Raju

Gentlemen, what is a swine flu jab/vaccine ? a vaccine is disinfected sample, mostly dead or semi-dead virus of the very same virus that you are looking to avoid. So looking in that sense, if you do not contract swine flu through nature, you would surely contract swine flu through the jab. Now once the virus enters your blood stream, it shall remain there forever and you will be a carrier for that particular flu even if you do not get completely overwhelmed by it. Depending on the nature of the flu, your body shall have to constantly fight this toxic viral already injected into your body on a daily/weekly/monthly basis thereby compromising your positive immune system. Secondly if it is proven that this swine-flu is indeed a designer flu, it shall react differently to various 'natural viral flu' and give a different response. So please do not flow with the glib talk of aye-sayers on this forum and avoid this jab in any ways possible.

For Sikhs it may have been better. But not for rest. You need to understand core philosophy of India, which is dharma. the British can never provide it because they are too much into deviousness to meet their ends. India needs a ruler who can treat all equally. And that entity is yet to come.

better for whom ?

I too can give my moderated opinion in this matter. :lol: After reading the stories of all those shaheeds and sants, it seems da-sher got fired up and was trying to pick up a fight with the help of a cricket bat and somehow things didn't go all his way. I say this because this: can never happen in a cricket field until you are facing three balls simultaneously. :lol:

I have clear policy when it comes to animals. If I can't take them on with my bare hands, then I just do my best to avoid them. In case of a dog,snake or any attacking critter, the best weapon is a longish stick that can keep their appendages at a length. Then if you try to keep them at bay and they still do not relent then the best option is to strike at a dog's face because it basically incapacitates them and gives the other dogs a message.

What I can say here, that while I feel more comfortable amidst Britsh-sponsored modern mainstream sikhism. It will begin to seem a bit unconnected somewhere and then people will go back to the nihangs and puranatic codes. And thus the disconnect will begin even at individual level. While mainstream Sikhs will have a group, that involves the likes of myself, who will actively sponsor it and like it, there is bound to be a cultural disconnect at some point which shall have to be covered up by modernism. Probably a lot of vice in Punjab and it's youth comes up from that part of cultural disconnect which they attempt to paper over by imported modernisms. As a Christian, I will always prefer mainstream Sikhs and will feel uncomfortable among those with weird sanatanic or Aghori rituals. but still if that is the call that one has to take to connect to one's culture, I guess there is no other choice now is there ? A deep rift opens up as I study this further.

Yes, I thought so too. but what I understand from this is that the Nihangs practice a more puratanic form of Sikhism, which veers away from the more modern form of sikhism which was established after the 'Tat Khalsa' movement which grew in the patronage of British. So the group that went with mainstream Sikhism began to develop a silent or rather unspelt animosity with the Nihangs and the Udasis who were considered more pro-sanatanic and which directly derived vocabulary and inspiration from the dharmic-lexicon ? It is also fascinating for me personally to note the large extent to which the british penetrated the Indic society and how the vestiges of their rule haunt us to this day. If the Mughals were purely barbarity, the British were barbarity mixed with deep cunning and manipulation of human psyche to meet their own ends. Truly they set out and screwed the country nice and proper. And this ego clash within Sikhism between the sanatanics and the modernists is what is breeding the anti-Hinduism because the Sikhs as a community can't settle this amongst themselves since they can't raise their sword against brothers. It is weakening it from within. this much I can gather from responses by various members and some external reading from internet sources.

ok so you don't particularly like me. lol but I hope you can accept people with slightly different opinions than yourself, if your faith is strong. You shall have no problem in coexisting with those who tread a slightly different path. I have been on this forum since 2005, the least you can do is show me a bit of respect for having been part of this community for 4 years and having contributed through its ebbs and tides. I think that is human courtesy. To all, I need your love and positive attention. Please do not direct any hateful messages towards me. thank you.

Excuse me, my knowledge of hindu scriptures isn't upto scratch. But isn't mahakaal a pseudonym for Shiv ? http://gurvinderpal.com/blog/archives/tag/mahakaal another discussion is going on here .. http://forums.panthic.net/index.php?showtopic=35139

>> Macauliffe (scholar) oh well. Some racist Englishman out to divide the natives as part of his job profile, is now believed to give an accurate transcription of the Sikh gurus words. Guys DO NOT fall for the devil while running away from the deep sea.

What the hell are you talking about you have no idea, Our Guru's empowered the whole nation state of Punjab to stand against tyranny and oppression and in doing so liberated the entire sub continent of india from the grasp of the moughals. No denying that. He has indeed created a race of brave people. Or atleast given his followers a brave and inspiring code to live upto. female infanticide .. honor killings in Punjab .. ring a bell ? So obviously though women were defended and protected from being dishonoured at the hands of vandals. treatment by ones own kind is not upto scratch isn't it ? then why are jat sikhs fighting chamar sikhs and jat sikhs fighting bhapa sikhs ? Please do not take offence at my comments like that other benji did, but I ask these questions because these are so obvious and glaring and are bound to be asked by someone at sometime to such arguments. Or else folks may not say anything openly but atleast smirk/snigger under their breath when they listen to someone saying such big things.

>> why are there so many hindus/hindu sympathisers on this forum, trying to distort Sikhi?? it is the fault of the more religiously aware forumites for not being able to bring everyone to their side. Most folks who are religious simultaneously come across as very narrow or chauvinist type and are not able to present arguments that would attract anyone else to their side. And neither do I think that is in their set of goals either.

I doubt you even know yourself sunshine. Let alone me or anyone else. have seen this and worse, folks channelling hatred and narrow-mindedness as religious discourse. For you broad-mindedness of someone else means I am supposed to listen patiently to all inane carp and you will not allow me to spout my own carp. it goes both ways. but hey, you have already labeled me a 'moorakh' for even daring to argue with your eminence. The only reason for my participating in this discussion was so that I gave even a narrow-minded, religious chauvinists a chance to express themselves and see whether there is merit in what they say. Waited and waited and yet found nothing. I am sure there is nothing to be missed here. So be it.

No sire, Lucifer is not pre-Christian in origin. Atleast the name isn't. Lucifer is the serpent in the garden of Eden, he is the fallen angel, (plz note it is always referred to as a 'he'), he is the bearer of light, or the 'torch bearer' or the one who brings light into darkness. The symbolic tree in the garden of Eden was referred to as the 'tree of knowledge'. The symbolism of the 'tree of knowledge' is same as the 'torch bearer who brings light'. Lucifer's job was to subvert the system made by the divinities/Gods. It is something like a game that is being played between two entities like 'Aliens vs Predators'. In which the Predators are the humanoids and the aliens are the reptile/Lucifer/snake-like beings. Or else I could be getting carried away. lol I think a lot of Abrahamism seeped into Sikhism after Sikhs came into contact with the Brits who affirmed this 'one-God' theory amongs what was originally assorted beliefs that lived in peace with the environment or a rather warrior-offshoot of Dharmic grouip of religions. A lot of what the Brits did to Sikhism was basically intended to distance Sikhs from the majority Hindus. So they asked the Sikhs who enlisted to tie their turbans properly or made it compulsary to wear turbans or asked non-keshdhari jat sikhs why they weren't wearing their turbans etc and patronised Sikhs a lot. This made a large group take to the Abrahamic narrative much too fondly, and thus the 'One-God' theory was popularised. On second thoughts weren't Shiva and Sati thrown down from somewhere and Shiva lost sati in the process. Also Shiva's original name was Ardhanareeswar (half-man half-woman God), it is possible that Shiva was Adam ? From what I know the hebrew kabbalas copied the Adam-Eve story from the east and later on the Bible included this into its own narrative.

Firstly who has Ram and Krishna raped ? What people are alluding to here is that both of them took advantage of the status-quo positions of the male in that society and 'exploited' women who were close to them. Secondly Sikhism is a 200 yr-old religion and has a newer narrative. The Sikh narrative is comparitively new, and thus is limited in content. Wait for the same period as these older religions have and then see what turns out. What if somebody you idolize today, turns out to be a rotten fruit tomorrow ? You will then be forced to defend them the same way Hindus go about defending Ram and Krishna. So my conclusion that if Sikhism has nothing to compare with the likes of Ram and Krishna, then they can only be thankful but if you take undue pride in something that hasn't happened yet. If it happens, then you too are forced to be obstinate and bury your heads in the sand like the rest of them ? hindu alert hindu alert lol ur a waste of breath, Ok .. so while discussing theology you suddenly descend to bash me personally ? A frog who lives in the well think that is his world. he believes in 'One Well'. Pardon me but I am looking at life from various perspectives, is that a crime ? that one statement explains more about the 'narrow' state of your mind than it does about mine. And you just have the modern times to compare with. You just know from what you see from the present. that's what I was saying. I have never tried to convince anybody on this forum of my 'Sikhness' or not. Never was that insecure to do that. No mam, I can hold my own and keep my own fort. Sikh or not. I am the last person on earth to get drawn into a mine is bigger mine is best mine is longer contest. but apart from the above three claims, none here seem to prove anything other than give a facile explanation on how 'their religion' is better than the rest. Well if your religion is better than the rest, you need not shout that out loud, instead make that implicit through your actions and quotes of the great things accomplished from that faith. Else it becomes like me stepping out of my house to announce to my hood on how I am the strongest. It sounds vain and pompous and passes me off for a d***. Would you like to be in similar shoes ? one God is the legacy of Abrahamic religions. You need to well-understand that as a Christian I too have taken a lot of pride in this 'one-God' thing. but it is not always necessary that the one-God philosophy may be a good/correct one. There was only one lucipher of 'fallen angel', who was given authority to come into his own during the end-of-Kalyug, what if he is the 'one-God' whom every Abrahamic is worshipping ?

Firstly who has Ram and Krishna raped ? What people are alluding to here is that both of them took advantage of the status-quo positions of the male in that society and 'exploited' women who were close to them. Secondly Sikhism is a 200 yr-old religion and has a newer narrative. The Sikh narrative is comparitively new, and thus is limited in content. Wait for the same period as these older religions have and then see what turns out. What if somebody you idolize today, turns out to be a rotten fruit tomorrow ? You will then be forced to defend them the same way Hindus go about defending Ram and Krishna. So my conclusion that if Sikhism has nothing to compare with the likes of Ram and Krishna, then they can only be thankful but if you take undue pride in something that hasn't happened yet. If it happens, then you too are forced to be obstinate and bury your heads in the sand like the rest of them ?

Ok, finally the examples of 'sexism' in Hinduism are given as 'Ram's treatment of Sita' and "Krishna's shenanigans'. these are good examples. But if one has read Christian scriputres wherein references are made to the 'Angels who helped man on earth after he fell down from heaven' .. then we can also infer that some of these angels eloped with the 'daughters of men' and created a hybrid race of giants. Now I do not say this, it's there in bible. These people were called 'Gandharva' in Hinduism, and when Gandharva married any girl it used to be known as 'Gandharva vivah' or an arrangement where the Husband remained elusive like a Gadharva/Angel. If one can think of Krishna to be a Gandharva-type personality then it would be natural that he too fell for the womanly charms. Even Gods and Angels used to routinely fall for the fairer sex according to scriptures. Ram was a human, though Hinduism states him as a God, and he was tied by the social code of those times and being a king he had to be a moral exemplar and it can be explained that he did what he did. He also shot bali behind him, so apart from being 'sexist' he was much else also. Though there is an explanation of that as well that any man or God who came before Bali in combat would halve their strength and bali would get half their strength and become doubly strong as per some boon granted to him by Shiva/Brahma. So all-in-all yes there are charges of 'sexism' that can't be refuted, but if seen through the eyes of the times in which they existed, probably they were not much wrong either. I don't think we can judge somebody who lived before us, because they lived in different times.

>> I am not trying to be offensive. I'm just stating facts sorry, I am yet to see any facts. What you stated was your opinion. matrilineal societies are a fact. In fact the only other matrilineal society worshipping women and women goddesses exists in Ireland/Wales apart from South India. There are a lot of links between dravidian cultures with those of Irish/Basque cultures, and primary among them was the primacy that they gave to women and worship of female deities and feminine rituals. The cultures that oppressed women and were t ypically 'sexist' were the 'Indo-European' cultures and the Germanic tribes and Arabs/Semitic cultures and the religions descended from these cultures. Sorry, but I do not see any homogeneity in Christianity and Hinduism here. the 'religion' called Hinduism seems to be sexist now/today/here because we seeing effects on this religion post various traumas like Islamic invasion, British misrule etc. If the Hindu religion was 'sexist' before these, then you need to show with concrete examples of such during times before Mughal period.

Not really true .. in North India the reality was that the presence of foreign invaders and elements meant that the culture always veered around to being protective of women and keeping them sheltered out of unclean eyes. however in South India, you can see more or less how women were/are left to their own devices and left to do their own thing. I wasn't relating it to the different parts of india/the world when it comes to this topic. I'm, strictly, relating the sexism (within the Hindu community) with the religion, Hinduism. Their religion teaches them what I had listed in my previous post. Sorry, my point is again misunderstood. Hindus in North India and Hindus in South India behave very differently. In South India, there are still societies and families that are matrilineal, which means, that inheritance passes on to the eldest female and a man marries into a female household. Did you ever hear of that. 'Sexism' as you put it came to these parts North Indian brahmins who came via Gujarat and Andhra before and during muslim created chaos bought the patrilineal culture which slowly replaced the matrilineal one. And this is just one example. So I stick to my stand that a lot of changes did indeed come about after external assaults on North Indian hinduism, which then became restrictive and sexist as you like to put it. To see the original hinduism one still has to visit South India or places in the North East like Assam etc.

Not really true .. in North India the reality was that the presence of foreign invaders and elements meant that the culture always veered around to being protective of women and keeping them sheltered out of unclean eyes. however in South India, you can see more or less how women were/are left to their own devices and left to do their own thing.

How did you conclude they were Hindus ? Usually in Mumbai it is the muslim youth who misbehave with foreigners and use the crowd or mob as a cover for molesting vulnerable girls. this had already happened during New Year's Eve as well. Mumbai also has a huge floating and resident muslim population. From all my years in India, and for all their sins, rarely have I seen ordinary hindus misbehave with women when in a group or by themselves. Usually one of the positive features of India and it's hindus are that even in an urban setting they are more or less respectful towards women. The only exception to this is noticed in Western UP or Delhi which are an exception though only to a degree. Western UP and Delhi happened to be centres of the Mughal Empire and thus it is natural that those who lived in these parts didn't usually get their women treated with respect and neither did they bother to return those favours to anyone else.

A true warrior always starts from a position where he has nothing to lose. For this itself, I feel that the present Sikhs have built a lot of stuff around themselves both materialistically and academically/spiritually. You cannot be a man of this world and wield the sword at the drop of a hat. One has to be an ascetic, and probably thus there used to be sant-sipahis.

After they have played around with those who wear 'Indian Shirts' they may well bypass the next two stages and go for the Sarpanch-types next and may well go for the jugular. Why I say this ? .. because some events in between can give them the confidence that this entire Sikh/Indian thing can be crushed at one go .. and so why spare the Sarpanch-types. All I can say with certainty is that unless a proper response to this 'victory' is handed over to them, this is just going to keep crawling. Just remember these folks are the same people who send their kids to fight in Afghanistan, every six odd months one hears of 'british fighters' in Afghanistan who get caught fighting for taliban but speaking local brit accents. the only way out is to target their madrassas and take them on at night. Within one night, they should be given a fitting and final reply.

A sikh will rule India for 10 years. that is some symbolism if nothing else. I hope he actually takes some tough decisions wrt Pakistan and economy and not make our lives even more difficult.

Don't you read about 'Nagavanshi' in Indian mythology ? uloopi, taskshak, vasuki, and many others. Do you subscribe to the supernatural origin of man ? In fact after reading Bible I think Eve fell for a Nagavanshi named Lucifer and thus created the begotten one called Cain and ensured the fall of Adam & Eve from heaven. Everything can be connected, just need to keep an open mind.