☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Questions & Answers
Sikh Rehat Maryada
Who Is Marrying Sikh Men?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="anon" data-source="post: 205368" data-attributes="member: 19291"><p>Thanks for not deleting my whole comment. It took a long time and I think my arguements are fair, I hope people attempt to rebut them rather than ignore them with the reasoning that they are offensive, and I do to some extent feel that maybe I went to far in some places (given that i wrote ~2000 words I think its fair to say that the places were i went "too far" were actually only a very small part of my post). Never the less, I should have refrained from this. But I hope that you can see <em>why </em>succumbed to the trap of going to far. It was because ActsOfGod attacked me personally.</p><p></p><p>If you read up the thread you will see I made a non personal post about my theory as to why beards are intrinsically unnatractive, and regardless to weather I was right or wrong, it did not warrant the personal attacks ActsOfGod made towards me, and I think it's unfortunate that you are so ready to moderate my comments where I "Insult" sikhism, yet you don't do anything about the way ActsOfGod replied to me with such hostility. His post doesn't bother me but the double standard of these rules does, but if that's the way it has to be I suppose i'll just have to play by your rules.</p><p></p><p>You'll also note that in reference to my own post i put the word "insult" in speech marks. This is because I don't feel like I insulted sikhism. When talking about the bleach I didn't intend for it to read that: "gurbani makes me want to drink bleach", the point I was trying to make is that bleach, (or for that matter any poison which dulles the senses, alchohol, drugs etc) have the effect of altering our minds to make us not fear death. That was the point I was trying to make sorry if it did not read that way.</p><p></p><p>I also don't think there is anything wrong with caling SGGS a "so-called" guru. I am not a sikh, and therefore I don't recognize it as my guru, which is why I used the term "so called". I think it's reasonable for any non-sikh to not recognize sggs as their guru and if you want this place to be able to accommodate people of other faiths then I think its not reasonable to deem the term "so-called guru" as offensive.</p><p></p><p>Finally I don't think i've been offesive where I have used the term, "Man", "Militant" or "Book" in reference to the Sikh gurus. Like I said they are not my guru's, to me Guru Nanak was not divine, he is just a man. To take offense to me calling him this is to again deny a dialogue in which non-sikhs can participate with the usage of non-sikh terminology.</p><p><strong><u></u></strong></p><p><strong><u>now onto you AoG</u></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>My first theory is that the reason why you are saying this is because you have read my post and either can’t be bothered to reply to it because It’s long, or don’t want to reply for it because you can’t come back with a good response. Of course if you admit this you look weak, so you need an excuse not to respond, so instead you play the “I’m so offended you aren’t worth my time” card. Now I could be wrong, this is just a theory but let’s examine the alternative, let’s say that you truly are so offended you don’t have it in you to respond.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>As I said above I don’t believe that what I have said has been offensive (perhaps mildly offensive, especially since I wrote over 2000 words and only a very small portion could be considered mildly inflammatory). I think that I have presented a critique of sikh philosophy, and you should (as a manly man) have enough conviction in your own faith to be able to defend it. This is a forum of discussion, and if you are so strong in your faith and philosophy you should be able to use this forum to address my critique. After the next quote ill consider another alternative.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Let’s now assume that what I have said IS excessively offensive (I don’t believe this to be true but let’s assume it anyway). If it is offensive then surely it’s not very manly to get all offended to the point where you can’t even reply? If I have offended your philosophy, then you as a “real man” should be able to defend it, afterall it was YOU who said that a real man should be “strong on their principles and morals”. Yet because of a few insults, a few words, you aren’t able to reply because you are so offended. This isn’t being strong on your principles, you aren’t being very manly</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>Secondly if you are going to dismiss me for being offensive then by your standard I should be able to dismiss you for being offensive. You called my theory “BS”, You said I don’t stick to my principles, You said I was lustful, You said I sniff around females like a dog you said I wasn’t a “real man”, You replied to my post about physical attraction and twisted it into vulgaraity portraying me as a shallow person who is driven by sex and “base” pleasures. You did all of these things despite not knowing me and having only seen one post from me. Not only have you been judgmental without basis but you have also been extremely hostile. also why do you talk like this:</strong></p><p><strong>"<strong>For you know not what you speak. You are blind."</strong></strong></p><p><strong><strong></strong></strong></p><p><strong><strong>this isn't biblical times, there's no need to be so dramatic in the way you write, why be so over the top?</strong></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>On a forum of sikh philosophy we should be able to discuss how the sikh philosophy holds up to other conflicting philosophies, my own philosophy being one such conflicting philosophy. My post was entirely appropriate to be on a sikh forum. </strong></p><p></p><p><strong>A sikh philosophy forum is also a place where criticisms of Sikhism can be rebutted, that was what you were supposed to do. Instead you walked away because you were offended. Perhaps it is YOU who doesn’t belong on a sikh phislosophy forum</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>YOU were the one that made me bring up my family issues, YOU were the one who asked me “Who's stopping you? Why do you say "not being able to"? What is that nonsense?”. I replied honestly. Don’t tell me that I can’t talk about my own personal problems when YOU were the one that asked me about them.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>A: “Hello sir how are you?”</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>B: “I’m not feeling great”</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>A: “For god sake no one cares!!! why are you telling me this!?”</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p><strong>I don’t think it’s cowardice, I think it’s a tough choice. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to see that choosing between my own freedom and my parents’ happiness is a distressing dilemma. Not that distressing mind you, I can live with it, but still it’s a choice, a very real choice, and I don’t think either option is the coward’s way out. Again you are just using the word “Coward” because you want to personally insult me. This reveals your own double standard of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>You be a man. Have the courage to reply to what I said rather than just shrug it off because you are offended. A beard does not make you a man, according to you it’s alsoabout how you behave. Being so offended that you are just going to walk away is not manly at all.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>that took a while. I just read my old post. While I didn't like being moderated, i'd like to say thanks Ishna for not moderating my post to the the extent where the original message has been lost. I also think this topic is taking a turn for things more personal and deviating away from the original thread topic. If either of you want to discuss this further then I think it would be better do do so over personal message so we don't derail things further.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="anon, post: 205368, member: 19291"] Thanks for not deleting my whole comment. It took a long time and I think my arguements are fair, I hope people attempt to rebut them rather than ignore them with the reasoning that they are offensive, and I do to some extent feel that maybe I went to far in some places (given that i wrote ~2000 words I think its fair to say that the places were i went "too far" were actually only a very small part of my post). Never the less, I should have refrained from this. But I hope that you can see [I]why [/I]succumbed to the trap of going to far. It was because ActsOfGod attacked me personally. If you read up the thread you will see I made a non personal post about my theory as to why beards are intrinsically unnatractive, and regardless to weather I was right or wrong, it did not warrant the personal attacks ActsOfGod made towards me, and I think it's unfortunate that you are so ready to moderate my comments where I "Insult" sikhism, yet you don't do anything about the way ActsOfGod replied to me with such hostility. His post doesn't bother me but the double standard of these rules does, but if that's the way it has to be I suppose i'll just have to play by your rules. You'll also note that in reference to my own post i put the word "insult" in speech marks. This is because I don't feel like I insulted sikhism. When talking about the bleach I didn't intend for it to read that: "gurbani makes me want to drink bleach", the point I was trying to make is that bleach, (or for that matter any poison which dulles the senses, alchohol, drugs etc) have the effect of altering our minds to make us not fear death. That was the point I was trying to make sorry if it did not read that way. I also don't think there is anything wrong with caling SGGS a "so-called" guru. I am not a sikh, and therefore I don't recognize it as my guru, which is why I used the term "so called". I think it's reasonable for any non-sikh to not recognize sggs as their guru and if you want this place to be able to accommodate people of other faiths then I think its not reasonable to deem the term "so-called guru" as offensive. Finally I don't think i've been offesive where I have used the term, "Man", "Militant" or "Book" in reference to the Sikh gurus. Like I said they are not my guru's, to me Guru Nanak was not divine, he is just a man. To take offense to me calling him this is to again deny a dialogue in which non-sikhs can participate with the usage of non-sikh terminology. [B][U] now onto you AoG[/U][/B] [B]My first theory is that the reason why you are saying this is because you have read my post and either can’t be bothered to reply to it because It’s long, or don’t want to reply for it because you can’t come back with a good response. Of course if you admit this you look weak, so you need an excuse not to respond, so instead you play the “I’m so offended you aren’t worth my time” card. Now I could be wrong, this is just a theory but let’s examine the alternative, let’s say that you truly are so offended you don’t have it in you to respond.[/B] [B]As I said above I don’t believe that what I have said has been offensive (perhaps mildly offensive, especially since I wrote over 2000 words and only a very small portion could be considered mildly inflammatory). I think that I have presented a critique of sikh philosophy, and you should (as a manly man) have enough conviction in your own faith to be able to defend it. This is a forum of discussion, and if you are so strong in your faith and philosophy you should be able to use this forum to address my critique. After the next quote ill consider another alternative.[/B] [B]Let’s now assume that what I have said IS excessively offensive (I don’t believe this to be true but let’s assume it anyway). If it is offensive then surely it’s not very manly to get all offended to the point where you can’t even reply? If I have offended your philosophy, then you as a “real man” should be able to defend it, afterall it was YOU who said that a real man should be “strong on their principles and morals”. Yet because of a few insults, a few words, you aren’t able to reply because you are so offended. This isn’t being strong on your principles, you aren’t being very manly[/B] [B]Secondly if you are going to dismiss me for being offensive then by your standard I should be able to dismiss you for being offensive. You called my theory “BS”, You said I don’t stick to my principles, You said I was lustful, You said I sniff around females like a dog you said I wasn’t a “real man”, You replied to my post about physical attraction and twisted it into vulgaraity portraying me as a shallow person who is driven by sex and “base” pleasures. You did all of these things despite not knowing me and having only seen one post from me. Not only have you been judgmental without basis but you have also been extremely hostile. also why do you talk like this: "[B]For you know not what you speak. You are blind." this isn't biblical times, there's no need to be so dramatic in the way you write, why be so over the top?[/B][/B] [B] On a forum of sikh philosophy we should be able to discuss how the sikh philosophy holds up to other conflicting philosophies, my own philosophy being one such conflicting philosophy. My post was entirely appropriate to be on a sikh forum. [/B] [B]A sikh philosophy forum is also a place where criticisms of Sikhism can be rebutted, that was what you were supposed to do. Instead you walked away because you were offended. Perhaps it is YOU who doesn’t belong on a sikh phislosophy forum[/B] [B]YOU were the one that made me bring up my family issues, YOU were the one who asked me “Who's stopping you? Why do you say "not being able to"? What is that nonsense?”. I replied honestly. Don’t tell me that I can’t talk about my own personal problems when YOU were the one that asked me about them.[/B] [B]A: “Hello sir how are you?”[/B] [B]B: “I’m not feeling great”[/B] [B]A: “For god sake no one cares!!! why are you telling me this!?”[/B] [B]I don’t think it’s cowardice, I think it’s a tough choice. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to see that choosing between my own freedom and my parents’ happiness is a distressing dilemma. Not that distressing mind you, I can live with it, but still it’s a choice, a very real choice, and I don’t think either option is the coward’s way out. Again you are just using the word “Coward” because you want to personally insult me. This reveals your own double standard of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it.[/B] [B]You be a man. Have the courage to reply to what I said rather than just shrug it off because you are offended. A beard does not make you a man, according to you it’s alsoabout how you behave. Being so offended that you are just going to walk away is not manly at all. [/B] that took a while. I just read my old post. While I didn't like being moderated, i'd like to say thanks Ishna for not moderating my post to the the extent where the original message has been lost. I also think this topic is taking a turn for things more personal and deviating away from the original thread topic. If either of you want to discuss this further then I think it would be better do do so over personal message so we don't derail things further. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Questions & Answers
Sikh Rehat Maryada
Who Is Marrying Sikh Men?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top