and clear things up about what there opinion was. Which is why I don't understand why you are getting so worked up. 

I replied to the original post, backed up my thinking with a rational.. Which has not been challenged.. All that has happened is a faux rage. 

I'm hardly getting worked up, he made it abundantly clear. The only one hellbent on saying he didn't is you. You tried to assert he was misquoting Gurbani out of context, which he wasn't. I pointed that out and you still can't be arsed answering around that. 

also in this context the word used should be their not there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kira said:

I think you need spectacles, do you notice the words "first page" there. That's in references to first page of the thread, to which I linked a comment where he agreed with it. OP= Original Poster in this, so let me further simply that sentence and add in a bit more words for the more dim-witted.

 

On the first page of the thread the Original Poster said visiting was fine in his books, to prove this I linked a comment where he agreed with the statement. 

 

You asked for the distinction and I gave you a fully dissected post from it, honestly it isn't my fault you're hellbent on trying to have the moral high ground here. He made distinctions within his post, a child could see that. Yet Mr "30 years as a Sikh scholar" seems to have trouble understanding the most basic linguistics behind it. 

Well I apologise.. 

My original post was made in reference to and in reply to the original post.. 

You have attacked me over something I have not done. A false accusation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kira said:

I'm hardly getting worked up, he made it abundantly clear. The only one hellbent on saying he didn't is you. You tried to assert he was misquoting Gurbani out of context, which he wasn't. I pointed that out and you still can't be arsed answering around that. 

also in this context the word used should be their not there. 

 

I'm sorry but I didn't accuse him of misquoting. I asked him how given Sikh philosophy he could possibly defend the position he articulated in that post. 

And I didn't accuse him, if you examine the language I employed I said people who take Gurbani out of context 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Well I apologise.. 

My original post was made in reference to and in reply to the original post.. 

You have attacked me over something I have not done. A false accusation. 

eh no, you made it against OP (original poster), if you hadn't been lazy and read all the responses (there were like 30 in total) you would have seen his comments in a different context as he expands further into it all. Next time read the full thread before throwing yourself into it, it's not exactly a colossal task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I'm sorry but I didn't accuse him of misquoting. I asked him how given Sikh philosophy he could possibly defend the position he articulated in that post. 

And I didn't accuse him, if you examine the language I employed I said people who take Gurbani out of context 

I did examine the language, that was a subtle dig at him as he was deploying Gurbani. In the exact right context as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kira said:

eh no, you made it against OP (original poster), if you hadn't been lazy and read all the responses (there were like 30 in total) you would have seen his comments in a different context as he expands further into it all. Next time read the full thread before throwing yourself into it, it's not exactly a colossal task.

So btw can you show me where on the first page of the thread he says it's OK? 

I've just gone through it very quickly and can't find anything to support your interpretation 

Please show me 

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