Jazz,
HTML:
To err .. is human, and in this case not a religeous trait.
And Human traits always overshadowed religion. All the great ideas propounded by the Human
mind had been killed by Human nature. Human nature always wins.
The merely theoretical and logical people have always failed to understand man. They have
never looked into his psychology.
LOGIC IS ONE THING... and unless we try to understand man more psychologically and less
logically, we are always going to commit mistakes.
ACCORDING TO THE MARXISTS, the whole problem is simply the class division between the
poor and the rich. They think that if all government power goes into the hands of the poor,
and they have a dictatorship of the proletariat -- when all classes have disappeared, and the
society has become equal -- then soon there will be no need of any state.
They are all concerned with the society. And that is where their failure lies. As I see it,
utopia is not something that is not going to happen, it is something that is possible, but
we should go to the causes, not to the symptoms. And the causes are in the individuals,
not in the society.
For example, Marxism lasted more than seventy years in in Soviet Russia, and the communist
revolution was not able to dissolve the dictatorship. Lenin was thinking that ten or fifteen years
at the most would be enough, because by that time we would have equalized everybody,
distributed wealth equally -- then there would be no need for a government.
BUT AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS they found that the moment you remove the enforced state,
people are going to become again unequal. There will be again rich people and there will be
again poor people, because there is something in people which makes them rich or poor.
So you have to keep them in almost a concentration camp if you want them to remain equal.
But this is a strange kind of equality because it destroys all freedom, all individuality.
The basic idea was that the individual would be given equal opportunity. His needs would be
fulfilled equally, he would have everything equal to everybody else. He would share it. But the
ultimate outcome was just the opposite. They almost destroyed the individual to whom they
were trying to give equality, and freedom, and everything good that should be given to individuals.
The very individual was removed. They became afraid of the individual; and the reason was that
they were still not aware that however long the enforced state lasts -- seventy or seven hundred
years -- it will not make any difference. The moment you remove control, there will be a few
people who know how to be rich, and there will be a few people who know how to be poor.
And they will simply start the whole thing again.
Although the people were poor, still they wanted to cling to their property. At least they had
something; and now even that was going to be taken out of their hands. They were hoping to
get something more -- that's why they had had the revolution, and fought for it. Now what
they had was going to be taken out of their hands. It was going to become government property,
it was going to be nationalized.... And for small things -- somebody may have had just a few hens,
or a cow, and he was not willing... because that was all that he had. A small house... and he was
not willing for it to be nationalized.
These poor people -- one million people were killed to convince the rest
that nationalization is good for them.
As time passed, they found that there was no way to keep people equal without force.
But what kind of a utopia is it which is kept by force? And because the communist party
had all the force, a new kind of division came into being, a new class of the bureaucrats:
those who had power, and those who didn't have any power. It was very difficult to become
a member, to obtain membership of the communist party in Russia, because that was
entering into the power elite. The communist party created many other groups
-- first you had to be a member of those groups, and you had to be checked in every way.
When they found that you were really reliable, absolutely reliable, trustworthy, then you
could enter the communist party. And the party was not increasing its membership
because that meant dividing power.
The party wanted to remain as small as possible so that the power was in a few hands.
There was now a powerful class. For more than seventy years the same group was ruling
the country, and everybody else was powerless. The people were never so powerless
under a capitalist regime or under a feudal regime. Under the czars they were never so
powerless. It was possible for a poor man, if he was intelligent enough, to become rich.
Now it was not so easy. You may be intelligent, but it is not so easy to go from the powerless
class into the class which holds power. The distance between the two classes was far more
than it was before.
It was a repeat of Hinduism. What Manu did 1500 years ago the Marxists did in the 20th century.
The other ism's, including Sikhism, are no different. The people in powerful positions
SGPC,Tat-Khalsa-Singh-Sabha variety) too are afraid of the individual.
SIKH is derived from the sanskrity word of
“sikhsa”, meaning the learner. If we are learner’s
we should be applying the techniques of learning; passionate debate, constructive criticism,
clarity and REASON! (do not undermine human reason). But to criticize the Sikh faith on
certain aspects is becoming ineffectual for me, nobody listens, especially the people on the
far right. Bu I am going to criticize anyway to reach out to the very few that understand.
The reason why I criticize certain aspects of faith is certainly not to offend anyone, I believe
that a liberal-minded and critical approach is lacking in our religion, this is offsetting serious
religious doubts in the mind of youth such as myself. Those who believe criticism is a negative
thing and breaks a religion are utterly wrong. Criticism is the bases on which a religion EVOLVES
(take note people from the far right) and comes out stronger and more resilient.
I myself am a Sikh and have all the right in the world(India is a free country) to criticise things
I don't agree with. How shall one discuss Sikhi or anything without Sikhi or any such idea, no matter
how great, itself being open to criticism ?? Even blasphemy is an integral part of all quest for Truth.
The Sikh Gurus themselves were an example of this tradition of critique. So boys, if you want to be
proud of who you are develop some confidence and real faith in what you say you believe in.
Remember the Sikhs were considered liberal minded “back in the day”, which is why they
suffered atrocities as our teachings conflicted with the teachings of the existing Islamic state.
If you are a true Sikh retain your liberal mind and move forth this STATIC faith that has
become detached from reality. How can we forget that ?? How can we abuse a Brahamin
in the domocratic world . The Brahamana is considered preist by the Hindus. An equivalent
of the Granthi. The Hindu scriptures contain lot of pronography but none of the Hindus or
their shakraacharyas have ever raised the question of pronography and it's removal.
Let us see when ever such demand is raised how do the Hindu devouts rataliate.
And if you ask me... I am sure they will give me all the reason in the world to continue
to be proud of whatever I believe in. I am a real Sikh. A Sikh-Hindu. Searching for the truth.
Maintaining a distance from those who claim to have found it.
Every-thing that is not sikh(as defined by London-Toronto-Neo-Sikh clowns) is our enemy
they proclaim. Superstitious, idol worshipper Hindu... we all cry.
But if we find the
Jutti of any Guru we start bowing from a 100 yards to pay our respect.
If some body found some stone at some place and said that these are the stones which
one of the Guru's used in Modi Khana, we build Big Gurdwawa's and
Mela's are held and
the stones are worshipped . If some body said that Guru Gobind Singh drank milk in a
holed Jug we spend loads of money to pay homage.
All the hindu corruptive attributes that the Sikh Gurus and Hindu Saints like Namdev
long before Nanak denounced have today been adopted en-masse by the Sikh themselves.
No body calls a Hindu adharmi if he doesn't wear a janneyu but a sikh is branded as an
out-cast by even his own relatives if he trims his hair. I am an atheist and never hide my
believes or lack of them. But every Ganesh festival I am there at the fore front to carry
the idol on the day of immersion and nobody has ever bothered. They all know I don't
actually give a damn about God(though I am open to the idea of it's existence if some-one
can convince me). I am free to enter the neighbourhood Shiv Temple and nobody cares
that an athiest is distributing prasad. And I am cent-per-cent certain that nobody in the
Guru-Dwara is ever going to allow me to distribute prasad.
Whenever I think about all this I am reminded of the story behind Shivratri. The story goes
that when during the amrit-manthan along with the amrit of life even vish was produced in
an equal measure. Shiva descended from his abode and in order to cleanse the amrit decided
to drink away all the vish that could have killed all life as soon as it began. In doing so,
though he saved the world, he himself turned blue.
The same is with Sikhism. If we have to go by the definition of A sikh by western Akali-Neo-Sikh
scholar or even the SGPC clowns, shaven Sikhs (or even those who use ‘fixo’ or other similar
cosmetic products, to smarten-up their facial hair) are not true Sikhs; the Amli Sikhs and
Ram-garhiya Sikhs, Nirankari's, Nihang's, Sanatani's are not a part of ‘true Sikhdom’; and those
who do not subscribe to the demand for a separate Sikh state don’t even belong to human race.
A God turned against itself. An edifice created by the Human mind decimated by Human nature.
Thanks.
