Sikh Youth Who ?

[kds1980]

KDS ji - As far as your question above is concerned, it is not related to quantity at all, it is related to fanaticism. Leave pakistan as nation, will a fanatic sikh family allow their children to embrace islam even if children want to ? The number of sikhs in india is lesser than the muslims in india but still sikhs won't allow their children to become muslim.

Families and countries are different.a family have to live in soceity.and you have to answer lot of questions to your relative's friends etc.parents in india do regularly force their children do regularly force their children to take lucrative career or marry persons of their choice .But a government has no right to do these things.A government is not answerable to friends or relative 's a government is only acountable to its people.mainly to the quantity.so if a government is doing religious restrictions then itS BECAUSE OF QUANTITY
and for your kind information some sikhs in india are embracing christianity.

Both Miri and Piri are required but without spirituality picking up sword is just tyranny cos until then we are not aware of the truth and by picking up sword I don't mean it literally, it is just a metaphor here.

For god's sake tgill please show me where i said that quality or spirituality is not required
My simple arguement is both quantity and quality are required for a religion to survive.It is always you who undermine the importance of quantity.


`

 

[Archived_Member_19]

KDS ji

if you view how to grow "Sikhism" - quantity is required

if you want "Sikhi" to grow, inner qualities of you and only you matter.

i think i had posted this in past also.

there is difference between Sikhi and Sikhism.

 

[kds1980]

KDS ji

if you view how to grow "Sikhism" - quantity is required

if you want "Sikhi" to grow, inner qualities of you and only you matter.

i think i had posted this in past also.

there is difference between Sikhi and Sikhism.

i agree with it.but both sikhi and sikhism are equally important

 

[Archived_Member_19]

for an individual?

 

[Archived_Member1]

for an individual?

is that a trick question?

Sikhi is necessary to the individual Sikh. many such individuals are necessary for Sikhism to exist.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

who gets counted?

individual or the group?

 

[Archived_Member1]

counted for what? are we having a contest of some sort?

why do i feel like i must have missed something...

 

[kds1980]

for an individual?

For an indivisual both sikhi and sikhism are important.but for community sikhism is more important and for indivisual sikhi should be more important.

 

[kds1980]

Dear tgill

Now let me quote you another example of power of quantity.In 1984 after the assasination of indira gandhi 5000 to 10,000 sikhs were mercilessly killed.And guess what the party that committed this henious crime was not a fanatic hindu party.It is so called seculer party who always preached about secularism.and guess what after the carnage the congress emerged as victorious party with winning 400 seats out of 540.At that time hardly any political party tried to make it in an election issue because sikhs were not their votebank.
Very few polticians tried to bring justice to sikh community.

So the biggest truth is that majority of people in this world only care about themselves and about their own community.

Also in 1991 rajiv gandhi was assasinated by tamilian.was there any tamilian killed by congress goons at that time the answer is no why because there religion is similar

And in 2002 when bjp killed muslims in gujarat many political parties broke their alliance with bjp because muslims have much bigger vote bank.Many Ngo's political parties want justice for victims of gujarat but for sikhs the same had different standards.Both sikhs and muslims are minority in india.and historically sikhs were always allies of hindu's while muslims enemies.The difference between SIKHS AND MUSLIMS IN INDIA IS JUST QUANTITY.

 

[Archived_Member_19]

<<
counted for what? are we having a contest of some sort?

why do i feel like i must have missed something...>>


there is no contest, just the journey

there is no companion, just self and shabd

there is no "one" way, each way take you there

 

[drkhalsa]

Dear Friend Disscusion is going really good with so many view points !

KDS ji your last post was exceptionally good and the logic you put is absolutely Relevant


One interesting thing came to my mind while reaing the posts

few of us are quite bent on the Idea of personal Sikhi and not the community Sikhi as we think it will follow so Quantity should not be much of concern that should bother us

Right?

Me personally Agree with KDS about Quantity thing Big time . as I understand Its a big issue that Quality that we aspire should be looked after but Quantity for small Community like sikh is Limiting Factor ( we do in bioch raections).

few questions now for everybody

Sikhism came about in India with Gods Grace through our beloved Gurus

1.What did it change? for india or Place where it originated to be specific

2. Do the so called personal enlightenment or union with God rate increased in India ? this is what personal sikhi concept tend to achieve

3. Was the godly knowledge on the earth was not enough or deficient that Sihism made complete

4 . now aslk the question again what did the sikhism did or achioeved after it appeared on earth and does this not reuire quantity .??




My Answers


So called Godly knowledge required to have union with Lord /God /Enlightment was already enough in India to say the least

what our Beloved Guru Sahiban achieved was tio revive it and deliver it a Scial setup and structure were the knowledge can gain flow which was already there But blocked by the collapsed social structure

(If some body doubt that just get hold of any book of advaitisim ( non duality) and read it in english you will find the Exactly same things you find in Gurbai nothin less notin more and that is here in India from Long time before Sikhism )

what our Guru Achieved was the Scial fabric and structure in which Knowledge can flow with Predujice and hindrances and that constitutes the Sikh Cultures and its Practices

Without Numbers do you think it will exist or of any use ., Instead sikh should make a point to spread this to as far as possible it is just infrastuture and is not imposing some religion on others and its best achieved in understanding by Quantity so quantity cant be Ignored at any cost along with Quality


Thanks


Jatinder Singh

 

[TGill]

Khalsa ji as always I have a different view

- The basic premise that you have in all the questions is that godly knowledge is required to achieve union with God. I think this is totally wrong, the true experience is required with Guru grace to get union with your own self. Knowlegde doesn't help but only disrupts, Guru's sabad hits prejudices and helps to attain union. All knowledge is waste at that time. Godly knowledge was definitely enough at that time but that knowledge does nothing.

- Now what Gurus have achieved - Well if their objective was to get better social structure then that requires a social reformer not a true guru. Gurus objective was different, it was to follow akaal's will and provide true experience to as many people possible. For this reason they provided the eternal Guru in the form of Guru Granth Sahib.

- Now the difference could have been achieved with the help of this true Guru but is not achieved cos of hollow preaching (talking about present time). Now it is as simple as this, increase quantity but how can we bring people to follow your own path when we ourself don't know what that path is or do we ?

- Now coming to achieving quantity in order to get social justice and all that. Well for that you definitely need quantity but which path do we need to follow to get there is what matters. How can we achieve that quantity with hollow preaching without incentive. Christian missionaries lure people with money, lifestyle and what not and so do muslim preachers in the name of getting advantage of emotional nature of people and showing them a totally wrong path which is highly fanatic. What will we do ? A major question....

- So in the end the only way to increase the quantity is to know the path ourselves first and then bring people onto that. Ultimately the humanity matter not religion. The religion was started for humanity's service.

 

[drkhalsa]

Dear GIll ji


Thanks for your response and there no Problem with your disagrement and it is more desired on a forum other wise there is no use of disscusion

and just a point here I never said that Knowledge leads to Union
I just said that Guru JI never brought anything new but just the Revival of the all that was there . May be you are reading your thoughts in between my lines .

Thanks for your input as every different view help me understand the thing better

Jatinder Singh

 

[kds1980]

Dear Friend Disscusion is going really good with so many view points !

KDS ji your last post was exceptionally good and the logic you put is absolutely Relevant


One interesting thing came to my mind while reaing the posts

few of us are quite bent on the Idea of personal Sikhi and not the community Sikhi as we think it will follow so Quantity should not be much of concern that should bother us

Right?

Me personally Agree with KDS about Quantity thing Big time . as I understand Its a big issue that Quality that we aspire should be looked after but Quantity for small Community like sikh is Limiting Factor ( we do in bioch raections).

few questions now for everybody

Sikhism came about in India with Gods Grace through our beloved Gurus

1.What did it change? for india or Place where it originated to be specific

2. Do the so called personal enlightenment or union with God rate increased in India ? this is what personal sikhi concept tend to achieve

3. Was the godly knowledge on the earth was not enough or deficient that Sihism made complete

4 . now aslk the question again what did the sikhism did or achioeved after it appeared on earth and does this not reuire quantity .??




My Answers


So called Godly knowledge required to have union with Lord /God /Enlightment was already enough in India to say the least

what our Beloved Guru Sahiban achieved was tio revive it and deliver it a Scial setup and structure were the knowledge can gain flow which was already there But blocked by the collapsed social structure

(If some body doubt that just get hold of any book of advaitisim ( non duality) and read it in english you will find the Exactly same things you find in Gurbai nothin less notin more and that is here in India from Long time before Sikhism )

what our Guru Achieved was the Scial fabric and structure in which Knowledge can flow with Predujice and hindrances and that constitutes the Sikh Cultures and its Practices

Without Numbers do you think it will exist or of any use ., Instead sikh should make a point to spread this to as far as possible it is just infrastuture and is not imposing some religion on others and its best achieved in understanding by Quantity so quantity cant be Ignored at any cost along with Quality


Thanks


Jatinder Singh

Thanks for appreciating my post.I agree with you that there was no shortage of sprituality
in india but advaita i doubt because someone told me that advaita is somewhat nastik.?

 

[kds1980]

Dear tgill

.Many bhakti movement saints started their paths but with time most them assimilated in mainstream hinduism or islam.sikhism is also a product of bhakti movement Guru hargobind ji established akal takhat and introduced political element in sikhism.this differentiate sikhism from other bhakti movements and because of this political element sikhism survived on its own.For this political element we need quantity.This is the bitter pill which everybody has to accept.Also along with guru granth sahib guru gobind singh ji gave corporate guruship
to panth for taking timely decision for the panth.If our guru's was just to uplift people spiritualy then why political element was introduced .why corporate guruship was given to panth for taking timely decisions.

How can we achieve that quantity with hollow preaching

Good question but then you should look at the radhaswami's ,dera sacha sauda,nirankari etc.these people do not give anything to their followers.Infact most of them take donations
.they only preach to people and their ideology is carbon copy of sikhism They just don't mention about sikh guru's and call themselves guru's.Many people are looking for spiritual paths and with good preaching they will become attracted to sikhism.if person is completed 5 th grade in school then it does not mean he cannot teach to nursery children.sikhism is is also like a school very few will be able to do PHD .but others can also teach to students.

 

[drkhalsa]

but advaita i doubt because someone told me that advaita is somewhat nastik.?

It is surely observation of some nastik himself so dont care jusyt can take it with pinch of salt ( as it says in ireland)

May be its Sikhism where I found peace for the first time or some of my wonderful Sikh friends but I have never found any problem with varioous such spirtual paths and their books . they always hel[ me in understanding everything better .

And yes Avaita does not talk much about love of God may be this is what people called nastik but on the other hand it stays just on point and does not make you sway from the main point



Jatinder Singh

 

[Saim]

kind of. atheists deny the existence of God. in my opinion, this strong belief in the non-existence of God is a religion of it's own.

Saim seems to have confused Atheists (who don't believe in God) with Agnostics (who don't know/care/state whether God exists or not).

in my opinion, agnosticism is probably the least positive path, as it shows a total lack of interest in spiritual or religious learning. (i'm a former agnostic )

I don't DENY the existence of god. To me, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. I find no evidence of god, so I assume one doesn't exist: I do the same with all sorts of things, like leprechauns, mermaids, giants, ogres, psi and invisible teapots that orbit around the sun. They could exist, but believing that they do gets one nowhere. No offense to theists, but look at things from my point of view, god is a mythological creature.

Regarding atheism = a religion, I don't think so. Atheism is merely a lack of belief. Atheism is a religion just like "mohawk" or "bald" is a hair color. Atheism is simply a philosophical view that can be part of other ideologies and, yes, even religions (as you state later). I believe in an ideology called "naturalism". Naturalists believe in only scientific and natural explanations of the world. Marxism/communism/socialism is another atheistic ideology. Most people that say "atheist" when asked "What religion are you?" are naturalists. All naturalists are atheists (at least until evidence of god surfaces), while not all atheists are naturalists.

Regarding my supposed confusion, I disagree. Agnostics are actually a kind of atheist, anyway (an a-theist, is someone who is not a theist).

You're kind of generalizing agnosticism, there are multiple kinds:

Irrelevantism - Believes that even if god exists, its not doing anything.
Weak Agnosticism - Believes that he/she does not know.
Strong Agnosticism - Believes that whether god exists or not is ultimately unknowable.

Atheism:

Weak Atheism - Synonymous of agnostic, but I don't use the term.
Strong Atheism - Strongly believes that no god exists.
Default Atheism - Believes that there is no good evidence for god, so there is no point in believing.

My beliefs can bu summed up as this: irrelevantist (look up "The Problem of Evil" and "deism"), weak agnostic, naturalist and default atheist.

my point about buddhism was simply that there are many schools, some believe in God, some in gods, and some in nothing.

actually, some Hindus are also atheist, as are most Jains.

If a religion can be atheistic, how can atheism be a religion? P00n'd!

this line kills all Athiests - "Do you know Atheism is also a religion ? " L@L

This line kills all bald people - "Do you know baldness is actually a hair color?" L@L

ok therez nothinn wrong if one thinks his religion is the best thatss human nature buhh all the religions shud be respected thats wah guru sahib sed.. i think anyone can do seva in the gurd...
wah do u call a person wid uncut hair... juss a punjabi not a sikhh thats wah i say
well i kinda go further anyone hus not amritdhari shud not be considered a sikh (accordinn to me) cz guru gobind singh ji himself took amrit ann became guru gobind SINGH from gobind RAI soo arent the sikhs not INCOMPLETE widout amrit???

Religious people should be respected (unless they do not deserve respect, eg Bin Laden), but religion itself should not be beyond critique. I don't ask people to put my beliefs (or lack of them) beyond critique.

 

[TGill]

Which country your company registered in ?

 

[TGill]

Sorry, got it, you are registered in India.

So do you deliver to US ?

 

[Tash]

The views keep repeating
This is mine...
Sikh: a student... Who learns from his gurus to obeys his gurus... an obedient student... A student that keeps his hair because his guru said so. A student who tries his best to lead a life as a Gursikh. I used to be a mona, but i have kept my hair and am about to take amrit and i can proudly say, I AM A HAPPY SIKH.