alias

i agree, we are no one to judge. rajputs aint sikhs! so lets not worry bout them. guru gobind singh ji gave people a choice. whether to follow the right paath, or not.. the caste system is not in sikhi.just cus one is amritshak, dont mean they are higher than thou.it just means that they are part of gurugobind singh jiz family. hu should drop the name singh? i think no one should.. every sikh has a hukam from guru ji to mun guru granth and take amrit.. as a personal thing, droping the name singh no one should do it.... but they also shouldnt desicrate our relegion... these so called sikhs that drink and stuff, they should accept,like they accept that they are not amritdhaari, should also accept that they are in effect not allowed to have singh. i have noticed that there are alota differnt types of non amritdharriz. ones that have rehet/trying, and ones that party club, and are gennerally not this way(toward good).. i just feel it is a real shame that sikhs are known in some areas as drinkers and smokers and going with girls and not respecting hair(esp girls!!) and such things.. this is the main reason for my post of this topic.. there was a time when girls couldnt have amrit without wearing a pugh. now,it has been relaxed... i think the same has happened with this singh and kaur thing..... but still!!.. pul chuk kima

You are limited in your knowledge dude. Singh was a Rajput warrior name WAY before the Khalsa. If you look even today many Princes of rajput descent still have the name Singh. They are nothing to do with Panjab or the Khalsa. It is very likely that Guru Gobind Singh gave out the name Singh as a device to psychologically uplift all of the Khalsa initiates to the status of warriors. This was one of a number of steps he took for this emancipation. With your arguments this would mean that it is actually baptised Sikhs that are wannabes not the other way round. The other thing that makes your points lame is that there is evidence in the form of hukum namas by Guru Hargobind that point to the use of the word Khalsa to refer to the sangat. This was way before the amrit ceremony with the sword or even Guru Gobind Singh was born. So the Gurus may well have called non amritdhari Sikhs "Khalsa". What you dimwits don't understand that now is the time for unity not bullcrap pointless divisions. THIS IS DURMAT.. I CAN GIVE A REPLY, BUT WONT.. (but i feel i have to) dont care for rajputs. needless pointless info... do u carry allegince to hindus that u need to justify that singhs = rajput hindus? if yea, u aint a sikh. (definition of a sikh.) if you say that khalsa = sangat, u are denouncing what our guru gobind singh ji did. i can tell from your postes that you are not amritshak. trying to justify things that are already justified as the opposite to what you say, is down the wrong road mister... singh = khalsa khalsa = amritdhari amritdhari = baptized.. in response to your last statment, unity is needed. so why not lisen to our gurus and take amrit and just accept tht guru gobind singh ji, in giving amrit, turned jackals into lions..trying to justify this by using the thing of guru hargobind ji reffered to his sangat as the khalsa, is munmat. we are after that time through gods grace. if god wanted to creat us in that time to be reffered as the khalsa, then fine. but when guru gobind singh ji created amrit and the khalsa and singh, this became the new platto. trying to justify what u are tryin to, is like saying the word 'gay' nowadays in slang still means happy. we all know what it means.. durmat leads to munmat. this is the line you are on.. our gurus were untar-jaamta guru hargobind ji could see that there was no difference to the future of the khalsa than in his followers. people that say what you have said are no one to call yourselvs khalsa as guru gobind singh ji created a new standared. responding to your last statment, unity is needed.. SO follow what gurus have said.. take amrit and become initiated into the khalsa. leave needless and pointless info like oh rajputs are this n that.. WE AINT HINDUS. sikhs are not hindus for anyine else reading this thread.... sikhs have been misrepresented as alkiez and meat eaters. i was shoked as i was shielded from all this most of my life.. tho i knew the badness in the world, had no idea of the reality.... look at the things you need to.. OUR relegion if you are sikh. all of our gurus knew what was gona hapen. even guru naanak dev ji talks bout amrit (khande-batta da) but i do not want to get into that. (if you want to, read japji saahib). your time should be better spent than creating comments to undermine what gurus ment by the khalsa..

fateh ji, in reading the current posts, i would like to question my origional statments .. if we are to be all equal, then we should ALL have singh and kaur. this is a statment one may make.. but then y did guru ji create a distinct khalsa?? we should become guru wale. this doesnot mean that you become more importent.. it doesnt creat a status/hierachy. amritshak ppl are not better/more importent.. they might live a better life, but this doesnt create disequality (im making up words agen!). so, regardless of what our names are and stuff, (as if we were to get into names and things, it creates caste/ 'higher than thow' cenerio) we are all equal. but a distinction was given to the khalsa and it should be kept like that.. pul chuk kima

what this thread is, is discussing the name given to the khalsa by guru ji.whether hindus have it or not is not the discusion. they may just be wannabies, their ancestors mayhave been part of the khalsa in the time of guru ji and have been so caled re intergrated into the hindu socity.. or reintergrated through the father marrying into a hindu family. we dont know! could be anything under the sun! which is y we are not on about other relegions!! only mritdhari and non amritdhariz/ so called sikhs... singh, regardless, is the name and identity given to the khalsa. so non amritdhari sikhs shouldnt have it.. this is the discussion. id like for you to say where or hu your source is for the information that singh is a hindu cast name.. there is alot of wrong things in history...(not that i am saying you are wrong!)

thank you tremendously for your reply.. in response to the "clan surnames" thing. the thing is, this is what singh and kaur has been reduced. its become inherrited now.

fateh ji id like to say a few things and would like peoples opinion on what i say, thanks! girls or guys regardless, from sikh origion, drink and eat meat and do the whole nashaa thing. this is oviously not allowed in sikhi and sikh relegion. so, why are they called sikhs?? most of them just about know our first guru and most of them dont even know the full mool manter let alone the maha manter! they carry the names singh and kaur for an otherwise specified reason to that of our father. the name singh was only given to the khalsa. amritshak peoples. after the 5piyaare took amrit they then and only then got the name given to them. guru gobind singh ji was known as (guru) gobind rai.so people now-a-days are in effect desicrating our khalsa by giving themselves the title singh.would out amrit ke daate like that? so people that are not part of the khalsa should not be called singh and kaur untill they have had amrit. in thinkinbout this myself, i know that this may cause further division in our relegion, but where do u draw the line in following our guru, and "for the good of the relegion" thing?? the whole good of the relegion thing is what muslims do. they marry outside their relegion to bring new people to islam and have numerous kids and wives.(one man, 4 wives, 2 kids per wife, mohammed i guess knew what he was doing i suppose!!)but anyway, we all know that its not the lable of a sikh that is needed but the dharam and way of life of a sikh... this then lead e to get fed up with so called sikhs and say to myself, 'a disk cleanup of our relegion is happening' i.e. sikhs that convert or move away from sikhi through choice, regards to whatever reason, is a good thing as they wont brong down the faith and this will re-establish the true meaning of sikhi. (no crapness happening will be labled on our relegion and then sikhi will be re established) and people that wish to follow sikh way of life, be the khalsa, and then take the name singh. as a side note: >>there is logic in this above paragraph, but i know it is a bit off, as we are loosing our members of our faith.(mostly due to lack of knoledge of the faith which is why we need to be educators of people that dont know to spread the wealth of the knowedge..) it is very sad that members of the sikh faith are being preyed on and are converting and are getting married to hindus and to a lesser extent muzlims, but it happens and theough their actions, the khalsa and the sikh members of the khalsa get labled and get put down...<< some may say that from the instant of the first ever amrit sanchaar onward, all guys = singh, and all girls = kaur, regardless. as a personal thing, i dont agree with this, but i guess i kinda just accept it. this is only a recent thought of mine! so may god forgiv me for my durmat. forgive anything that may be found ofinsive.. hum rulte firte :homer

People like Sant Singh Maskin, giani Harinder Singh etc all studied various scriptures and maybe Im from this style of school. But instead of trying to justify it by qouting these gursikhs, it might be down to my own stupidy. Maybe if you are vulnerable you would be affected by them, but as you said (and the limited amount of Sikhi that ive understand), Sikhi is a way of life, so if you are practising Sikhi daily, you should be strong enough not to be affected. If in gurbani or the Panthic Sikh Rehit maryada say so not to do so, then I put my hands up even if its research I have no right. The purpose of me reading them is because when I go to lectures and people of other faiths are also presenting their religious beliefs, sometimes questions are posed to me regarding comparisions, having a little knowledge of what other believe help me keep up with the other speakers. What amazes me when doing lectures and meeting Muslims, they have read the guru granth sahib jee, yet they have not been affected. Read Prof Sahib Singh jees translation of the line Vakhat na payioo khadia, jhi likhan likh Koran in Jap jee sahib. You will see that they have translated this line incorrectly on purpose. Once I have read what I need to because of the lecturers in involved in, I will not keep other faiths scriptures. If I have offended you in any way shape or form, I ask for muafee. I can understand why you do not keep them. My belief however is that there is no wrong or right answer on this issue. The shabad Patala Patal from Jap jee sahib, unless ive misunderstood your translation and Prof Sahib Singhs, the concept of one god is not presented in the lines of Vedh. I always thought this shabad meant: The Vedhs have not found Akal Purakhs Aant (Because they say patala patal...), Neither have the Katibs and in the last line Guru presents the truth (Nanak Vaddha Akheea api jani ap). I always fought Vedh khain ikh vaat meant that the Vedhs have proclaimed in one zuban (ghal) that Patala patala lakh aghasa aghasa. Ive never thought that Vedh kahain ikh vaat was regarding the Lord. The Dhat is with the letter dhada and not dada, Prof Sahib Singh jee here has translated this as being creator. I posted Prof Sahib Singhs translation because I always assumed that was the correct translation. It Was interesting to see how you translated the shabad, I posed the above as a comparision. If you look at my post veer jee I was only not saying who was correct or incorrect I was only interested because it was different from what I had up to now understood. han jee I agree, that is the hard part. But maharajs kirpa we will be Ok. Bhai Sahib jee my knowledge of Science is limited. When doing Sehaj paath I can remember coming across some references, I will try to look for them. There is also an article on this subject which ill try to find for you, I thought I had it on my computer, but I cant find it. When ive found it ill post it for you, sorry, but my hands are up when it comes to this area. WAHEGURU.. i am terribally sorry if i came across in a miscontorted ay as i am come accross like that at times so my sincerest apologies. i know that some muslims have read our guru granth sahib. a muslim friend of mine has read it. the thing is tho, as he has no alliegence to our scripture, (and ment in all due respect, they are only trying to find out how to pick apart our scriptures as they have been ordered by mohudeen in the koran to perform dwah on 'non muslims' and these muslims read our translations of sggs because of this reason..). so all in all, as one has rehet and bani and naam and keertan and the correct means of doing their daily life, they will stay untouched by any incoming vibes.. i am not offended by the nessisary action that you have taken for your lectures and education pouporses, if it is for that and to, in effect, correct peoples misconception of gurbani, as you say it is, then i am left with no objection. education is the key and to help this, is correcting misconceptions. id like to leave this discussion with the following tuk >>baed kataeb simarti sabh saasat, in parhiyaa mukt na hoyee<< and >>bin naavae mukat na paye<< . u do that so its k i suppose. to my nolege, to under stand gurbani, one musst use gurbani. what i mean by this is only gurbani can explane gurbani... in 'asloo ik dhaat' yes it is dhada . however i used a different tuk to explane this.. and it was 'too data dhataar; taera dita khavana' (u know, the one we say jus before we eat) and i had said in this sense that god is the giver of dhaat. a god given boon.... here we can also say god is dhataar.. so there is only one dhaat.. god. then it says 'if u try and ryt it, in writing it you will finish yourself' this supports the previous tuk.. y? god is infinite and u cant describe him.... now the thing with the vaed say ik vaat... to myself, the understanding you have taken from that tuk is different to mine.. i have asked my grandma as i questioned myself (as we should all do all the time) and she said that the understing i have taken is ..... um... more of a true meaning! (that was hard to word!) >>>> guru naanak paatshah is saying that pataala pataal lakh agaasa agaas. this is basikly, there are lotsa different worlds. ANDthen orakh orakh bhaal thakae this is saying, people go to here/there/ends of the earth looking for it vaed kehen ik vaat. now the ik vaat is meaning that the vaed say what they say with one voice. so now, what is this it? this it is god. to understand bani u must use the other bani that you know.. if you go to my first ever post i posted and in the second, i have said this other tuk baed katab pukaarn pothiaa, naam bina sub koorh gale horchia this tuk means that all the pothiaa of the vaedz kataebz and stuff are saying..... ; naam bina sub KOOR gale hochia this second half means that everything else is koor without naam... naam is god.. so ............................... guru naanak dev ji is saying in the japjisahib tuk, orakh........ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we look here and there/ends of the earth and we get tired (why are we doing this when) the vaed are saying what they are saying with one voice. (?)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< this is the thing then guru naanak go on to say...... >>>>the kataebz say there are 18(000) sehesz worlds and in the end, there is only one daat, one boon giver god. this NOW is what guru ji is saying to us.. this is the way that guru ji has put it fwd to us.. i may come across as a bit jabardast but i dont mean it in that way.. people have said i get like that when i am exlpaning somthing... so maaf karna..

i would like to ask a question, in the koran, it does explane in detail about the embryo and egg n sprm. i havent, as of yet read gurbani extensivly to know whether it says in gurbani about this... like,.... it says about the other worlds, n stuff, does sggs say about the egg n sprm?? i know it says about the womb.. jus curious... and as you have your reasearch, id like to ask bout this.. i thought of this yesterday.... fateh ji.

...... ok, , books for reaserch is ok, but you have the holy koran/translation and, though it has pages (!) its not a book. it is the scripture of the muslims. hence,....its holy. but... i suppose that for reasearch it may be ok. (what i am about to say may sound controversial but i like it!) sikhs have no relegion, only a way of life.sikh dharam/ithaas. this i believe to be accurate. btw somone told me this randomly so i liked it..... anyway... when the sggs says "na koi hindu, ya musalmaan..." and the rehet piyaari muj ko... by dasmesh pita i think that its in support of this.. ...... but in the traditional sense, keeping another relegions scripture is, in a sense 'muning' and looking into that relegion.. wont you agree with me?? like, if you keep these things and reasearch them, you are looking into another relegion and things may come up round back to you and it may be like, >>>>'y do you have, for example, the koran in your house and reacearching that... is gurbani not more than enough'...<<<< i believe this is the angle that the gurus put to us when they said for us to not mun it. if one was to reaserch the koran and say, yea this is right and this is wrong, another might say 'y not spent that time on trying to find out and figure out what our guru said.' now, i myself know a little persian so i can read that type of inscription, (dasmeshz bani became that much eaiser to understand) but that doesent mean i will go towards or anywhere near that relegion if i have a maharaaj like sggs in my life.. so in this same sense, i am not thinkin that you are any different. i am not saying that by keeping the koran in your home, you will mun it and accept islam in your heart n stuff, but it does have an effect. just like bani has an effect on us.. this is why we say, and muslims at that fact, say all we ask you to do is read the scriptures. it does have an effect. but fine, reacerch is reaserch, but i personally would be against keeping a koran or a translation of the koran in my home. iv had a look at the like that you gave me, n its a website that i go on often! yey! ryt... they are talking bout the asloo ik daat, all i said in the translation i gave was 'in the end, there is the one god... and the way i look at bani is a see which words guru has used and translate (for myself) accordingly.. like, daat is associated with giving. and god is the all giver so god;giver.. the vaedh thing, it is similar to the way iv said it... but i must have not explicated it properly. it says in the like u gave me, " ik vaath, ik gal" and this is exactly what i said... this ik vaath is that of god.. and this is what i said.. "the ik vaat is the name of the lord." so how is it totally different???? its exactly the same!!! mind you, i did bring another line from guru maharaj.. maybe you got confuzed with that...or maybe the bit where i said that people got tyrd in looking for the brahmins and those other people... it still means the same thing... i tend to think a bit too much outside the box cus i try to relate everything but the line does mean 'that looking here and there you will get tyred, vaedh say that theres the one giver/god.' because.... in the olden tyms, people used to go looking for the brahmins in the hills n stuff. this is wasting time as in the end there is only ik daat, the one givver, god.. this is what i said and ment before... transtating the line is easy but as you may well know, trying to find what god is reely trying to say to you(personally) is the thing... hope my post wasnt too long for yourself to read!!! pul chuk kima :TH: hum rulte firte :homer

looking at all the arguments in this thread, i believe that this is the correct one. spiritual meaning always outweighs every other meaning! this post coincides with gurbani so for me, this is the meaning... (>>>>yes this is a prompt to say that this is the correct one!! <<<<) but i dont under stand this bit....... .....hence 96 crori fauj. When guru gobind singh designed the khalsa fauj the fauji singhs took the chand from shiv ji in order to represent chandr vanse fauj and the sooraj was taken from krishan avtaar to represent the soraj vanse. In this way the khalsa is every ready to fight be it day or night - chandr and soraj vanse. If someone wears a chand they are also required to wear a tegh (talvaar) because it is on the tegh the sooraj is present (usually on the handle/mutth). ..... so please do the courticy to me! thanx!!

FYI, that translation is a bit misleading There are countless nether worlds beneath nether worlds, and hundreds of thousands of heavenly worlds above. People have tried searching for end in past, present and will in future at end they all gave up and will give up, vedas says the same thing - Thousands of dieties along with eighteen scriptures says there is no end, we are tired of searching because in reality, there is only One God that exist and knows. If you try to write an account of this, you will surely finish yourself before you finish writing it. O Nanak, call Him Great! He Himself knows Himself. i agree.. in the japji sahib, it says "orakh orakh paal thake, vaed kehen ik vaath" i no y u say the vedas say one thing cus it says "....vaed kehen ik vaath" this is correct. the one thing that the vedas are saying is that there is only one naam.. the whole tuk means that 'looking for them, (whether it be the other worlds/ the pundits/ the other people), you wil tire yourself!!, the vedas say the same thing (that go after god, look for god)' it also says in our sggs "baed kataeb pukaaran pothia, naam bina sub kooran gali horchia" so if the vedas are saying that without naam, everything is koor, everything is dark/black/bad/not good, then this is what guru nanak dev ji ment when they said "....vaed kehen ik vaath" the ik vaat is the name of the lord. and the next,......................................................... "sehes utaara kehen kataeba usloo ik daat" the kataebs are saying that there are 18 sehes'z, 18 'worlds' , but in the end, there is one daat, one giver, one god. like "tu daata dataar....." i know they were saying about pataal and agaas and stuff, but i believe here they could have said 'gaas' or somthing along the lines of indicating that it was the worlds instead of saying the word ' daat ' which i believe means god.. as you have millions of universes.. in the second to last pauri it says "tithae lor lor aakaar" and this is the lor lor aakaar in such khand!! and is not suchkhand another universe!! so i believe that this means god and not universe.... i just found an article and copy pasted it so it is bound to be a bit wrong!!! :D pul khujk kima

you are totally correct. there are alot of ways to god and oviously it mentions what it mentions in our guru granth sahib.as well as respect all other relegions.. it also mentions that if you are a muslim, be a good 1, of ur a hindu be a good hindu and so on... this is indicating that a mixing of relegions is not allowed, (i.e. conversions) as one will be questioning god if they convert, or help conversions. we dont choose our family/relegion, god does. it also says in our guru granth sahib (and if one does their nitnem, in the reheraas so one should know that...) ' raam raheem puraan kuraan, anaek kahe, mat aek na manio' .....baed kahe hum aek na janio' this means that all of the other vedas/kuraan/other holy scriptures , a sikh should not 'mun' them should not beleve them or 'jaan' them, know them.. i am in agreement with your reasearch, but to keep such things in your home, is not right.. this is what is written and this is what i believe. i dont understand why any sikh would keep a koran in their home.yes learn it through reasearch, but i would say, dont keep it in your home.. u know (i guess) that its a good thing to be within so many kilomeaters within guru granth sahib. so there is a thing that happens if a sikh (as i cannot speak for any other relegion) keeps a koran.. i hope u dont see this as an offensive thing! :D pul chuk kima

fateh ji, God sent guru nanak dev ji down to stop nasha, teach the word of god through a truthfull way of life. i.e. kal taaran ... if one was to be political, and call themselves a sikh, but not practice, our gurus sed they dont like it and its not what god wants. as we all know about what guru gobind singh ji said, 'rehet piyaari muj ko....' to teach the way of life, the 5 k's had to be putinto place and the khalsa had to be created. it says this in bachitar naatak. akaal purakh ki fauj.. (the army of god) this now may seem like a divergance but it has some relevance ... guru gobind singh ji (in the bachitar naatatak) said that god gave mohammed raaj over the arabic language and islam to teach gods name but what he done was make the people to say his name insted. then guru gobind singh ji said i have come to this earth (unlike mohammed) to make the people say the name of god. and this is what i have done. <<<<this is what guru ji had sed in here. so teaching gods hukam was done through rehet. and all what sikhs do is as a result of rehet. it falls under this caragory of rehet..(rehet = way of life)...... MITTIE DHUNNDH JAG CHANAN HOA! i love this tuk from guru ji! from the narak of earth, the light has come! (from god! oviously!) i felt from your writing (from mr curious ji) that you didnt understand that the bani, dhur ki bani, (bani from up there) was comming down into the gurus and the gurus taught it/wrote it.. there are many versions of what i am about to tell you... guru gobind singh ji had to recite the guru granth sahib. which they did.. basikly, a verson of this story is that...while the fauj from guru gobind singh jiz time were taking the aad granth from one place to another, they came to a river and had to cross it.. in crossing it, the aad granth got swept away.. lost.. (it hurts! i no!) so guru gobind singh ji went into a tent and for (here is the amazingness of it all) 9 months, 9 weeks , and 9 days, guru gobind singh ji recited dhur ki bani. (with bhai mani singh ji as the scribe) this went to (i think) damdami taksal (hope i am right!correct me???) >>>>>>(by the way, the dassam ji granth was ment to be alot more larger than it is now, but bani got lost... i call it, swept away,lost in the ages) its just so apocalyptic<<<<<< another story is that guru gobind singh jiz guru ship was questioned by some people that wanted the guru granth sahib so these people told guru ji that they wanted the guru granth sahib as well, and that if guru gobind singh ji is true guru, y dont they just take their own vaak and stuff.. so (as this version goes,...) guru gobind singh ji gave this saroop to these people (i say these people but they were at a gurudwara and guru ji were passing by..)gave this saroop to these people and then went into the tent for the 9 months, 9 weeks , and 9 days. bhai mani singh AND baba deep singh were the scribes...i gess they took shifts....(!) so the message is the same, no matter which guru was teaching it.... some naamdhariz say that if "bani guru, guru hai bani" is true, since guru arjan said this, written this in guru granth sahib, there should have not been any gurus after guru arjan dev ji... to me this is durmat (upside down thinkin!!!) the message from god was still comming untill guru gobind singh ji compleated the aad granth and made it guru granth...(by adding the salork and dohera and raagmala) this is how the jorrt is the same in all das gurus. by the way!!! books are crap!!! haha!! i always always say this ! as it is just the same as translations!it is someones interpretation! and to them it is more of a subject matter (as they are schollars and stuff) than anything else... books do help.. but as said by mr curous ji, confuzzlations (confussion) is inevitible... hope i have answered some of the issues preposed by mr curious jee.... pul chul kima

fateh ji, in this tan (body) we have rachaaed in ourselves, the panj chor. god has rachaaed these in us.(is it ever a wander that how we have moved from sat jug through to kal jug! we are our own undooing!! and we will be our own undooing if we dont control these 5 evils.. the key words being 'if' and 'control'.) from a bachan from the late mahapursh, bhai sahib bhai norang singh ji (gnnsj uk) they said that these 5 chor 'banke rakhna'. i.e. to keep under wraps. we can stop doing nindia and chugali and the rest but these 5 can only be kept under wraps. the last chor (ahankaar) is the worst as it can come in the other 4. these panj takats of evil can not be eradicated untill we die and shed this form. i hope iv answered your q.. pul chuk kima.

After having travelled to Madina,Guru Nanak Dev ji soon arrived in Baghdad and took up a position, along with Mardana, outside the city. Guru Nanak Dev ji shouted the call to prayer, on which the whole population became wrapt in silent astonishment – the Guru omitted the usual words Muhammad ar Rasul Allah, and substituted Arabic words of a similar sound to express his own ideas, hence the astonishment. The pir (saint) of Baghdad, Bahlol Dana on meeting face to face with the enthusiastic stranger, inquired who he was and to what sect he belonged. The Guru greeted him with his customary ‘Sat Kartar’ and replied, “I have appeared in this age to indicate the way unto men. I reject all sects, and only know one God, whom I recognise in the earth, the heavens, and in all directions.” Upon this the Guru began to repeat the japji. As the pir listened to his doctrines he said, “This is a very impious fakir. He is working miracles here, and informing us, contrary to the authority of our Holy Quran, that there are hundreds of nether and upper regions, and that at last men grow weary of searching for them.” There are nether worlds beneath nether worlds, and hundreds of thousands of heavenly worlds above. The Vedas say that you can search and search for them all, until you grow weary. The scriptures say that there are 18,000 worlds, but in reality, there is only One Universe. If you try to write an account of this, you will surely finish yourself before you finish writing it. O Nanak, call Him Great! He Himself knows Himself. ||22|| The pir then called upon the Guru to give a manifestation of his power. Upon this, it is said, the Guru laid his hand on the high priest’s son and showed him the upper and lower regions described in the Japji. and------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Queen of Baghdad had no child. By the blessings of Guru Nanak, a son was born to the Queen and she offered a chola (robe) to Guru Nanak prepared by herself, having the hymns of Quaran on it. That chola is still lying in Gurdwara Chola Sahib at Dera Baba Nanak, Gurdaspur district, Punjab. From Baghdad, Guruji came back to India in 1521 A.D. via Kabul, Jalalabad, Turkey; through Khyber Pass to Peshawar and Panga Sahib (Hassan Ibdal) near Rawalpindi in West Punjab.

thanks for the post.you make a good argument i have to say. the only thing i may question is that, guru naanak dev ji may have worn the chola. now, as you did, im going to giv an analogy. would we wear a hoodie or any item of chothing that said allah hu akbar or sumthing? your argument stays in tact if only that guru ji didnt wear the chola. would like you to debate this please. it does also clearly state that we should not 'mun' any other scripture. (in the reheraas) so i am not saying that we shud num islam or anything if this thort comes to your mind..

fateh ji, i had recently come accross a web site whereby muslims are trying to convert sikhs. now this topic of discussion is formally not about this, (note i said formally!) and i jus wanted to pose a question to the panth to help me understand.. a gift from bhai Mardana ji (i think... please clarify) or by some other muslim, gave a chorla (cloathing garment) to guru nanak dev ji. on this chorla, the writing that was on this garment was in arabi or farsi or that kind of language (again clarify...). what was written was "la ila-h ilallah, madmunsoor rosool allah". this (as i studied a bit of urdu arabi and farsi to understand dasmesh's pita's bani) means ' there is no god but allah and.... ' this first half i understand why guru nanak dev ji had this as, we say " ek orr-ang-kaar " which says the same thing. NOW.. the next bit ' there is no god but allah and.... mohamed is the prophet of allah ' the muslims say, things like ' u must read the quran and beleve in mohamed as ur prophet ' or sumthing..... SO... why was ' madmunsoor rosool allah '; the second bit of what was written on the chorla, on there??? i have done some contemplation( ) and thort of sumthing that i got told by a paunchia hoa bandha. that.... mohammed was the messemger of god (like the hindu god and like guru naanak) but he got into maya and didnt convey the ful message... u no what the stories are about mohammed.. i.e. god has tried again and again to act through ppl but the ppl didnt doit ryt so.. this is why, " kal taaran gur naanak aya..." . so is this why madmunsoor rosool allah is written on the chorla?? (like, just to aknolage that mohamed was the prophet?) so i need to know this as lota of ppl that i have come accross, whether it be on the net or face 2 face, mis repersent sikhi.. oh!! 1 more thing... when gru naanak dev ji went to mecca, and when they were asked to leave somthing behynd wen they were about to leave, they left their footwear behynd, was this kept in the kabbah till the guy,...... that looked after the kabbah at the time when the guru jiz footwear was left behind,.... took the foorwear and kept them in his family?? so was it kept in the kabbah at the time and... was it passed down?? i think iv seen them so i dont reely know why i am askin this! but please answer as i jus want confermation. and it makes it a nice read... hope ne of u wont beat me up cusa wot i sed so... pul ckuk kheema! :s ))))

i agree with this post but to only an extent... many a time have people mentioned that they know ppl inside relstionslips such as the one in discussion. people need to know what to do, what they aer getting into if they go foward with the relationship and such... relationships do happen now-a-days. some amritdhari people now-a-days have "half relationships" as, they have non of the normal preconceptive ideas of 'a relationship'. they see that "other half" as their sister and yes, somtimes even a potential to get marrid to.. so many sikh marages break down due to one of the people, husband, or wife, becoming 'too' relegious and not spending time at home and stuff.. so the idea of looking of an amritdhari sikh looking for a potential wife, as does go on nowa days wen people are getting marrid, is not such a bad thing. most amritdhari guys and girls want to see the boy or girl before they get marrid to them.. and for the reason stated, i dont think it is a bad idea. so converse gof relationships is a nessasory thing here.these are real alive issues. esp in the midlands!! anyway.. this is going on the assumption that no hanky panky before marrage will go on and its all bout marage. if she feels to convert marry, and stuff, for her, i dont think it wud be right.. if this muslim gal is going to act, metab's post is the one to look at.she oviously sees somthing in this guy, and som sort of link is there, and if she was to 'convert' then it would be a marrage thing. so again, is nessasory. if the guy takes amrit, he will be a real 'plus point' to our khalsa!!

First, sri bhaguti ji is no 'female entity' as was previously stated and bhaguti/chandi is not a sword. Chandi di vaar is aka as vaar durga ki, vaar bhaguti ki amonsgt other names. For a while, though i knew it to be wrong, i had thought that in the ardass guru ji put bhaguti ji in a higher place than guru nanak dev ji. They did. But the true undestanding is in the meaning of bhaguti and durga and chandi and kali and by whatever other name one may call. We first 'simmar' god. The almighty god. Not any other daevz (demi gods). Bhaguti does not mean the female entity ("i meditate upon bhagauti the feminine source of shakti then i focus upon guru nanak ji") as stated by the post of kaal tuhi. God acted through durga (as god does with everything and everyone) and through the parsaad of god (gur prasaad) the demons were taken out of heaven. In response to the post by ms514 the last bit of your post is what i wish to comment on. Guru ji may have roared and said the sword is the chandi, i hadnt heard that before. But what i do know is that guru ji rachaaed the power of bhaguti ji in the sword. This is how we are able to fight sava lakh and why guru ji labled us, AKAAL PURAKH ki fauj. I feel and believe that we can call oueselves bhaguti ki fauj. (as, in the ardaas: pritham bhaguti simar kae gur naanak le-iy dhayaae means, first i simmar the timless god the one god the ultimate god or what u may call them even akaal purakh, then i dhiyaa guru naanak). And non of the Sikhs went and beat up other ppl!! That's a bit (a lot) questionable. may hav used force. but beat up??!! that demeans the first thing for sikhs. sikh can never let go of daya. compasion.. Just to add, chandi di vaar was not translated into other languages. It was left in gurmukhi. The other 2 banis from the chandi charitra however, was translated. Some also say that it was translated into urdu/islamic/persian. Just imagine if it was. The enemy would have got it!!! Guru ji made it clear sumwhere,(>>> i forget where, as maya will be maya and use its shaktiaa to make us forget good things!! But thasa different thing all together...<<<) , that is was not allowed to be translated into this language specificly. I am talking about the last of the charitra, chandi di vaar. But if i remember correctly, my statement about the urdu/islamic/persian thing is consistent with ALL bani or our scriptures.. but i have seen urdu gutkaas... my gdad has a reely old one!!! Anway.... Hope i havent said anything to cause confrontation. Basikly, pul chuk khaema :s hum rul-te fir-te :homer