Pheena

kaam s killing me need help plz bad thoughts plz help beging u

How old are you?

14 octber 13 now

seriously...this is nothing but hormonal changes in your body. Your wanting to get rid of something that has nothing to do with Kaam, but all to do with your natural changes in your body. Your resistance to such change will only surpress it and possibly make it worse. Your attraction to the opposite sex is NATURAL!!!!!!!! Don't deny what is given to you by Nature. I think we as a society has place such stigmas on Sex that any thought of the opposite sex is considered poison. What are your thoughts? Holding a Girls hand, Kissing her? having sex?? The world is not going to end if you have these thoughts, nor do you become impure if you have these thoughts. You are 13 for crying out loud!!. These thoughts manifest without your consent and they will leave without your consent as well. You becoming aware of them is great, but don't push them into a closet or deny them their natural path.

This phase will pass and you will only understand yourself better. What you need to do is channel this energy elsewhere. Get into sports, learn to play an instrument, start doing Seva around the house, Gurudwara or with an organization. When I say Get into these things I mean involve yourself fully into such activities. Whatever you do don't associate anger or hatred with these thoughts. Another quick recipe is a good cold shower.

kaam s killing me need help plz bad thoughts plz help beging u

How old are you?

.....shouldntwe be working on our ownjeevans before "we" are even capable of making the decision on what "we" think is a suitable partner....................

couldn't have said it better.

Define "believe".

What!!! kind of reply is that. Everyone knows the answer is suppose to be Yes.

key gal karda yaar tu, aivay becharay nu soach vich paa thitta.

The point is that we use our mind to discriminate, to like and dislike, this duality itself is the mind. To get to the root of the issue you have to first deal with the duality of the mind. When there are 2, there will always be a conflict.

Personally, I want to marry someone who I find attractive and who find me attractive. Being attractive to someone is not bad nor is trying to find someone who you are attractive to.

You said you'll marry someone who you find attractive. Does that mean you won't marry a person who is unattractive to you? So am i right in assuming that you are discriminating too? There is duality in your mind aswell?

How would you get married...Through parents/elders or would you find a person yourself? If your parents find a match for you (they find the person attractive and having sikh values) but you dont find her/him attractive, would you say NO to the rishta?? Would you tell them the true reasons for saying NO??

haha Of course there is Duality in my mind, I am no Saint. I didn't claim to be above the mind, the mind influences me towards many things, but as always it is my focus to always contemplate and be aware of this Duality in my Mind.

So I simply used the word attraction and I didn't imply Physical alone, but i guess since your original question was about physical attractions you assumed that I was implying that. That is only half of what I implied. I implied both physical and mental attractions and there isn't a set percentage required for either.

Just because someone might take looks into consideration, does not necessarily mean that is the sole thing that they are looking for. It is no different than the to take into consideration one Financial position. Would you consider them to be materialistic or simply assuring that their partner is able to provide for them? Everyone knows that the Physical youth/beauty does not last, but i think its also important that just because at the time of marriage one person is mental compatible that they will remain so the entire length of marriage. Neither are granted.

So is there a criteria of who is attractive and who isn't? Just because I don't find someone to be physically attractive that doesn't mean no one else will. This is my minds perception of that someone, not a condemnation. I might find someone very attractive who others might consider to be ugly. I'm trying to focus on subjectivity...'beauty is in the eye of the beholder...' that what i find beautiful is beautiful to me. My subjective mind is not the Final judge on what is and isn't beautiful. What I find Ugly today, might become beautiful to the Mind tomorrow.

IF i were to face such a situation, and I didn't find her attractive and I'm assuming you are speaking physically, then I'd say something is wrong with my eyes, not with her looks and besides who am I tell anyone that they are not good looking. But i don't think my mind is that shallow, there is much to a woman than just her looks. There are things that are important to me personally when I take a look at where my life is and where it is heading that far outrank physical appearance.

What do you look for in a woman who you are going to marry if you aren't already?

Been doing some thinking about this and i fail to get proper reasons behind that. Why is it that everyone barring a few individuals can't or don't marry somone whom thy find not so fit for them based on the person's physical roop??

Ik passe we advocate that this body is nthg te dujje passe we can't imagine ourselves being widout someone who is not a proper match for us?? why is that... is this hypocrisy?? Is that our weakness??

This question has been playing with my mind for sometime now and i dont see any answers :lol: . There were times when ppl married where their parents finallized everythg but those marriages were based on many factors aswell looks being one of em. What i dont understand is why dont i see our parents approving such matches?? what is itttttttttt?? Is this all fake?? All the sikhi talks seems so fake to me whn i think of this issue

Plzzzzzzzz share u'r views

I think its important to take into note that our mind discriminates based on its natural/karmic development and beauty of an individual is always a subjective matter. I might consider someone to be very beautiful, but another might not. Does that mean that the other person is wrong or I am right?

For Example, just as we are inclined to be attracted to one color more than others, one shape, size more than others etc, similarly our mind might find the features of someone attractive and others not so much. Do you have a Favorite color? Do you have a Favorite Car, Food item?

Do you eat everything you are given or do you prefer a single item more than others? If you do like one daal or sabji or food item over another then you are using the Mind to prefer one taste over another. Just as the mind is attracted to one face over another. So if you can say that we should see everyone equally regardless of what others look like and enforce this with Spiritual Giaan then you have to equally use this Giaan towards everything else. Then all colors are beautiful, all food tastes good, all faces, shapes and sizes are beautiful.

Now certainly this can be taken to the extreme of physical attachments of wanting a supermodel wife/husband. These are obvious issues of the shallow mind, but let us not ignore our natural tendencies to be attracted and to pursue that which attracts us. Until and unless you go do not go beyond the mind and its dualities, we will continue to discriminate based on the preference of mind's development. Its not about what issues (looks or colors or food) are small and what are bigger concerns. The point is that we use our mind to discriminate, to like and dislike, this duality itself is the mind. To get to the root of the issue you have to first deal with the duality of the mind. When there are 2, there will always be a conflict.

Personally, I want to marry someone who I find attractive and who find me attractive. Being attractive to someone is not bad nor is trying to find someone who you are attractive to.

Just because she is not amritdhari = Whatever she says is false

If some "Amritdhari" did the exact same katha you all would be jumping for joy and screaming Alleluia

If someone is telling you that such and such car is great, its the best car there is, but they dont have one themselves, would you or would you not find it absurd?

Unless of course that someone is an expert in the field of Cars? but then again, how would anyone come to find out who is an expert and who isn't without actually listening to the thoughts and ideas of that 'someone'.

Bani is telling us repeatedly to go and get naam from the Guroo, that is in essence the whole message of Gurbani (A very crude description of bani I know, but for the sake of argument), why listen to someones personal understanding of Bani, if they themself, after learning so much of it, have not realised that they are meant to get become a Sikh of the Guroo and get naam, her learnings of Gurbani are then useless. Jap Ji Sahib tells us, Sochai Soch na hovaee je sochee lakh vaar, so so what if this lady, (with all due respect to her) has learnt the meanings of Gurbani, if she herself has not applied to it, why would I listen to her?

My veer, well I think there are Major differences in your Knowledge and her Knowledge. If you care to understand what she is about then have a listen to her Jaap Sahib Katha, she answers this exact question of yours and if you still don't agree, then that is totally fine, no one is forcing you to do so.

I would rather listen to Guroo Sahib himself, and also the true Gurmukhs who have actually applied the meanings of Gurbani to their lives, thats the only way I could be inspired and learn something myself.

No one is telling you to not to listen to the Guru Sahib himself, or much less implying that you 'must' listen to her. People jump to conclusion without knowing what someone is about. To avoid this they need to research that person and for this reason to avoid misunderstanding I'm simply suggesting that they need to listen to what she has to say. Then they are more than welcome to say, well I don't agree with this. Which fine as not everyone will agree with what she has to say and besides that is not the point. It is to simply avoid everyone running all over their Jumping to Conclusion Mat on the obvious blatant statements.

The panktee you quoted simply means that Guru Nanak Sahib is the greatest of all but there are other quotes which clearly say that there is only One Satguru or Guru. Gurbani doesn't say there are different types of Gurus with different level of spirituality. There is no difference between Guru (Satguru) and Waheguru. Both are the same.

I agree with you veer that there is only ONE True Guru, but this True Guru is Anaami. I said what I said, because you had used the words Guru Nanak Dev as being the Sole Guru. Now I simply could've misunderstood you (semantics), but i was getting the impression that you were implying that the body that was born in 1469 to be the Sole instance of Avtaaran of the Nameless Divinity. That there existed no such instances before or nor will any after?

I don't think you really understand who Guru Nanak Sahib Ji is. Guru or Satguru is not in the cycle of death and birth so the question of "before Guru Nanak" doesn't make any sense as it implies that Guru Sahib took birth which would've surely resulted in death but Guru doesn't fit in this category. Guru Sahib is "Sada Sada" and has been there since Aad. Just because Guru Sahib "Pargat" in Sargun form doesn't mean he took birth. Bhai Gurdas Ji doesn't say Guru Sahib took birth. According to Gurbani Guru Nanak Sahib has been Guru of all ages. I can provide quotes to back up my statements but I didn't because this topic has been discussed so many times before.

I think we are just losing ourselves in semantics!?!? The only True Guru is Guru Nanak Sahib, which is a wonderful statement, but by confine this 'Sada Sada' , 'Sargun/Nirgun' True Guru to the umbrella of Sikhi, it would then go against the teaching of Jaap Sahib, which says, True Guru is Adharmang? It was with this viewpoint that I wrote my original reply.

I don't undermine other religions but I do believe Sikhi is 100% truth and superior to all. Other religions condemn non-believers to hell but Sikhi doesn't. Not achieving salvation doesn't result in going to hell but in reincarnation. Those who do good deeds and practice spirituality will certainly get fruits of their labor and get better karmas but will not get muktee. I believe every word of Gurbani is true which says that without becoming Guru-wala (and there is only One True Guru) no one has or will ever achieve salvation. Others or you may not like it but Gurbani is never wrong.

See I'm all with you that you Trust in the way of the Guru is 100% and is solid. But why is there a need to say Superior? Does saying that my religion is Superior makes it more Valid to others? Does it not seem create a superiority complex? With this viewpoint how do you look at your Muslim, Hindu, Christian Brothers and not feel that whatever way they are given by the Great Guru lacks? If stating that your way is the superior, then is it truly 'your' way or was this Path blessed upon you? If it is blessing then what is the need to turn this blessing into a Duality of Superiority/Inferiority?

Have you just not condemned Non-Believer/Follower of Sikhi to be Inferior than you? If Sikhi is the Leader/Superior in this matter of reaching the True Guru have you not indirectly condemned 'others' to being Lost, will never reach salvation, is that not in likeness of hell?

The sikh is a seeker but he has to be sure whether he is learning is truth or fiction (Hindu mythology)

Sikhism completely nullifies Hinduism, That is what all Gurus did. Then why do sikhs learn from Hindu when our Gurus completely nullifies there principles. God is ajoon and so all there avataars are not God, and bani completely disagrees on status of Shiv, Brahma as God.

So your Guru maa has no courage to speak that as it is politics she will not disrespect her hindu followers.

A person can never be Sikh and Hindu at same time.

So in truth sikhs only need to have faith in guru granth sahib and such Guru maa have no existence in sikhi.

Sikh is a learner but what is point in learning wrong things, A learner dont need to learn kaam to minimise it. So point is we can only go on learning further once you have learned your basi (Guru granth sahib) Once you are Good at basic then learn further and try to interpret evrything interms of bani (Guru Granth sahib) , then only you can find what is worth learning and what is crap.

There is no Place of deh dhari gurus in sikhism.

Regards.

I was going to write a long reply to your points, but after reading this "So your Guru maa has no courage to speak that as it is politics she will not disrespect her hindu followers." I can tell you too have no idea what she is about nor have you listened to her enough, if any at all. Please have a listen to her Katha's on the Japji Sahib, Rehraas Sahib and Jaap Sahib and then create your conclusion. You say a Sikh is a Learner, then learn to listen to what others are about before you jump to conclusion about them.

im with ocelot for sure. Respect religion is one thing but why rep it with avtars and praises??? W tf wud you do the same about jesus or muhammed or prophets of any other religions??

relevent sakhi from another forum:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at the time of bhai randheer singh there was a singh ji named bawa ji.one time they were going somewhere on there rera or bull cart with some singhs and suddenly there gadda or bull cart got struct in the big toya or khada. all the singhs tried hard to get the bull cart out of the toya. but all the efforts were useless and then at last the singhs asked bhai bawa ji to call the shaheed singhs and get the gadda out. but bhai bawa singh ji told the singhs that why to disturb the shaheed fauj let us call hanuman for it. they asked" Oye hanuman edar ayin" then he asked bhai bawa ji that wat is your hukam, main tuhadi ki sewa kar sakda han. bhai bawa ji asked him to get the bull cart out of the toya. he by his one fingure got the bull cart out of toya.

moral: dont disturb the shaheed singhs for chota mota kam. call the devi devta instead.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont understand what you "Nihangs" find so great about devte, i agree we shouldnt insult them becuase yeah they are real and they are high in their own way, and you shouldnt disrespect other faiths. But they are nothing on a true Khalsa. Did you know amazing gursikhs have devte flying above and around them? They try to get sangat of amazing sikhs of the even more amazing Guroo.

Relevant saakhi, but it doesn't support your argument rather it creates a superiority complex within the mind that doesn't help anyone but those who are already biased towards their particular way of thinking.

Here is another way to look at your Story.

A Singh went to a Daaba to eat some roti, after eating the roti, he got up to pay the owner where he was cooking in the tandoor. When Singh ji pulled money out of his pocket, some of it fell into the tandoor. He asked the owner to get his money out, but he refused. So Singh ji, got down into the tandoor after it had cooled a bit but was still hot. Going in he goes....Raam, Raam, Allah, Allah as it was very hot inside. After he got out the owner with a confused look on his face asked the Singh why would he say Raam or Allah when you are a Sikh. Singh ji replied, Lai...main ainay shota kum vaastay aavtha Waheguru Tandoor they vich kio lai kay ava?

Raam Vuddha ja Waheguru?

That verse does not mention a disgusting looking woman called KAALEE. It says beautiful. Why are you so quick to jump to Hindu Mat conclusions. If you read all of Sri Dasam Granth you will see the true meaning.

Perhaps you need to read again what the words are saying. Nor is that woman Disgusting, Nor am i jumping to conclusions. Please show me another reference which speaks of "The rosary of heads glorified his neck, seeing which the god Shiva feels abashed." and is not speaking of the Great Kali Mata. I personally have no idea what soever in regards to what exactly is the Shabad trying to say, but i can say with more than enough certainty that the Shabad is speak in reference to Kali Mata.

Ma Kali wears a garland made of 52 skulls and a skirt made of dismembered arms because the ego comes out of identification with the body. In fact, we are beings of spirit and not flesh. So liberation can only prevail when our attachment to the body comes to an end. Therefore, the skirt and garland are trophies worn by Her to represent the liberation of Her children from attachment to the finite body. In two of Her hands, She holds a sword and a freshly severed head that is dripping blood. This represents a great battle in which she defeated the demon Raktabija. Her black (or sometimes dark blue) skin represents the womb of the unmanifest from which all of creation is born and into which all of creation will eventually return. Goddess Kali Ma is depicted as standing on a white skinned Shiva who is lying beneath Her. His white skin is in contrast to Her black or sometimes dark blue skin. He is showing a blissful detached look on His face. Shiva is pure formless awareness sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) while She represents "form" eternally sustained by the underpinning of pure awareness.

Through ignorance of the story behind Goddess Kali Ma it is easy to misinterpret Her symbolism. In the same way one could say that Christianity is a religion of destruction, death, and cannibalism in which the followers drink the eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Of course, we know this is not the correct way to understand the communion sacrament.

why do you need a fast nitname?? Are you in a rush to get it done because you have more important things to do?

waheguru jeeo thanks for sayin that ..

but do u think its bad for stupids like me who otherwise will not do it at all..

this was the link by the way that i was lookin for

http://www.sikhroots.com/audio/index.php?q...li%20%28Long%29

..the other one given by the bhai saheb above carpe diem is a fast forward version of the clip that i was looking for

kirpa sangatay

waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fataih jee

I certainly don't think you are stupid. Yes Maryada is important, but is it at the expense of patience, love and understanding in reading the banis?

Then again, this your Saadhna my veer, I'm just passing by who's got much work to do on his own.

why do you need a fast nitname?? Are you in a rush to get it done because you have more important things to do?

I don't agree with that Kaam statement that Kaam is wholly neccessary as Rishis,Munis,Avatars,Prophets etc were all married. I know plenty Sikh Saints who were not married and spent their whole life in meditation. Sant Attar Singh Ji Mastuana Wale, Sant Karam Singh Ji Hoti Mardan Wale and Sant Nand Singh Ji Kaleran Wale are some Mahapurakhs who weren't married. Some great souls spend their whole life as celebates. Also it is stated in Sant Attar Singh Ji Reru Sahib Jeewani that he didn't want to get married but since his parents were concerned about this, they married him off. And he had one son. But after he renouced family life.

I think you've misunderstood. The statement is not saying that it is necessary to get married and have physical relations. But if you read the words again, it is saying that all of the Rishis, Munis, Avatars and Prophets came from Sex...that they didn't just appear out of thin air. Their bodies came to be out of the physical union of 2 individuals just as yours did.

"All those who condemn sex are condemning God. All prophets, avatars- divine incarnation, rishi, seers all were born out of sex."

Dear gursikhs,

ive always had a problem with controlling kaam. recently, ive started to do amritvela simran and do all punj bania (sometimes more)...but every few weeks i have strong attacks of kaam that i cant put down and i feel relly bad deep within, so i go and do some more naam jap and i feel a little better, though my guilt doesnt go away.

i even try to read shabads against kaam once a week or so...still i get these periodic attks of kaam and i can never control them...anyone have advice?

Sex - Is it bad or good? What is your answer if yes then you are materialistic and if no then too you are materialistic! Sex is neither good nor bad. It is energy- a divine energy. This is the way God wanted human beings to procreate else human beings could have grown on trees like fruits! Interesting just imagine girls and boys hanging like peaches and apples on trees: just pluck them and bring them home! All those who condemn sex are condemning God. All prophets, avatars- divine incarnation, rishi, seers all were born out of sex. The procedure which has been innovated by creator himself how can that be bad.

When we speak for or against sex just shows we don’t know what it is. Sex is just like any other natural force. A child doesn’t has it as the body grows the chemical and hormonal changes brings this natural attraction towards opposite sex body. As it has come, it should go away naturally one day. But it doesn’t happen because people don’t deal with it naturally. It is suppressed, repressed and when energy is pushed or repressed it changes its form and becomes more aggressive and then you have to just fight with it. And can you win from it, the natural force - Never!

Sex is to be understood and lived with open mind. Sex has been considered as a taboo subject and children specially are kept away from this subject but can the adults really do that? No, children will explore other channels to know about it and from here this tussle begins. Body wants it, society says no! and the more it is hidden the more glorified it becomes. Child grows with the repressed ideology about sex and even one day when he or she goes for sex, person carries immense guilt as if he has done something ugly sinfull. So one falls in it and yet wishes not to go in it, cycle goes on. Sex if experienced with awareness soon leads to transgression of sex.

One who is attached to body can never come out of sex, de attachment towards body and deeper experiences of meditation helps person to naturally come out of obsessive sexual behavior

I've heard there are 6 things are out of your hands, the rest you(the ego) are responsible for and create through your Karms.

Birth/Death

Sanjoag/Vijoag

Maan/Apmaan

What the veer above, Sher-e-moreau says is a very deep outlook, but such an outlook cannot be a thought/view of the mind alone rather it has to be in your every single actions. The advice by veer ji is fully understood when you've Surrendered yourself to the Guru. Meaning your ego no longer rule your actions, rather it is will of the Guru.

We often get in our own way by swimming against the current, let us learn how to float.

Or are these references speaking of a Universal Truth that the Guru being not limited to the 11 Gurus , instead that the Guru is any enlightened individual anywhere in the world, embodying the Truth.

According to Gurbani there is only One Satguru (True Guru) and that is Guru Nanak Sahib.

I Agree with your statement 100%, but i don't think you intended to say what i interpeted, do correctly me if i am wrong.

Christian says, Jesus is the only Son of God. Muslims say only believers in Mohammed will to heaven. Now we have also claimed the monopoly. You are entitled to your statement, but i believe the reason and the depth of the words Subh tay vudha Satgur Nanak, Jin kal raakhi mayree is lost in the loosly translated words as you've done above. If you've used another refrence from Gurbani then please let me know and we can discuss that as well. This is the only one I know that says it directly.

Firstly using your statement. A child who loves thier loving mother will think her mother is the best mother in the world and far as she is concerned she is the only mother. But as she will grow up, she will realize there are other mothers in this world who love thier children as much as hers.

There is a hidden Bhaavna in those words....the Deciples of any master consider their master to be their one and only protector because that much surrender is needed from a Deciple inorder to fully devote themselves to their Guru. It is natural for them to consider their Guru to be their sole Guradian, just as it is yours to consider Guru Nanak as to be the Greatest and only SatGuru. But do you truely believe that is what Gurbani is telling you that only Guru Nanak Dev ji who was born in Nankana Sahib to be the only True Guru and there existed none before him nor there exist any today?

Secondly, The word that is used is SatguR, not SatgurU. That one letter changes the meaning, Satgur speaks of the Universal Consciousness. In this case that Consciousness is called Nanak which translates to Na-Aank (Without-Ego) as im sure you already know. The word SatgurU speaks of that which embodies that Consciousness. Considering the entire Shabad, it is speaking of God and as you know there is nothing bigger than God. I've known people use Nanak synonomously with God , So I do fully agree with your statement if you speak it in this sense.

shes a friggin witch

:awesome Your guru is very proud of you!

The reason i have problem with such 'holy' people is coz they use gurbani for their purposes.

We are already struggling to make our point that we are seperate and have nothing to do with hinduism and then these people do their parchaar of brahmanism and at the same time using gurbani which links sikhi to hinduism as it's got a lot to do wiv brahmanwaad.

Why don't these people do viakhya of quran and hadiths or bible??? Coz they know there aren't many takers of it in the deras.

You know honestly I can tell you have no idea what she is about or have much of a clue what her intentions are and nor have you truly heard her speak. But you are free to and are more than welcome to place her in your money making, fake, brahmanwaad spreading, having no right to speak on Sikhi, who have nothing better to do but go hunting for Chelas, making Deras, so they can get some High from praise and money basket. That is your God given freedom of thought and opinion.

God bless my veer ji, may He bless us both with greater understanding and wisdom.

A forum is to discuss things/matters. Not to shut people up by calling them a NINDAK. We all learn from each other as well as from Guru Jee.

I respect this Gurumaa woman, but i wanted to see people's view on her asked question to Sikhs.

so its ok to bad mouth someone who isn't here to defend herself? You may call that learning, i certainly think we can do better. Perhaps you need to re-define your ways of learning and what exactly are you wanting to learn/tolerate in this discussion. There are ways to discuss an individuals comment constructively by looking at all sides of who was involved, where and most importantly trying to understand where the Questioner and the Answerer were coming from, their intentions. Or we can just start speaking as if we know her and because she is a non-sikh who speaks on the Gurus/Sikhi she is automatically to be deemed a fraud, fake, money making machine. I wonder which ways will lead you to greater learning.

You want to honestly discuss what was said, then lets discuss it.

Firstly so tell me what made her comment so cunning, and just so I don't misunderstand your intentions, what exactly do you mean by cunning? Is she trying to misguide you/the person asking the question by being clever? You said "but why do Sikhs attend her discourses and ask these questions." Why not? Is there a rule or a law which prohibits Sikhs from asking questions or attending her Sangat?

The question was asked about Charan. First of all i don't think anyone on here can give you the complete response to why the question was answered in the manner it was. If you want to know then you have to ask her to further clarify her answer. I or anyone else can only take our best guesses as to what the intentions might have been.

A Sikh stood up saying to whom does the word Charan (feet) of the Guru refer too, in Gurbani.

She replied "I have a question which will baffle all Sikhs, if only Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the Guru, then why did the 5th Guru not give Guruship to it, he's the one who complied it. Why were there 5 more Gurus after him." She said to meet the God you have to meet an enlightened one. She quoted Brahm Gyani Ki Gat Brahm Gyani Janey.

So what do you want to discuss? The history of why didn't the Guru give Guruship or the Answer to the Question of Charan. Personally the Answer has nothing to do with the History that there were more to add to the Guru Granth sahib, but more to do with the Question being asked about Charan.

So I think we can both agree that without the Guru (enligtented one) one cannot attain liberation. In my view the Questioner knew exactly what he was trying to ask....he asked about Charan in the literal sense of feet when he asked. When feet are referenced by the Guru Granth Sahib , that you become the dust of the Guru's Feet? Doesn't the term then become metaphysical as there is no direct correlation to physical feet of the Shabad Guru? or is there? What, where are the Charan of the Shabad Guru? Are they in Pangat/Sangat? Are they in your heart? Your bhaavna? Your devotion? Your love? Your mind? Everyone's feet become the feet of the Guru? All of the above perhaps?

I have 'heard' of 'Stories' of Sikhs who received Darshan of one of the 10 Gurus and they did Charan Mastak...would you consider that to be the reference of Charan of the Guru? I think we tend to forget that there were 10 Gurus who were Physically alive, breathing, walking in a body. Even she will tell you that the Guru is not the physical body, as the Guru is the Chaytna, Guru is Shabad, the finger which points you in the right direction, Guru is the Message. But to just ignore the body which is used to express, manifest, project this Chaytna, this Shabad would be also be incorrect.

Sure it is the diamond inside the box which is of value, but the box that hold the diamond also attains some value. You don't discard the box, as it hold the diamond. The physical body too becomes a doorway, a medium to both express the Truth and a means to relate and connect to the truth. But the body will perish, the message, the Shabad lives on. So then What are the Charan of the Guru? What are the Charan of the Shabad Guru? Are they no longer, are they only to be referenced/related to the Physical Gurus when their bodies were present? Or are these references speaking of a Universal Truth that the Guru being not limited to the 11 Gurus , instead that the Guru is any enlightened individual anywhere in the world, embodying the Truth. Perhaps the word Guru in the Guru Granth Sahib speaks of a connection that embodies the Truth, a universal reference and so the reference to Charan also become Universal to those who are seeking liberation...and inevitably an enlightened Master to liberate them?

The last quote quote...i have no idea what is meant by the reference...i guess it was you had to be there type of moments. it can be taken a few ways....one of them being..Brahmgiani(God's) key gat Brahmgiani(Enlightened individual) janay.

This is just my take on it, nothing more. I'd love to hear what you have to say about the answer in reference to the question...as you say lets learn something together. :umm:

'Tudh Subh Kij Mianu Soa(n)pia, mai tayra bunda'

quDu sBu ikCu mYno sauipAw jw qyrw bMdw ]

thudhh sabh kishh maino soupiaa jaa thaeraa ba(n)dhaa ||

You entrusted everything to me, when I became Your slave.

thanks for the correction :umm:

Guru Fateh Jio...

I'm a moorakh who have no pyaar for Japji Sahib, whenever by Guru Ji's kirpa i sit to do the Paath, i either start yawning or i just feel like finishing it as quickly as possible. Sangat Ji, pls tell me the reason to this and please tell me how can i make myself have PYAAR for Bani ...

Guru Fateh..

Why does the mind not yawn when we watch tv or a movie? Why does the mind not yawn when we are chatting with friend? Why does the mind not yawn when there is an urgent worldly matter that we have to deal with?

There is a conflict of interest by the Mind, you pull it towards the Shabad Guru, but it pulls you back. What do you do to such a bully? Such a so called friend who pulls you away from something that is good for you? Either you befriend them or Ignore them. Obviously you can't just remove your mind, but you can ignore it. Don't become a slave to the Mind by obliging to its request. What do you do to someone who you don't want to listen to?

You cannot win in a direct conflict or a fight with the mind, you have to side step it by learning to ignore the thoughts and the yawning of the mind. When it happens don't stop and become frustrated, that is exactly what the mind wants...the more you give it recoganition, the more it will pull you from your task.

Pray before you begin your padth...seek help from the guru to give you patience and strength to continue your reading and understanding of the Shabad Guru. Try to seperate yourself from teh Yawning...know that your Yawning is just the manipulation of the Mind, nothing more because you've already had enough sleep and you are not tired. Let the mind know that now it is my time not your. Take few deep breaths, put on some incense, go for a walk before hand so your lungs and muscles expand and your blood is flowing. That way you have given no excuse to the mind for any tiredness.