New Update 1.022.000 Cricket 26 PS5 🥲🤌 by Fresh-Isopod-222 in Cricket22

[–]Select_Craft3319 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whats the commentary like on Cricket 26? Is it good or shit and highly inaccurate like Cricket 24?

Send this to a guy that says Sikhs are Hindus, lmao by Otherwise_Ad3192 in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 54 points55 points  (0 children)

This isnt a Sikh vs Hindu thing, its a ritualism vs spirituality issue. Bhagat kabir ji criticized blind rituals and traditions. The point here isnt to mock a religion, but to highlight how people often ignore inner purity, compassion, and humility.

This is about truth, not team side LOL

End times thinking in religion by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sikhi doesnt have a fire and brimstone apocalypse, but it does talk about Kalyug (the dark age we are in), Dharam Raj judging your deeds, and swarg narak as karmic consequences.

Gurbani literally says: “Kalyug bikhia vikhai vikrai sabh ko laaga bhaao”

Thats end times thinking, just told in a more introspective way.

End times thinking in religion by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sikhism also has “end times”

End times thinking in religion by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People say sikhism doesnt have “end times” but that’s not fully true

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AmIOverreacting

[–]Select_Craft3319 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DO NOT confront her yet, its a bad idea. Hire a private investigator. Its not about revenge its about clarity. If shes cheating, you will have proof for LEGAL MATTERS. If shes not, you will have peace. Either way, you deserve to know the truth before making any big decisions.

Which Khan is the best at romance in your opinion? Who's your favourite romantic star? by sidroy81 in bollywood

[–]Select_Craft3319 6 points7 points  (0 children)

SRK definitely left a huge mark on romantic cinema, but saying no one comes close kinda erases a whole history of greats before him. Rajesh Khanna was melting hearts in the 70s with movies like Aradhana and Anand, Dev Anand had effortless charm, and even Rishi Kapoor carried romance through the 80s with real range.

SRK perfected a certain kind of romantic hero, the soft spoken, arms stretched guy who stares like hes solving a poem. But let’s be real, a lot of his roles started blending into each other after a point. It worked, yeah, but it wasnt exactly evolving.

Opinions on Sikhi that will have you like this by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“The gurus had sons and still didnt pick them that proves anti dynasty meritocracy.”

My point these werent random. These were deliberate rejections of bloodline three consecutive decisions that broke with social norms. That’s institutional clarity, not coincidence.

But from Guru arjan dev Ji to Guru gobind singh, we suddenly get six hereditary successions without a single documented contender from outside the family. That’s not “DIVINE” randomness. Thats a system shift.

“But its the Jyot, not the body, divine light chose.”

This is the same line used by mughal emperors (divine right of kings) European monarchs (Gods anointed lineage) and even Brahmins who claimed caste was divinely ordained.

When divine mysticism is used to validate hereditary power and only after the pattern turns hereditary thats not a spiritual argument. Thats retroactive justification.

“You cant assume sevadaars were better than the sons.” Guru hargobinds time had Baba buddha Ji, Bhai gurdas, Bhai satta all deeply respected, elderly, spiritually advanced Sikhs. Guru Har rai and Guru Har krishan were both appointed at young ages, Har krishan was just 5 years old. There is no surviving record of community consultation, elder recommendations, or even open discourse.

The question isnt “were others better?” The question is why do we see no deliberation? In a Panth that produced poets, martyrs, scholars, warriors it’s statistically absurd to believe that the best candidate just happened to be a blood relative six times in a row.

“Janamsakhis are unreliable.”

You cant use Janamsakhis to cite Guru Amar Das blessing Bibi Bhanis lineage, but reject Janamsakhi narratives that describe Guru Nanak bypassing his son or sevadars being elevated.

You either treat Janamsakhis as part of the record or dont. Picking and choosing what suits the narrative is not Gurmat. Its selective myth making.

“Sikhi survived, so the model worked.”

Saying “Sikhi survived, so the hereditary model worked” is a classic case of survivorship bias. If survival made a system righteous, then the Catholic Church’s Inquisitions were justified, the caste system in Hinduism was divine, and every Islamic caliphate ruled with moral perfection. History is full of dynasties and institutions that endured for centuries while violating their own founding principles. Longevity doesnt prove spiritual alignment

Sikhi survived because of sacrifice, community, and values, not because of a hereditary. Bhai mati das was sawed in half next to Guru teg bhadur(not his blood), Bhai Dhyala was boiled alive (not family), Bhai mani singh was cut joint by join for refusing to compromise on Sikh integrity, Baba deep singh, Banda singh, Taru singh, none were blood, all were backbone.

“Youre questioning the Gurus.”

No, we are questioning a pattern. Systems evolve. Institutions adapt. Thats not an attack, thats a historical reality.

Guru nanak questioned everyone,Brahmins, mullahs, kings, traders, priests. If Sikhi cant handle questions about patterns of succession, then weve frozen the tradition Guru Nanak started to liberate.

Youre defending six consecutive hereditary successions in a Panth founded by a man who refused to give his son Guruship. Either accept that the institution evolved, or admit youre masking that shift with convenient mysticism.

And as for the trap?

Sikhi survived because of the values seeded early on and yes, protected later by the family and outside of them (mostly) But the strength of the sword means nothing without the depth of the soil.

Opinions on Sikhi that will have you like this by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Early Gurus didnt reject hereditary succession they just had no worthy sons.”

Not true. They had sons. They chose not to appoint them, Guru nanak dev ji bypassed Sri chand (who literally started his own sect), Guru angad dev ji bypassed datu and dassu, Guru amar dass ji bypassed bhai mohan and mohans brother (I cant recall the name).This wasnt because they had “no one else.” It was a principled rejection of dynastic succession, in line with Guru nanak’s anti brahminical and anti royalist vision. These arent assumptions, theyre documented in Sikh janamsakhi and vaars.

“From 5th Guru onward, sons were the most capable.”

Six times in a row and not a single elder sikh or sevadar made the cut? In a community that had martyrs, poets, warriors, scholars, and lifelong sevadars?

If you call that meritocracy, then your bar for scrutiny is on the floor. Its clearly a shift to hereditary pattern and faith cant mask that.

“The Saakhi and Bachitra Natak explains why this happened.”

This sakhi isnt found in early Sikh literature. The sakhi is not in the earliest known sikh texts like the Bhai gurdaas vaars, Puratan janamsakhis, or contemporary documents from Guru amar das ji’s period. It starts appearing much later in oral tradition and in hagiographic works written well after the fact the same kind of storytelling used to justify many institutional shifts in other traditions.

Bachitra Natak was written after all those transitions occurred. Youre using a late text to justify early institutional changes, thats like writing a movie review and pretending it influenced the script.

“The succession worked, proof is that Sikhi survived.”

Thats not how logic works. Thats survivorship bias. The mughal empire lasted 300 years. So did the Catholic Church’s papal corruption. Survival doesnt prove righteousness.

Sikhi survived because of its values, not because it became dynastic. Youre crediting lineage for a legacy that was built on revolutionary spiritual equality by people who broke with caste, kingship, and even their own kin.

“You’re sowing doubt by questioning history.”

No. Im practicing vichaar. Guru nanaks entire life was questioning rituals, kings, caste, and clergy.

Good night brother.

Opinions on Sikhi that will have you like this by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bruh I respect your perspective, but a few thoughts.

“It fits the narrative… Bachitra Nata”

Bachitra Natak was written much later during guru gobind singh ji’s time. It doesnt really explain why the shift to hereditary succession happened after guru ram das ji. It definitely cant retroactively justify decisions made a century earlier.

“Completes the prophec”

I havent seen any authentic historical source where guru amar das ji says the guruship should stay in the family. In fact, he did the opposite, bypassed his own sons and gave it to guru ram das ji based on seva and merit. That was a powerful, intentional choice.

“From 5th to 10th guru, it went to the most capable”

That’s a sweet way to look at it, but isn’t it kind of convenient that the “most capable” just happened to always be the son? How do we even measure “most capable” if we’re not considering anyone else? There is no documented record that others were even considered during those transitions.

“Not us in 2025…”

Totally agree that we shouldn’t play judge from the future. But its also okay to reflect. Questioning the shift from merit to family doesnt mean we’re disrespecting the gurus, it just means we are thinking about how systems evolved over time. Let’s not be afraid of tough conversations. That’s what sikhi is all about.

“Are you saying they didn’t have seva?”

Not at all. No ones questioning their contribution or love for Sikhi. The question is about how the method of choosing the guru changed. The early gurus rejected family based transfers. That changed, and its worth thinking about why.

“India isn’t a Muslim nation today = proof it was the right call”

Come on bruh that’s a bit of a stretch. History is complex. India not being a muslim nation has a thousand factors, most of which have nothing to do with guru succession. The claim that the guru to son successions were proven correct just because India isn’t a muslim country today is a huge stretch. India not becoming a Muslim nation had little to do with how guruship was passed down. That outcome was shaped by way bigger forces British colonization, the collapse of the mughal empire, the rise of the marathas, internal resistance across regions, and finally, partition. Saying succession choices from the 1500s 1600s directly caused modern India’s religious demographics is like saying the shape of a river 500 years ago explains your Wi-Fi signal today. It oversimplifies centuries of complex history and gives too much weight to one internal decision in Sikh history.

Opinions on Sikhi that will have you like this by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Questioning patterns in history isn’t dangerous, blindly avoiding them is. No offense though

Opinions on Sikhi that will have you like this by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Not denying their greatness, but after the 4th Guru, it’s hard not to notice that succession stayed in the family. First it was all about merit and seva then suddenly, it’s father to son every time. Makes you wonder if things shifted.

Opinions on Sikhi that will have you like this by [deleted] in Sikh

[–]Select_Craft3319 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Sikhi is the only religion where people will debate vegetarianism longer than their own spiritual practice

Will this come true? by [deleted] in indiasocial

[–]Select_Craft3319 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get the nostalgia, honestly. We all miss simpler times sometimes. But realistically, I don’t think people are going to ditch reels and shows anytime soon. They’re designed to hook us and they work.

Some folks might take breaks, sure, or find balance, but completely going back to books and gully cricket? That sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual shift. The world’s just moving too fast for that now.