patrick.net

Can you provide context and what is expected from me. I will take a look at this video when get chance.
Just from topic I would say , Sikh is independent religion which took "good stuff" from lot of faiths including Hindu/Muslim and we have teachings from all members of society(Unlike Hindu, where Brahman is exclusively dedicated for religion formation).

sikhguy says

Unlike Hindu, where Brahman is exclusively dedicated for religion formation).

Most Brahmins are victims of on going massive positive discrimination.
You must be living in 1800s

sikhguy says

Can you provide context and what is expected from me. I will take a look at this video when get chance.
Just from topic I would say , Sikh is independent religion which took "good stuff" from lot of faiths including Hindu/Muslim and we have teachings from all members of society(Unlike Hindu, where Brahman is exclusively dedicated for religion formation).

Why do you keep complaining that Brahmin formed the religion. Do you get treatment from trained doctor or a guy from street corner? Brahmin were educated so they formed the religion. But all accepted it when they felt it was fair to them.

Why you should watch it. It explains there is not much difference between sikhi and hinduism. Check it out. And check the other videos once they come up in future.

I love cult fights. They're so interesting....

Sikhs were Persian Buddhists, who'd left the former Persian Empire (today's Afghan/Paki border) after Islam rose in power and drove eastern faiths out of their dominion.

So if you split up let's call it, the non-Muslims of the Persian Empire (outside of the Soviet Union) we have the following ...

1) Yazidis (ala westernmost Zoroastrians), living in hiding in mountains between Iran/Iraq/Syria and recently ... genocided by ISIS

2) Armenians, yes, Patrick may disagree but Persian Buddhists, Nestorial Christians, & Zo's also assimilated into this culture to prevent themselves from being executed by the Clerics.

3) Sufis, yes, these are so-called Muslims but they practice a style of guru yoga which replaces Krishna or Buddha w/ Mohammed. In other words, they're sell outs who prefer to live than be executed for being a Hindu or Buddhist. Most of them do not believe Mohammed to be the last prophet and thus, are heretics.

4) Sikhs, a group of Persian Buddhists who joined India in the fight against Islam-A-Badists.

5) Parsis, these are the most racist of all Zoroastrians, who live in Mumbai and feel not only superior to other Indians (you know, the ppl who shielded them from Islam) but other non-Muslims Persians as well. These are the biggest hypocrites because they have Hindu mistresses, bare children with them, but don't allow the wife into Zoroastrian ceremonies because of their skin color.

WookieMan says

I love cult fights. They're so interesting....

A cult says we are different. I am talking about similarities between the dharmic people. I don't think abhrahamic's will understand it.

Rin says

4) Sikhs, a group of Persian Buddhists who joined India in the fight against Islam-A-Badists.

Its funny how Rin can comment on things he doesn't even understand. SIkhi started by guru nanak when he asked for first born sons of hindus to start a martial group that can stop muslim atrocities. The first 5 disciples came from different parts of India. Buddists were long gone in India by the time sikhi formed. It formed in 15th century.

Buddhists were dead by 8th century.

I am not sure about the purpose of this thread. Sikhs have no conflict with any other religion basic thoughts, But it is separate religion.

Patrick and other users on his site can go to any of Sikh Gurudwara to see that they really have no interest in converting anyone or discriminating with anyone.The Gurudwara is like red-cross to help anyone in need.All paths are correct according to Sikhs as long as not messing with our affairs and encroaching on our or anyone's freedom(Sikhs protected Hindus,Muslims and Christians freedom at different times).
http://www.sanjosegurdwara.org/

Hindus and Abrahmics at each other throats is none of our interest. In spite of independent, we can find commonalities with both as long as they are not oppressive to us or anyone else.

Sikhs didn't discriminate "good points" from any religions or Hindu lower castes. It is meaningless to debate Sikhs have influence from whom.. they are influence from everyone who had some good traits to improve society by rejecting discrimination.

sikhguy says

I am not sure about the purpose of this thread. Sikhs have no conflict with any other religion basic thoughts, But it is separate religion.

Patrick and other users on his site can go to any of Sikh Gurudwara to see that they really have no interest in converting anyone or discriminating with anyone.The Gurudwara is like red-cross to help anyone in need.All paths are correct according to Sikhs as long as not messing with our affairs and encroaching on our or anyone's freedom(Sikhs protected Hindus,Muslims and Christians freedom at different times).
http://www.sanjosegurdwara.org/

Hindus and Abrahmics at each other throats is none of our interest. In spite of independent, we can find commonalities with both as long as they are not oppressive to us or anyone else.

Is the peaceful sikh "ranjit singh" was on peace mission when he took over kabul.

Here's the last Mongolian Khanate, which put the coup de grace on non-Muslims in Persia as of the 14th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate



Hey, wait a minute, doesn't that encroach (or tightly border) upon Punjab's area?

Let's see how this could possibly be? ...

http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/iranians_role_expansion_buddhism.php

Excerpt: "They were Sakkis of Aryan origin who have presently abandoned their former religion, are living in India and are known as Sekkeh or Sikhs. These were Buddhist immigrants who migrated from Sistan to India and after settling in Punjab they called themselves Singe, Segeh, Sek or Sikh. "

Looks like this writer also has some insight on the Barmarkian clan, which BTW, didn't start out as Armenian.

It's amazing that India collides with the border of the largest empire in world history but yet, this guy pretends it doesn't exist.

indc says

WookieMan says

I love cult fights. They're so interesting....

A cult says we are different. I am talking about similarities between the dharmic people. I don't think abhrahamic's will understand it.

You both believe in words, ideas and language made up by humans to collect you together as a group. Let me know how I'm incorrect? I'll wait.

WookieMan says

You both believe in words, ideas and language made up by humans to collect you together as a group. Let me know how I'm incorrect? I'll wait.

Hey, I'm trying to get to him the concept that white people weren't an invention of the British Empire and its Cecil Rhodes style proselytizers.

Since the following people live directly across the border between British India and the Soviet Union/Imperial Russia ...





I believe whites have been around for quite some time.

The idea that the British brainwashed Bollywood into recruiting fair skinned ppl is not true. As the British and Russian empires grew, easy transit between areas went down and thus, you don't see so many whites in Kashmir (plus many left during the 1900s) but yet, they still exist just across the border region in the former USSR.

WookieMan says

indc says

WookieMan says

I love cult fights. They're so interesting....

A cult says we are different. I am talking about similarities between the dharmic people. I don't think abhrahamic's will understand it.

You both believe in words, ideas and language made up by humans to collect you together as a group. Let me know how I'm incorrect? I'll wait.

In Abrahamic religions you define a group and keep adding to it. And you have to follow the rules from the group. Here I am saying sikh and hindu follow same principle and still considered to be separate entity and there is no enmity between them. That is the specialty of Dharmic "religions". Dharmic religions say we have as many religions as people. So it does not have the concept of other.

Rin says

WookieMan says

You both believe in words, ideas and language made up by humans to collect you together as a group. Let me know how I'm incorrect? I'll wait.

Hey, I'm trying to get to him the concept that white people weren't an invention of the British Empire and its Cecil Rhodes style proselytizers.

Since the following people live directly across the border between British India and the Soviet Union/Imperial Russia ...





I believe whites have been around for quite some time.

The idea that the British brainwashed Bollywood into recruiting fair skinned ppl is not true. As the British and Russian empires grew, easy transit between areas went down and thus, you don't see so many whites in Kashmir (plus many left durin...

When did I say (all) white people hate India. Only the proselytizing ones. You keep yaping about kingdoms/cultures that were there for what 200yrs max. Do you think that matters to culture that is 5000yrs old and thriving. You still did not show any proof that the buddhists were actual sikhi. I dont mind your blind belief of AIT without any proof. But 200yrs rule doesn't change the characteristic of the region. 1000yr muslim rule nor 200yr british rule changed the India region's culture.

sikhguy says

Patrick and other users on his site can go to any of Sikh Gurudwara to see that they really have no interest in converting anyone or discriminating with anyone.

I did visit the Fremont Gurudwara with a Sikh co-worker who knew about my interest in religions, about 15 years ago. A white Sikh guy in the temple was happy to point out to me that white people have become Sikhs, but there was no pressure.

I also remember the large pictures of Sikhs who had died fighting, maybe fighting India. That was in the eating area (langar?). So there is a strong martial element to Sikhism, but we also have memorials to soldiers.

Yes the pictures in Fremont are for people who fought the Current Indian or Mughal empire.
Typically there won't be pictures of one who fought British colonialism as the fight was more secular not religious.
Again the ones who fought for British won't be there as they were also not fighting religious persecution of Sikhs.

Guy above mentioned that why Sikhs expanded to Afghanistan by "Ranjit Singh".
Ranjit Sikh was a Sikh king, But he was not Sikh religious figure. He did what kings normally do to protect their territory and he didn't do any religious persecution of Muslims or Hindus.

the guy Rin is on some very different tangent. I am not aware of any connections he is trying to make.
The work Sikh in Punjabi means a "learner" as Sikh is suppose to learn throughout his life. Maintain the core values of religion but not reject any other religion.

Also I still not sure what is the purpose of this thread?
If it is to show Sikh is sect of Hindu. It is completely rejected based on many differences. Some commonality is obvious due to shared history and geographical region.
If It is to show Sikhs are Abhrahmic, That has no basis. I am also not sure whether Muslim "Sufis" can be considered Abhramic.. But Sikhs do have Sufi influence.

https://www.amazon.com/Sikhs-We-are-not-Hindus/dp/B003FD0IS8

For centuries the Sikh religion has strived to maintain its identity, within the colossal framework of Hinduism. It has been no easy task to keep the followers of the Sikh faith from adopting aspects of the caste system or from adopting pervasive social customs. "We are not Hindus" was written to urge the followers of the ten Sikh Gurus to recognize the values of their own faith and to recognize that to live in a society where every individual is recognized as equal is not an easy task. The Sikh struggle to maintain identity stems back to the very beginning of their faith. This book was timely when it was written and it is still valuable reading today. The Sikhs wish no harm to others; desire to live in peace and work in charity, asking only that the rulers of the land allow their children to continue in the faith of their fathers in their own language. This text urges Sikhs to recognize the core values of their own faith and not to accept the position that Sikh ism is a sect of Hinduism. This is a question of more than just religious significance for the very existence of the Sikhs, as a viable distinct community, is at stake.

https://www.learnreligions.com/ways-sikhism-differs-from-islam-2992956
Westerners often confuse the ethnicities of people from eastern cultures, especially when there are similarities in appearance. People of the Sikh faith, for example, are very often thought to be Muslims, based on skin color and the fact that Sikhs wear a peaked head turban, called a dastar, that at first glance can look like the kind of turbans wore by some Muslim elders or Afghani Muslims.

Because of this confusion, Sikhs have been the victims of hate crimes and domestic terrorism targeting Muslims in a backlash following September 11, 2001, the Gulf War, and the emergence of global terrorist groups. When people in Western countries come in contact with Sikhs wearing beards and turbans many assume they are Muslims.

However, Sikhism is a religion that is very distinct from Islam, with a unique scripture, guidelines, principles, initiation ceremony, and appearance. It is a religion developed by ten gurus over three centuries.

Here are 10 ways that Sikhism Differs From Islam.

sikhguy says

the guy Rin is on some very different tangent. I am not aware of any connections he is trying to make.

I believe my tangent is clear.

The OP tends to believe that everything originated in India but then, radiated outward towards other kingdoms in the area.

I take the opposite track. My approach is that sure, the ancient philosopher, Zoroaster, did study the Rig Vedas and does have a lot of knowledge about Hinduism but in reality, he's from today's Uzbekistan, yesteryear's Bukhara/Transoxiana/Sogdia/etc, all outer regions of the olde Persian Empire.

Even under India's Ashoka, these outer regions of Soviet Central Asia were not integrated under an Indian federal system.

The ppl who carried Zo's philosophy developed into the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great. This Empire stretched from the borders of Ethiopia to Greece, China, India and to today's Russia & its Central Asian states. India never had this sort of global reach, throughout its history.

The add-ons to India occurred during the rise of Islam where assholes like the Caliphate of Babylon, Timur of Central Asia, etc, did everything in their power to wipe out non-Abrahamic faiths off the face of the earth including Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc.

The Sikh religion which I believe originated from Buddhism in the Persian Empire was a result of these Islamic incursions onto civilized and more tolerant ppls of the world.

indc says

You still did not show any proof that the buddhists were actual sikhi. I dont mind your blind belief of AIT without any proof. But 200yrs rule doesn't change the characteristic of the region.

My Tamil friend can't find any records of anything in India, past the last century. And he spent a lot of time there looking. In contrast, we have all of Abraham Lincoln's letters in our archives.

So if you want proof than perhaps, you need to work on your own national archives for that.

Otherwise, you'll have Iranian anthropologists (read: Not UK nor US imperialists) dictate your history since Persians tend to be worldly and know that there's a world beyond their recent or ancient boundaries.

indc says

culture that is 5000yrs old and thriving.

Are you talking about the Harappa kingdom which no one knows anything about?

I mean c'mon, even the Egyptians know about their Pharaohs from those times.

sikhguy says

The work Sikh in Punjabi means a "learner" as Sikh is suppose to learn throughout his life. Maintain the core values of religion but not reject any other religion.

A good word for that is discipleship, which is a lifetime of work.

Rin says

indc says

You still did not show any proof that the buddhists were actual sikhi. I dont mind your blind belief of AIT without any proof. But 200yrs rule doesn't change the characteristic of the region.

My Tamil friend can't find any records of anything in India, past the last century. And he spent a lot of time there looking. In contrast, we have all of Abraham Lincoln's letters in our archives.

So if you want proof than perhaps, you need to work on your own national archives for that.

Otherwise, you'll have Iranian anthropologists (read: Not UK nor US imperialists) dictate your history since Persians tend to be worldly and know that there's a world beyond their recent or ancient boundaries.

indc says

culture that is 5000yrs old and thriving.

Are you talking about the Harappa kingdom wh...

I think your tamil friend cant find anything in India because all those documents are in UK or US. :) But we have oral tradition which cannot be stolen. Luckily some people still keep/kept their tradition even after british oppression. But that is not the point. Here I am explaining to the @sikhguy that his hatred towards hinduism is without any basis. He didn't even bother to check the video and keep repeating the same khalistani ideas(that they were oppressed by hindus) he learnt from his elders.

First I don't either hate or like Hinduism as whole.I don't have enough knowledge except that Sikh is independent religion and Hindu Indian govt should stop interfering.
But I do find Hindu caste system abhorrent and Indian Hindu government also discriminates with people as It is OK to discriminate based on Hindu philosophy.

Khalistan is a movement to separate Sikhs from India. I don't have much knowledge about its current state, But I do feel Sikhs should have state like Jews.

Rin,
Sikh is relatively young religion and we have most of the records of last 500+ years.
I am not sure what Sikh people were before 500 years and also not really care as in Sikhi everyone is equal and welcome.
I can't confirm or deny your theory, But it is fascinating for sure to go back further and learn more.

sikhguy says

First I don't either hate or like Hinduism as whole.I don't have enough knowledge except that Sikh is independent religion and Hindu Indian govt should stop interfering.
But I do find Hindu caste system abhorrent and Indian Hindu government also discriminates with people as It is OK to discriminate based on Hindu philosophy.

Khalistan is a movement to separate Sikhs from India. I don't have much knowledge about its current state, But I do feel Sikhs should have state like Jews.

So you dont have any knowledge of hindu philosophy but you know that hindu philosophy allows discrimination. What a logic.You dont even know what is caste system (phiosophy) and you hate it. Please explain what you know about caste system?

Pakistan got major chunk of Punjab why dont you ask them to give you land to start a separate land for Sikhs.

Even Rin will vouch that India did not have Hindu government till now.

And ask your elders how guru-nanak started your religion.

Everybody knows caste system even europens. I don't need complex Hindu explanation to understand that it sucks.
Discriminating with people based on birth is pure evil.

Pakistan got major chunk of Punjab why dont you ask them to give you land to start a separate land for Sikhs.
>Typically I don't call people stupid, But this is most idiotic statement I heard in long time. May be we can ask "Patrick" to give separate country to Sikhs in US.

sikhguy says

I am not sure what Sikh people were before 500 years and also not really care as in Sikhi everyone is equal and welcome.

Here's my salient point which loops back to the above.

Before the rise of Islam, the ancient Persian Empire, which shared a border with India for at least a millennia even before the historic Buddha, was the melting pot of faiths, spiritual practices, etc.

The reason for this is that this was the trade nexus of the ancient world. Realize, it's virtually impossible to walk across the Himalayas to reach China from India w/o being a super mountain climber. And passing through the jungles of Burma wasn't exactly feasible either.

The Silk roads which connected the Greeks (later Romans), Phoenicians, Egyptians, Ethiopians to India & China ran through these areas. The cities of Balkh (destroyed today) and Bukhara (all Soviet & Islamified today), neither of whom were in India (at best, Balkh was the northern tip of Ashoka's Empire), were the equivalent of the modern world's London, Hong Kong, New York, etc. in the sense that people could study the Rig Vedas, the Pali Cannon, the Hymns of Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, etc because the ancient scholars of the world were looping through there.

So what you have is a type of United States of the Ancient World in the Persian Empire. True, more so in the east than the side facing Greece and Ethiopia, but still, the effect is clear, a multi-religious and multi-cultural empire where 'everyone is "somewhat" equal and welcome' with the caveat that back in those days, noblemen and kings were above the common citizenry but that's expected for those centuries.

In contrast, the society which evolved south of the border was calcified, ala caste system, which became rigid and formed an albatross around India's long term development.

So when Islam broke up the Eastern Persian Empire, starting with the Babylonian Caliphate and ending with Central Asia's Timur, people had to flee and take their prior faiths with 'em to new lands. In this case, that new land was India and then you see the issue ... older, more 'freer' faiths were in collision with a Hindu mindset which is about "staying in one's place" and not evolving.

This is why the Mumbai Parsis are dying out and Sikhs growing. The first group lost their will to grow and withered while the latter, kept on the path.

sikhguy says

Everybody knows caste system even europens. I don't need complex Hindu explanation to understand that it sucks.
Discriminating with people based on birth is pure evil.

Pakistan got major chunk of Punjab why dont you ask them to give you land to start a separate land for Sikhs.
>Typically I don't call people stupid, But this is most idiotic statement I heard in long time. May be we can ask "Patrick" to give separate country to Sikhs in US.

So we have to believe an outsider definition instead of the actual followers. That is a typical western lens applied to Indian system and you idiotically say is the right way. Hindus are not native ameticans where we are put in boxes by white men.

And your khalistani upbringing want separate land from India but not from pakistan.that is what ISI funded khalistani says.

I have already shown that Khalistanis(openly declared) frequent white house very often. They have many US congressman and senators in their caucus.
These are the same people declared "terrorists" by India.. Why not just blame US?

They won't blame US, As Hindu religion is based on oppressing the weak and licking shoes of powerful.
They will bark against weak Pakistan as it has no retaliatory force but will beg in front of China and pretend it has not occupied their land.

Sikhs fight the oppressor to protect the weak, Hindu oppress the weak to get award from oppressor.

sikhguy says

I have already shown that Khalistanis(openly declared) frequent white house very often. They have many US congressman and senators in their caucus.
These are the same people declared "terrorists" by India.. Why not just blame US?

They won't blame US, As Hindu religion is based on oppressing the weak and licking shoes of powerful.
They will bark against weak Pakistan as it has no retaliatory force but will beg in front of China and pretend it has not occupied their land.

Sikhs fight the oppressor to protect the weak, Hindu oppress the weak to get award from oppressor.

Ok, Khalistani-dimmi. India is a pussy country. It gave MFN status even after all these terrorist attacks to Pakistan. It does not stand up to China because all the western countries created a frankenstien.

You dont talk to hindus. I say free tibet and taiwan. I dont care.

India is Hindu nation and Hindus by definition discriminate based on birth. Hindus been slave for 800 years in spite of huge majority in India as they are de fanged by Hindu religion stupidly and callousness towards its own people.
The country which scheme against their warriors and defenders(Sikhs) and discriminate against own citizens(Hindu Caste system) have short shelf life.

The speed at which Sikhs are migrating to west, Khalistan probably won't even matter for them. Some stats:
https://magazine.outlookindia.com/story/a-faraway-doaba/238915


For some reason white people are not encouraging their kids to take up agriculture and trades, There seem to be rat race in them to do college educated jobs.. Sikhs are filling some of the gaps.There is strong resistance from Whites against tech and otehr educated immigrant workers as that's where they want to be.
I find this bit "narrow thinking" on part of whites.Whites in farming and trade did very well , I believe better than clerical jobs needing college degrees.
I like Mike Rowe a lot.Whites need to listen to him more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Jobs

Also I find it very discouraging that whites seem to find Trucking menial job beneath them. Meanwhile Sikhs are glamorizing American Trucking and jumping it at speed. I don't think self driving will be here for another generation.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/economy/meet-mintu-pandher-all-american-truckwalla-1803921.htm

Watching Punjabi videos, Even Hollywood stars would like to join Trucking:
www.youtube.com/embed/uOZTcYWXL3s

Whites are the ones who build mass manufacturing, agriculture and trucking industries and it is shame they are losing everything to China....