smartsingh24

I think you prove wrong again with a simple base assumption. Sikhi is not a state of mind, nor a religion. A state of mind is merely that, a current state that can be changed and exists in something that is physically nonexistant. A religion is a set of beliefs that dictate how one is to worship a higher power. Sikhi is a way of life, and combines the religious aspects of what Western society calls religion, with the discipline that comes with a path of life. When you make observations on Sikhi's state, you take it from one perspective, and that is what you see, and take out the facts. You have an opinion, but it has no basis. You are operating under assumptions that Sikhs in general are praying for things, or not doing things that Sikhs should be doing. And I am sure that there are more than a few out there, but that is an incorrect generalization which ends up marginalizing Sikhi as a whole. You are marginalizing Sikhi by saying that it will be swallowed up whole by Hinduism. Some of your points I take contention with, but what I have the biggest problem with is the way you're going about trying to enact these points. There aren't enough facts to go along with your argument, and it really smacks of snobbery by saying the Gursikhs of today don't compare to the past. It isn't right to compare one person to another, and it isn't right to belittle them as less than their predecessors. Unless you've personally spent time with every single one of them, not only those today but those of yesterday, you are generalizing yet again. And I can assure you, as someone who has spent time with some tremendous Gursikhs, that they are out there. You just aren't taking the time to look.

This whole post is an utter waste of time. Believe what you want to believe, but you are completely wrong in so many respects. Sikhi has been going strong for a couple of centuries. The population of sikhs in the world has only grown since Sikhi's inception, so why should it go down now? As said earlier, Khalsa is eternal, and the original post smacks of a pessimistic and extreme view of Sikhi's status today. 

dARSH BRO! yOU'RE SINgh!!

Here is a gorgeous Singh in TEXAS!! Compare to those who monkefy sikhi with their trimming in India!

Darsh, let me introduce myself as your first stalker. I'm coming to Texas to give you a kiss. I think it's safe to say that on this forum cause i'm a guy.

If you find Darsh before me, please give him a kiss for me.

Dude, That is never safe to say.

any chance of a port to Cocoa?

And another one joins the ranks of "Uncle Ji"'s

Congrats

baanee guroo guroo hai baanee vich baanee anmrith saarae || The Word, the Bani is Guru, and Guru is the Bani

We all accept Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as Guru. But if this is true and If I accept Sri Dasam Granth as Bani, then I must follow the word of Guru Ji, and recognize all Bani as the Guru.

Just my opinion.

Singhavelli, the Bani you have posted is true, but you have applied it in the wrong context. Guru Gobind Singh Ji named Guru Granth Sahib Ji as his successor, and not Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Dasam Granth. Dasam Granth was written by him, and available at the same time, but he chose instead to give Guru Gaddi to Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It comes down to this, and this alone. Guru Granth Sahib Ji is your Satguru, and nothing else. No matter what you believe, Dasam Granth is not on the same level as Guru Granth Sahib Ji, because it was not given Guru Gaddi. If it was not given Guru Gaddi, then it is not your Guru. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that. It is Historical FACT that Guru Granth Sahib Ji was given Guru Gaddi. That means it is the only possible Guru for you. 

To sum up yet again, Guru Granth Sahib Ji=Satguru, Dasam Granth != Guru Gaddi, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Matheen, Guru Gaddi was only given to Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If Guru Gaddi was not given to Dasam Granth, then how is it illogical to say that it is not our guru?

dasam granth is guru

just because somene doesnt understand something, doesnt mean its not true

it means ure own intelllignece has not been able to concieve tha of guru jes

sall gud, 99% of us dont understand everything

To clarify, Dasam Granth isn't Guru. Dasam Granth is the bani written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and is controversial if only because some parts may or may not have been added after he left this world. The one true Satguru is Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and Dasam Granth should be viewed as complementary, but not an addition or extension of Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

I'm going through a java course right now, but from what I understand, Cocoa is supposed to be easier than what they were using previously.

I haven't been beaten to death on my front lawn, So i'm gonna go ahead and say they're doing their job.

Most mac apps nowadays are programmed in Cocoa. I don't really know about what books, but right now you have a name. If you've programmed before, then you should check out barnes and noble for some good books on the subject.

This is probably an unsmart move, but I have asked for this topic to be reopened. If I was wrong, than convince me.

I contacted S1ngh and let him know that closing this topic before I had a chance at explaining myself is tantamount to protection, and forum member should enjoy that. I've been in situations before where I get into lengthy arguments and people that happen to be moderators close topics so that I wasn't able to respond. That made me angry, and at the same time validated my opinion, hence my current positon. I don't want to let orono to walk away from this thinking he was right for what he did.

First off, it was a personal attack. I don't know what brought it about, but fine, w.e.

Secondly, the school that i've been learning from for the past three or four years asked me to put in something mentioning them and pandit ji, so I decided to go for it as a matter of respect.

Thirdly, and the bulk of the reason as to why I wanted this reopened, is because this situation arises because there has been 

no distinction between the role of Guru and Satguru. So i'll start simple with definition I think are fair. I looked at wikipedia, and found this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru

As you can see, the term Guru is used fairly liberally and appears in more than just Sikhism. Moreover, the definition given could apply to a heck of alot more than just our gurus. Colloquialy, the term Guru, "is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived secular knowledge or skills." Thusly, anyone that is fairly skilled could become a Guru of pretty much anything. You could have a Tabla Guru, a Basketball Guru, or even a Video Game Guru. So i'd like to think i've established that the term Guru has lost the value it might once have had because people have applied it to other less savory things (if you really need to know, Mike Myers has been working on a character known as the Guru that specializes in more intimate affairs).

And this is where everything comes to a head. Sat means truth, and when put in front of Guru gives us The True Guru. Singular, as in, there is only one. A person can search for many Gurus, but there will always only be one Satguru. So, I have my Satguru, and I have my Tabla Guru.

Let me know if I still prove false.

Castro did okay with cuba, but he was still as corrupt as other communist leaders. Cuba lives in poverty, even though they have a good medical system. The problem stems from the fact that most cubans living in Cuba like Castro, yet he gets negative publicity from the cubans that left Cuba (obviously).

Interesting fact, Castro can be considered an incredibly lucky guy. He averaged one assasination attempt per moth for the past 50 years.

Congrats buddy. Guess you've left the sikh youth category now, uncle ji

tell them no it isn't, and if they still persist, just walk away. Some people just want to be right, and it's no use fighting with them.

What about font making software? Perhaps someone with some vector skills could try recreating this-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ahib_Nishan.jpg

But perhaps something I could read a little bit easier...

Somewhat of a tangent, but I've always viewed that wearing a khanda is an honor reserved for gursikhs, and it seem to have become almost a fasion symbol. Anyone remember this debacle?

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_042205a.html

As a side note, someone should really go back and clean up dancing warriors comments *hint hint*. What a mouth....

take it back to the apple store and ask for help

Super delegates are siding with clinton ?? I am not in touch with current news since mid of last week.

Correction, they were siding with clinton :D . With the sweep of states that Obama earned this weekend, it looks like more super delegates are going to be going over to Obama. The important thing to remember about them is that they are not bound to a candidate, they can switch at any time.

Obama's so-called Iraq policy is all muddled up and he is saying whatever he needs to say to be popular. He said that he would bomb Pakistan as well if he actionable intelligence about Al Qaeda and Pakistan govt couldn't act on that intelligence! So that's the gung ho attitude he has. As for McCain, the things the anti-war lobby hates about him is that he wants more troops on the ground to do the job.

There's nothing muddled about it. He wants out. And Musharraf hasn't done anything to justify the amount of money we give him annually. Not only that, but alot of the al Qaeda training camps are located in Pakistan, and odds are that Osama is hiding out there too. If going after the guy we were supposed to be going after is gung ho, then call me gung ho.

P.S. The reason the anti-war lobby hates McCain is because he wants more war. He doesn't want to just add more troops, he wants to keep us in there for another hundred years. There is no job, so there is no job to finish. And if you want to talk about saying anything to be popular, you should see this-

http://parocks.com/mccainoniraq.JPG?war=pe...orance=strength

yes, horrible things are still happening, but the violence over all is at 1/10th of the level that it was before withdrawl. Horrible things will continue to happen, but right now there is nothing we can do without inciting more violence. You seem to think that the only way to solve the problems in Iraq is by using military force, but that's what got us in the mess we're in right now. There is nothing left for us to do from a military standpoint. We haven't found any of the WMD's that the Bush Administration told us we would, and further more, we haven't even caught Osama, so why are we still in Iraq? Because it sure isn't to keep the peace.

It's from Obama's own website!

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

You can see the inconsistency in his statement, he says he will remove ALL troops from Iraq, then he says if Al Qaeda attempts to build bases in Iraq he will keep troops in Iraq! He is hardly consistent on Iraq. Maybe you should read up on Obama's policies before singing his praises!

His announcement of a full withdrawal date will be a disaster. After the US leaves, there will probably be a bloodbath between Sunnis and Shias, which if it is serious enough will draw in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The quote you provided just proves my point, he's going to remove the troops from Iraq, but in no way does that compare to McCain's plan of keeping troops there permanently stationed like they are in South Korea. Furthermore, there's no mention of bombings, there's tactical strikes. In addition, you couldn't be further from the truth about withdrawl, and it's clear that you haven't actually read any of the news or done any homework on withdrawl, or you would have found out that when the british withdrew from Basra, violence went down. Link to the news article here- http://www.theseminal.com/2008/01/29/basra...drawal-working/

Vote Ron Paul. He has a track record of keeping all his promises. Google him for more info.

I am a huge fan of Ron Paul's policies, but he is no longer viable, and rumors coming out of New York are saying that he's getting ready to drop his campaign and is not seeking an independent run at the white house, which is a shame because this country would have prospered under him.

where is this quote of obama saying he'd bomb any place with al Qaeda? This sounds suspicious and you have yet to offer any proof. Furthermore, we're causing more damage being there every day because of our genius neo-con president, and he's managed to con you into thinking that al Qaeda is around every corner. The fact remains that the Iraq war is too taxing on the American people, and we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, and now we are starting to pay for it through our economy.

Staying in Iraq is stupid, and using civilian lives as an excuse is pathetic. The Iraqi people can protect themselves, much as the Israeli people can, and they do not need us to help them. You want to talk about Collateral Damage? Then Talk about this-

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

It is hype when you can promise the Earth knowing full well the policies simply aren't for the real world. Maybe I am giving Obama too much credit for his intelligence and maybe he is just as naive as the most of the people who support him. Sometimes I think that maybe he should win and after he fails miserably which is a given, then maybe the people who support him might get a bit more realistic next time around.

Let's look at his foreign policy. He say he will remove the troops from Iraq in 18 months. Do you think that this will suddenly force Al Qaeda to give up and go home. It will embolden them because they know that if they carry out spectacular attacks prior to the withdrawal they can claim to have forced the world's only superpower out of Iraq. Do you think Obama will rethink his plan in this situation, the answer is no because the nut jobs of the anti-war movement will never let him change his policy. No matter how his government will spin the withdrawal, any withdrawal by the US without having dealt with Al Qaeda effectively will be a defeat, simple as that. You are not dealing with a Vietnam here, where the Vietnamese got back to developing their country the terrorists will follow you back home. The withdrawal will enbolden any potential Muslim terrorist and Al Qaeda will get their biggest recruitment than after 9/11. Obama also says that he will bomb any places in Iraq if he believes that Al Qaeda are re-grouping there. This shows his naivette, do you think that Al Qaeda will stay rooted to one place just allowing themselves to be bombed. Any bombing by Obama will result in another bout of 'injured and dying' civilians being wheeled out and then imagine the outrage amongst the anti-war idiots!

If it weren't so dangerous maybe Obama should be allowed to win and we can all see what an <banned word filter activated> he is.

I don't think you understand the problem with Iraq. There might be al Qaeda in Iraq, but that sure as hell isn't the reason we went in, and like it or not, us being there isn't doing anything to stop them. When we should be chasing down people like Osama Bin Laden, we end up killing innocent Iraqis. We are not dealing with Vietnam here, but we are not fighting a conventional war here. What's happening here is that we are invading a foreign country, messing it up, and killing many innocent people, the same conditions under which Osama was created, and many of the members of al Qaeda. If you want to make a man a terrorist, you don't give him something to fight for, you take away what he has to live for, and so far, we've been doing a great job of that. And before you think he's going to go on and on with cluster bombing, you should read articles and actually learn something about his policies, rather than writing him off as just an anti-war liberal wingnut.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/c...st_b_84811.html

wikipedia :D . All kidding aside, what you're looking for is when it was first published, which is more or less when it was created, but some books are exceptions. For example, Harry Potter was created by J.K. Rowling c.a. '91, but wasn't published until around '97.