Jump to content

Waheguru ji ki fateh but against whom ??


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I respect "Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki fateh", but tell me since gurbaani says god is the only thing that exists. 

"Sab Gobind hai sab gobind hai. Gobind bin nahi koi" . If god is only thing that exists, then how can there even be a concept like "victory" or "defeat".

Its like me playing tennis with myself. its ridiculous . I am neither the winner nor the loser. For me to either win or lose, there has to be someone else ! But with god, there's no one else. Even things are him only. 

So "Waheguru ji ki fateh" is against whom . ? when waheguru is the only thing that exists . Also since everything is his , both good and bad, then why we say "Waheguru ji ka Khalsa" too.

I am trying to understand. no offense

 

Mods might consider moving this thread to Gurbani section. Sorry ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

The Khalsa, according to Jagjit Singh ("Percussions of History," "In the Caravan of Revolutions") is the climax of Sikh mysticism in all fields

and maybe Sikhism itself is climax of spirituality and indian religion. 

Hindu -> Jain -> Bodhi -> Sikh (if you follow the chronology of their appearance). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

and maybe Sikhism itself is climax of spirituality and indian religion. 

Hindu -> Jain -> Bodhi -> Sikh (if you follow the chronology of their appearance). 

Via the Bachittra-Natak, the true path is unalloyed and unchanging. Only the mediums have been changed with Sikhi (the Tisarpanth) having been manifested as the purest (so far) and the one less likely to become corrupt- of course if our bewkoofs don't have much to say on the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

Via the Bachittra-Natak, the true path is unalloyed and unchanging. Only the mediums have been changed with Sikhi (the Tisarpanth) having been manifested as the purest (so far) and the one less likely to become corrupt- of course if our bewkoofs don't have much to say on the matter. 

I wonder why sikhi is called "Tisarpanth" (third way?) , when there have been many other panths before , more than 2 . Sanatan (itself a conglomerate of many panths) , then Jainis, then Bodhis , Semitic ones like Jews , Isaai and Islam , then the alone Parsis. 

Maybe the only 2 are hindu and muslim ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I wonder why sikhi is called "Tisarpanth" (third way?) , when there have been many other panths before , more than 2 . Sanatan (itself a conglomerate of many panths) , then Jainis, then Bodhis , Semitic ones like Jews , Isaai and Islam , then the alone Parsis. 

Maybe the only 2 are hindu and muslim ?

 

Panth, this is only my belief, is intended to denote a praxis rather than sole ideological commitment/philosophy. The Hindu (as a religious and not cultural) praxis revolves around the proto-ritualism of the Vedas and adherence to the Caste hegemony. The Islamic praxis revolves around the cardinal pillars of the faith and it's socio-political domination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 13Mirch said:

Panth, this is only my belief, is intended to denote a praxis rather than sole ideological commitment/philosophy. The Hindu (as a religious and not cultural) praxis revolves around the proto-ritualism of the Vedas and adherence to the Caste hegemony. The Islamic praxis revolves around the cardinal pillars of the faith and it's socio-political domination. 

I tend to think of it as a culmination of an original idea, more like a termination.

Hinduism is a culmination of 5000 years of vedic religion, whereas Islam is a termination of the ancient Jewish religion which is perhaps 5000 yrs old too (Noah , abraham, etc must have lived thousands of yrs ago). That would also explain why Muhammad said he's the last prophet (of abrahamic lineage ofcourse) , but then muslims took it tot wrong and interpreted it as last prophet of humanity.

How beautiful that two cultures were growing next to each other (perhaps unaware of each other). And then Islam which is culmination of abrahamic religion mingled with Hinduism which is culmination of Vedic religion in Punjab . And there took birth of another faith , Sikhism.

No wonder even some official dictionaries define sikhism as "religion mix of hinduism and islam" . And then the whole sikhi saroop is like taken from both rishi (uncut hair , top knot) lineage and abrahamic (turban, long robes/baana) .  Makes perfect sense lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

 

How beautiful that two cultures were growing next to each other (perhaps unaware of each other). And then Islam which is culmination of abrahamic religion mingled with Hinduism which is culmination of Vedic religion in Punjab . And there took birth of another faith , Sikhism.

No wonder even some official dictionaries define sikhism as "religion mix of hinduism and islam" . And then the whole sikhi saroop is like taken from both rishi (uncut hair , top knot) lineage and abrahamic (turban, long robes/baana) .  Makes perfect sense lol 

I respectfully disagree. 

Sikhism has a lot in common with Vedic beliefs, less so with Islam.

Our beliefs are divine truths, which are not limited to Hinduism and Islam, and I definitely do not want Sikhs saying we are a "mix"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I tend to think of it as a culmination of an original idea, more like a termination.

Hinduism is a culmination of 5000 years of vedic religion, whereas Islam is a termination of the ancient Jewish religion which is perhaps 5000 yrs old too (Noah , abraham, etc must have lived thousands of yrs ago). That would also explain why Muhammad said he's the last prophet (of abrahamic lineage ofcourse) , but then muslims took it tot wrong and interpreted it as last prophet of humanity.

How beautiful that two cultures were growing next to each other (perhaps unaware of each other). And then Islam which is culmination of abrahamic religion mingled with Hinduism which is culmination of Vedic religion in Punjab . And there took birth of another faith , Sikhism.

No wonder even some official dictionaries define sikhism as "religion mix of hinduism and islam" . And then the whole sikhi saroop is like taken from both rishi (uncut hair , top knot) lineage and abrahamic (turban, long robes/baana) .  Makes perfect sense lol 

don't make this foolish mistake SIkhi is the meta faith , it is the original path which the hindus and abrahamics moved away from and dragged their followers into spiritual cul de sacs by either losing naam simran  or  Guru- shisya relationship with Akal Purakh by adding intermediaries pundits, mullahs, priests, popes, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use