japmans

hum kookar terai darbaar bhaunkai aagai badan pasaar

jasy, you my friend, don't know german!

i'd change everyone's signature to "Heil Moderator Japman"

yeah nindaks' should definitely be killed!! in fact, i'd take it one step further anyone who has human faults ,or is avgun shuld be killed too actually, let's take out anyone who's not a puran gurmukh, that'll be the best and easiest way to improve the quality of human life! how about animals, they're kinda just wasting space, kill em all too... and trees..so big, but fo what?! cut emm all down.. kill all th eplant life too! let's just go nuclear on every single possible area in the world and finish everyone.. that way, only the strongest wil survive anyways..that's hukam, right? right, guys?

vaheguru

good points, really really good points... good points about people who claim to be sikhs. You (jss) know me, i'm all for accepting everyone, and you know me to the extent that I was partially just clarifying what I THOUGHT was being misunderstood, and partially just playing devil's advocate. but, we also mostly know that Singh 132 knows what he's talking about when it comes to dietary bibek.. from a guy that practises it daily, i think it's safe to suggest that he's earned the "right" to discuss the topic and give his two cents about what works and doesn't... maybe he's not an AUTHORITY, but he DOES practise it day-to-day, for him, his values and conscience tell him that it's gotta be totally within... from my experience, the most important thing that has been said to this extent is being good with your conscience... obviously there's discipline and common sense that has to be discussed.... rehit maryada is still rehit maryada... if your conscience is not good with eating from someone who you're not comfortable with, it's hard to say "you're wrong"... if that's how person (A) feels, person (B) will say it's just ritual... yet again, it's an issue of one person vs. another saying that "what i think is more right than what you think" honestly, i eat out, and i don't think i've ever discriminated about it... if it looks good, chances are it'lll end up in my stomach!! ultimately, i know people in general don't like ot hear it, but if it's hurtin your relationship with god, don't do it.. if it isn't, then do it with caution.... pretty straightforward way to nurture your relationshpi with the big mna. and mehtab... buy the land... make us food you make good pronthay.. there's picture evidence of it on that thread from a couple years ago!

though in general, i agree with jss, i also found myself to agree alot with what Singh132 said. i think you're missing his main point, that Naamdharis propagate themselves to be Sikhs, that's why for him, there's more of an issue.. jss, your goan friend is not a sikh, is not claiming to be a sikh, and is not claiming that her way was the way that is real ever since 1708... similarly heera, every other religion in the world is the same way. they are not claiming to be sikh, to follow sikhi, and so on so forth.. i don't see how we should expect them to think any differently of our Guru if they're not prescriing themselves to the path... I do agree with jss that we shouldn't discriminate based on caste/colour/creed/belief, so on so forth. i agree with what Singh 132 said about the concept "ultimately what your conscience allows you to do"... i think that's very important... but I think his point, specifically about naamdharis, is the fact that they openly propagate to be Sikhs, that the true sikh panth and path and rehit is the one that Bhai Ram Singh "supposedly" took and so on... that's why his sentiment is that it's a direct insult to Guru Panth. just clarifying.

sitargirl bhanji.. i tried pming you but your inbox is full.. if you can, empty some of it.. i don't wanna detract from the topic at hand! vaheguru

sitargirl, you're hard pressed to find a black and white answer someone said "what would i do if i had guru gobind singh ji right beside me everywhere iwent" frankly, if i had that faith, and he was with me no matter what, i'd step foot into a BILLION clubs, cuz i know nothing would hurt me... different perspective eh? i personally have never stepped foot inside a club. This makes my perspective very biased, but I don't think i even WILL, simply because I'm too weak to be in that atmosphere. when people have asked me "but xyz singh goes, and HE'S a sikh, why cant you", my very honest answer is simply "he's stronger than me. I can't go into that atmosphere and feel like i'm not damaging my spirituality. maybe he can, and power to him for htat" cuz it's the truth. Ultimately, don't DAMAGE your spirituality... making no gain in spiritual progress is still beter than making a negative gain (or dropping).. ultimately, we should always only do things that increase and propogate spiritual progress, but more importantly, we shouldn't ever engage in anything that makes us fall to any length... if you think you can be in a club atmosphere and not have it bother you, then that's the answer FOR YOU. we born alone, we die alone, so don't look for a black/white rule that fits everyone... ultimately, aisa kam moolai na keechai, jit ant pachhotaayeeai

and i just went back and read ocelot's second post, and you know... i think i agree.. not to the extent of HATE... but it's a very solid point people who have spent years and years learning about our shaheeds, sitting in sangat, and whatever... and for whatever reason, they let it all go, obviously it's all in Hukam... and i understand that "virlay", only the rarest of the rare find their way onto God's Path.... but still, you question it deeply... these people who supposedly know so so so much, and are so so so knowledgeable about history and even baani, and then they go and jump off the train. really makes you think

i was gonna say pretty much the same thing that Princess said. ocelot said something along the lines of i hate seeing an amritdhari walking along the street with his mona son. we have a Youth of the Month who openly told of trying times with her father when she decided to reject christian faith and embrace Sikhi... the teacher-student relationship between a parent and a child only goes a certain way.. when the child is unable to form cohesive, logical, reasonable thoughts, then the parent is the teacher... there comes a time, a really really blessed time, though....where parent and child can learn FROM EACH OTHER... when your daily life becomes sangat, not just one-way lecturing. Of course, this requires the parent to be willing to accept thought patterns different from their own... I know it happens with me and my dad all the time, but we're both beter off for it. If my kid, at the age of 20 or whatever, decided that he/she was done with sikhi, frankly, i'd likely be ripped up inside.... but by this age, as heera said, they are making decisions as mature adults that they believe are best for them at that time... If i was providing them with positive sangat, and finding ways for them to meet likeminded individuals for the first 20 years, though.. i would find it hard to believe that he/she would want to leave the path. if it were to happen regardless, my duty as a parent does not change. Morally, spiritually, religiously ,and legally, a parent's duty is to love, nurture, and provide the necessities of life to their child. I wouldn't stop doing that.

yeah, solid question.... i've read in some vichaars that the darshan that people think they're having is usually fake, mithhiya...... it leads me to believe that darshan likely has nothing to do with seeing/realizing some physical form of our previous Guru Sahibaan, since we've already got a saroop to get darshan of in terms of Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj.. it baffles me when people suggest it's going to be a "meeting" with one of the previous Gurus, because so much of Gurbani's aim is to make us alipat, to get us detached, and to get us away from the concept of the Body.. i believe it was Pheena ji's post that said only once we realize that the body is nothing can we start making real spiritual progress. so in my mind, not that i've read, researched, learnt, or accomplished anything--- but in my mind, darshan must then be realization, self-realization, understanding, implementation, and the transgression away from thinking in terms of maya to thinking in terms of aatmaa... once we truly fully understand that "Guru, Meray Sang, Sadaa Hai Naalay", but also realize "janam birthaa, jaat rang maaya kai"... when we ditch pursuits of maya for pursuits of Guru Sahib, then we're constantly having darshan because we're constantly going to realize new things through gurbani. You know that kinda anand you feel when you go over a line, and it jus kinda strikes you and it's like "holy crap, the big man's talking to me".... that's probably one aspect of darshan. Also.. satsangat/sadhsangat is darshan too.. i know there's lines in guru granth sahib that say this too, but the one verse that actually sticks out right now in my mind is from the Bible where it say "where two or three are gathered in rememberance of my name, then I am there with them as well" or something... so maybe going and being in sadhsangat is what guruji's talking about in terms of darshan.. I really dont think it's visions and stuff... Again, from what i've read, visions and stuff, they tend to be fabrications of the ego... your ego telling your mind that "oye, you're gettin up there, buddy.. you're a gurmukh", and then supposedly seeing things and stuff like that... cuz those who are truly gurmukh are in mast... they're way past the hauami stage, and their Haumai's been ripped up and burnt by gurshabad (hamai sabad jalaaey) ANYWAYS, going on a tangent... so yeah..that's my thought.... ultimately, our goal or purpose is not to seek out "darshan"... if it comes, it comes through gurprasaad, and that's it, that's the be all end all.. we turn relgiion into a joke if we expect to receive things from it... so don't expect anything..your relationship with God is one-way, in that you give up your entire self/being to Vaheguru...what you get in return is not because you ask for it, but because it's through Kirpa,

greaaaaat post... great post

interesting.. the last thing i'd call the 3H0 Sikhs is out of touch with their body, yet they are so meditative that many of them have OBE's constantly during their sadhna.

again your bias is being shown, comparing a picture of Hanuman to a picture of a nude woman. In sikhi, even pictures of guru sahib are looked down upon. How come you didn't compare a portrait of Guru Nanak Dev Ji to a portrait of a nude woman? How come there's a double standard? In reality, it should confuse the christian if they saw a picture of Guru Nanak Dev Ji too, because they shouldn't have the feeling that we worship pictures of Guru Nanak. Yet no one thinks twice when a picture of any one of our Guru Sahibs is put up, yet we cry and debate and go blue in the face... when a picture of a Hindu deity is put up. PICTURES MEAN NOTHING! YES consideration should be made for those who are outside of Sikhi who may come across this site, but our whole lives should not depend on what other people may think... this is how we have already succeeded in injuring and killing our community "Loki Ki Kehngay?".. that oneline has destroyed families and communities, everyone worried about what the next person will think Ultimately, if you feel insecure about even looking at a picture of a Hindu goddess/god/deity, then don't look at it.. if you really feel it's damaging your kamayee just by looking at one, then by all means ignore it. i just think you're way off if you're assuming that by simply having a picture up, it means we believe and follow that god/goddess/deity.

vaheguru, i like alot of what The Perf-Stud said above. I think the reality is that Sikhi has alot to do with your action. Sure, it's an "act" to receive amrit.. but it's a one time act, and without any devotion/dedication/love, simply taking amrit will give you little advancement in your spiritual journey......amrit in its solitude, IN MY OPINION, is not enough to define being a Sikh. Day to Day acts need to be representative of a sikh, and that's why I have no problem with saying certain other people are Sikhs, though they have not kept full roop, or have yet to take amrit. this is why we may never find one blanket statement to satisfy the answer "who is a sikh?". I feel we can't jus say, well if you've taken amrit, you're a sikh, and if you haven't, you're not. The fact is there's good and bad both among amritdharis and monay/sehjdhari/keshdhari. We always speak about how we come alone and we die alone, we come as individuals, we die as individuals, but whe it comes to defining what a Sikh is, we don't do it on an individual level, we try to make one blanket stattement to cover as much ground as possible. Maybe that's the flaw. Personally, I'm not ashamed to admit that there's quite a few monay that I do sangat with, who have inspired me to become better. These are people who i look at and feel are just, straight up, better than me. I consider them as my fellow Sikhs, because their actions justify it. Sure they haven't yet decided to take the plunge, but looking their eyes, speaking with them, it's something that's only in due time. And in high school, i did sangat with a group of punjabis (some sardars included) who were ready to backstab anyone at any time, wore their sikhi on their arms in the form of tattoos, but ask them to have naam in their minds, and they look at you with a quizzical look on their face. How can such a person be called a sikh? i know we've had that example put forward before, that theres some monay who are really good, and some keshdhari and even amritdhari who are really bad but that just shows the practiaclity. That is not a recent phenomenon. Amritdharis and supposedly faithful gursikhs have been bad even in the Guru's times (Mahants)... Ultimately, amrit is extremely important, and that can't be deabted or faught. But I think a mona or a keshdhari is allowed to believe in amrit, even if they have yet to give their head, and still be caleld a Sikh... but they must also have the day-to-day actions and kamayee, just as an already-amritdhari should, to justify and deserve it.

you're so anti-hindu that you don't even see the flaw in your own argument. as sikhs, you're saying there's no idol worship.. EVERYONE agrees with you as sikhs, a portrait of guru nanak is nothing more than paint on paper, and is not to be worshipped and revered. Everyone agrees with you YET, you make it soundl ike we're worshipping these pictures of kali mata and ram and all that... hahaha in fact, if anything, YOU'RE giving those paintings andp ortraits morepower than they deserve look at how much attention you're giving them.. if we're not gonna worship paintings of our own Pavitr Mitr Guru Sahibaan, what convinces you that we're starting to worship these paintings of hindu deities?... you've essentially said "the power of a portrait of a hindu god/goddess is SO powerful that you'll start worshipping it JUST LIKE THAT, without having any choice. you'll start faithfully believing in hindu mythology, hindu mat...just by looking at this picture"....that's what i've gotten from you.. personally, when i look at impressionist or renaissance art, i'm not worshipping the artists, or the subjects in the painting... just Lookin...thats it.. ... that's just me

pretty much agree 100% with the above by namstang

believing in Guru's teachings doesn't make you the Guru... but it is an extremely important part of it therefore, beliving in the "baptism ceremony" doesn't make you baptized, but is important. an atheist does NOT believe in God, and therefore will never merge with God unless they change their belief. An atheist can not be called a God-Follower, or a Disciple. Belief in God is important, because it is the seed that is planted in order to follow the Path of God. if you don't believe in the validity of amrit, then you likely will never request/receive it, and at THAT point, then we can talk about non-sikh vs. sikh believing in amrit does not make you amritdhari, but IN MY EYES AND OPINION it puts you at least on the path of Sikhi, and in my interpretation, it makes you a Sikh.... and on the path towards God...a path which includs amritpaan.

*

I've heard that it's called "Shabad Hazaaay" because when you do it immediately after Japji Sahib, or at least at the end of the punj baanian.. it increases in the power of japji sahib a thousand-times-over... so i don't think it is ONLY a morning baani, but according to what i've heard, if you have time to do it in the mornings, it should be done

yeah kulpreet singh's right. my apologies for my previous post.

Singhni is a really new term i've noticed too.... like new to the point where it was like..never used when i started becoming addicted to these forums (what..4/5 years ago?)...to where it's the more popular than the word "vaheguru" on forums. Despite the conflict-oriented tone of Narinder Singh, i actually agree with him.. it's as if the term was a creation to make it seem like a "higher breed of kaur" or something along those lines... at least that what it feels like these days... that a singhni is something superior to a "common old" kaur... when the term is used.... and i'm probably guilty of using it too, and maybe even in that context.. interesting point though...

bhai gurdaas ji writes that a gurmukh will go beyond rajo tamo sato, and achieve this fourth state... chauthha padh.. but i`m lookin for qualities of this state.. or.. any description.

Vaheguru need some more information about Chauthha Padh. read it in this line: guramukh hovai chouthhaa padh cheenai raam naam sukh hoee ||3|| But one who becomes Gurmukh comes to realize the fourth state of celestial bliss; he finds peace through the Name of the Lord. ||3|| Sounds funny, but it's kinda important. Anyone with any insight would really help. thanks