☀️ 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
Hard Talk
Caste
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="bulleshah" data-source="post: 25588" data-attributes="member: 2717"><p><strong>Jazz,</strong></p><p> </p><p>[html] </p><p>To err .. is human, and in this case not a religeous trait.</p><p>[/html]</p><p> </p><p>And Human traits always overshadowed religion. All the great ideas propounded by the Human</p><p>mind had been killed by Human nature. Human nature always wins.</p><p> </p><p>The merely theoretical and logical people have always failed to understand man. They have</p><p>never looked into his psychology.</p><p> </p><p>LOGIC IS ONE THING... and unless we try to understand man more psychologically and less</p><p>logically, we are always going to commit mistakes. </p><p> </p><p>ACCORDING TO THE MARXISTS, the whole problem is simply the class division between the</p><p>poor and the rich. They think that if all government power goes into the hands of the poor,</p><p>and they have a dictatorship of the proletariat -- when all classes have disappeared, and the</p><p>society has become equal -- then soon there will be no need of any state.</p><p> </p><p>They are all concerned with the society. And that is where their failure lies. As I see it,</p><p>utopia is not something that is not going to happen, it is something that is possible, but</p><p>we should go to the causes, not to the symptoms. And the causes are in the individuals,</p><p>not in the society.</p><p> </p><p>For example, Marxism lasted more than seventy years in in Soviet Russia, and the communist</p><p>revolution was not able to dissolve the dictatorship. Lenin was thinking that ten or fifteen years</p><p>at the most would be enough, because by that time we would have equalized everybody,</p><p>distributed wealth equally -- then there would be no need for a government.</p><p> </p><p>BUT AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS they found that the moment you remove the enforced state,</p><p>people are going to become again unequal. There will be again rich people and there will be</p><p>again poor people, because there is something in people which makes them rich or poor.</p><p>So you have to keep them in almost a concentration camp if you want them to remain equal.</p><p>But this is a strange kind of equality because it destroys all freedom, all individuality.</p><p> </p><p>The basic idea was that the individual would be given equal opportunity. His needs would be</p><p>fulfilled equally, he would have everything equal to everybody else. He would share it. But the</p><p>ultimate outcome was just the opposite. They almost destroyed the individual to whom they</p><p>were trying to give equality, and freedom, and everything good that should be given to individuals.</p><p>The very individual was removed. They became afraid of the individual; and the reason was that</p><p>they were still not aware that however long the enforced state lasts -- seventy or seven hundred</p><p>years -- it will not make any difference. The moment you remove control, there will be a few</p><p>people who know how to be rich, and there will be a few people who know how to be poor.</p><p>And they will simply start the whole thing again.</p><p> </p><p>Although the people were poor, still they wanted to cling to their property. At least they had</p><p>something; and now even that was going to be taken out of their hands. They were hoping to</p><p>get something more -- that's why they had had the revolution, and fought for it. Now what</p><p>they had was going to be taken out of their hands. It was going to become government property,</p><p>it was going to be nationalized.... And for small things -- somebody may have had just a few hens,</p><p>or a cow, and he was not willing... because that was all that he had. A small house... and he was</p><p>not willing for it to be nationalized.</p><p> </p><p>These poor people -- one million people were killed to convince the rest</p><p>that nationalization is good for them.</p><p> </p><p>As time passed, they found that there was no way to keep people equal without force.</p><p>But what kind of a utopia is it which is kept by force? And because the communist party</p><p>had all the force, a new kind of division came into being, a new class of the bureaucrats:</p><p>those who had power, and those who didn't have any power. It was very difficult to become</p><p>a member, to obtain membership of the communist party in Russia, because that was</p><p>entering into the power elite. The communist party created many other groups</p><p>-- first you had to be a member of those groups, and you had to be checked in every way.</p><p>When they found that you were really reliable, absolutely reliable, trustworthy, then you</p><p>could enter the communist party. And the party was not increasing its membership</p><p>because that meant dividing power.</p><p> </p><p>The party wanted to remain as small as possible so that the power was in a few hands.</p><p>There was now a powerful class. For more than seventy years the same group was ruling</p><p>the country, and everybody else was powerless. The people were never so powerless</p><p>under a capitalist regime or under a feudal regime. Under the czars they were never so</p><p>powerless. It was possible for a poor man, if he was intelligent enough, to become rich.</p><p>Now it was not so easy. You may be intelligent, but it is not so easy to go from the powerless</p><p>class into the class which holds power. The distance between the two classes was far more</p><p>than it was before.</p><p> </p><p>It was a repeat of Hinduism. What Manu did 1500 years ago the Marxists did in the 20th century.</p><p> </p><p>The other ism's, including Sikhism, are no different. The people in powerful positions</p><p>SGPC,Tat-Khalsa-Singh-Sabha variety) too are afraid of the individual.</p><p> </p><p><strong>SIKH</strong> is derived from the sanskrity word of <em><strong>“sikhsa”,</strong></em> meaning the learner. If we are learner’s</p><p>we should be applying the techniques of learning; passionate debate, constructive criticism,</p><p>clarity and REASON! (do not undermine human reason). But to criticize the Sikh faith on</p><p>certain aspects is becoming ineffectual for me, nobody listens, especially the people on the</p><p>far right. Bu I am going to criticize anyway to reach out to the very few that understand.</p><p>The reason why I criticize certain aspects of faith is certainly not to offend anyone, I believe</p><p>that a liberal-minded and critical approach is lacking in our religion, this is offsetting serious</p><p>religious doubts in the mind of youth such as myself. Those who believe criticism is a negative</p><p>thing and breaks a religion are utterly wrong. Criticism is the bases on which a religion EVOLVES</p><p>(take note people from the far right) and comes out stronger and more resilient.</p><p> </p><p>I myself am a Sikh and have all the right in the world(India is a free country) to criticise things</p><p>I don't agree with. How shall one discuss Sikhi or anything without Sikhi or any such idea, no matter</p><p>how great, itself being open to criticism ?? Even blasphemy is an integral part of all quest for Truth.</p><p>The Sikh Gurus themselves were an example of this tradition of critique. So boys, if you want to be</p><p>proud of who you are develop some confidence and real faith in what you say you believe in.</p><p> </p><p>Remember the Sikhs were considered liberal minded “back in the day”, which is why they</p><p>suffered atrocities as our teachings conflicted with the teachings of the existing Islamic state.</p><p>If you are a true Sikh retain your liberal mind and move forth this STATIC faith that has</p><p>become detached from reality. How can we forget that ?? How can we abuse a Brahamin</p><p>in the domocratic world . The Brahamana is considered preist by the Hindus. An equivalent</p><p>of the Granthi. The Hindu scriptures contain lot of pronography but none of the Hindus or</p><p>their shakraacharyas have ever raised the question of pronography and it's removal.</p><p>Let us see when ever such demand is raised how do the Hindu devouts rataliate.</p><p>And if you ask me... I am sure they will give me all the reason in the world to continue</p><p>to be proud of whatever I believe in. I am a real Sikh. A Sikh-Hindu. Searching for the truth.</p><p>Maintaining a distance from those who claim to have found it.</p><p> </p><p>Every-thing that is not sikh(as defined by London-Toronto-Neo-Sikh clowns) is our enemy</p><p>they proclaim. Superstitious, idol worshipper Hindu... we all cry.</p><p> </p><p>But if we find the <em>Jutti</em> of any Guru we start bowing from a 100 yards to pay our respect.</p><p>If some body found some stone at some place and said that these are the stones which</p><p>one of the Guru's used in Modi Khana, we build Big Gurdwawa's and <em>Mela's</em> are held and</p><p>the stones are worshipped . If some body said that Guru Gobind Singh drank milk in a</p><p>holed Jug we spend loads of money to pay homage.</p><p> </p><p>All the hindu corruptive attributes that the Sikh Gurus and Hindu Saints like Namdev</p><p>long before Nanak denounced have today been adopted en-masse by the Sikh themselves.</p><p>No body calls a Hindu adharmi if he doesn't wear a janneyu but a sikh is branded as an</p><p>out-cast by even his own relatives if he trims his hair. I am an atheist and never hide my</p><p>believes or lack of them. But every Ganesh festival I am there at the fore front to carry</p><p>the idol on the day of immersion and nobody has ever bothered. They all know I don't</p><p>actually give a damn about God(though I am open to the idea of it's existence if some-one</p><p>can convince me). I am free to enter the neighbourhood Shiv Temple and nobody cares</p><p>that an athiest is distributing prasad. And I am cent-per-cent certain that nobody in the</p><p>Guru-Dwara is ever going to allow me to distribute prasad.</p><p> </p><p>Whenever I think about all this I am reminded of the story behind Shivratri. The story goes</p><p>that when during the amrit-manthan along with the amrit of life even vish was produced in</p><p>an equal measure. Shiva descended from his abode and in order to cleanse the amrit decided</p><p>to drink away all the vish that could have killed all life as soon as it began. In doing so,</p><p>though he saved the world, he himself turned blue.</p><p> </p><p>The same is with Sikhism. If we have to go by the definition of A sikh by western Akali-Neo-Sikh</p><p>scholar or even the SGPC clowns, shaven Sikhs (or even those who use ‘fixo’ or other similar</p><p>cosmetic products, to smarten-up their facial hair) are not true Sikhs; the Amli Sikhs and</p><p>Ram-garhiya Sikhs, Nirankari's, Nihang's, Sanatani's are not a part of ‘true Sikhdom’; and those</p><p>who do not subscribe to the demand for a separate Sikh state don’t even belong to human race. </p><p> </p><p>A God turned against itself. An edifice created by the Human mind decimated by Human nature.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Thanks.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bulleshah, post: 25588, member: 2717"] [B]Jazz,[/B] [html] To err .. is human, and in this case not a religeous trait. [/html] 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. [B]SIKH[/B] is derived from the sanskrity word of [I][B]“sikhsa”,[/B][/I] 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 [I]Jutti[/I] 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 [I]Mela's[/I] 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. [B]Thanks.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Caste
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