BhForce

Young Sikh, would you care to provide a definition of "living simply"? It seems that you think "living simply" means making no effort whatsoever to distance yourself from the 5 dark elements of human nature. These elements are called thieves and thugs in Bani. You wouldn't think it odd that people wouldn't want to associate with robbers and burglars, so why do you think it odd that spiritual believers (Sikhs) want to stay afar from the five spiritual thieves? The five thieves loot the ability of the spirit to achieve Amrit Ras (the taste of the highest divine nectar). They make it impossible to achieve the goal of human life, and they also damn the spirit to perdition: jam dda(n)ddaa gal sa(n)gal parriaa bhaag geae sae pa(n)ch janaa ||3|| Death strikes her down with his rod, the shackles are placed around her neck, and now the five have left. ||3|| Guru Nanak Dev Ji Raag Gauree 155 You slander those who attempt to shoo the five thieves, yet Guru Arjan Dev Ji praises such Sikhs: gur kaa sabadh ridh a(n)thar dhhaarai || Those who implant the Word of the Guru's Shabad within their hearts pa(n)ch janaa sio sa(n)g nivaarai || cut their connections with the five passions. dhas ei(n)dhree kar raakhai vaas || They keep the ten organs under their control; thaa kai aathamai hoe paragaas ||1|| their souls are enlightened. ||1|| p 236 Note: the ten indri's referenced above are the five sense organs and the five organs of action, including the sexual organs. You're not seriously going to try to claim that constantly thinking about a girl (or a boy) and trying to get close to them and touching them doesn't sexually excite a person, are you? Guru Arjan Dev Ji explicitly states that he who kills the five thieves is perfect in the Guru's eyes: jin pa(n)ch maar bidhaar gudhaarae so pooraa eih kalee rae ||1|| rehaao || He alone, who conquers and defeats the five demons, is perfect in this Dark Age of Kali Yuga. ||1||Pause|| p 404 No matter how many tuks (lines) of Bani are quoted, a lover of mammon (a mayadhari) persists in attachment to this sweet poison. The reason is that he has developed a taste for it, and for him, it is amrit (a false amrit, though), and the five thieves loot him while he is inebriated with this wine: amrit kael karae nith kaaman avar luttaen s pa(n)ch janaa ||2|| She enjoys the sweet play again and again, while the five demons are plundering her. ||2|| p 155 The person who "lives simply" has lost the entire game of life. May God save us from this fate.

Your post is blank.

LOL. This is the funniest post on this thread. Is there a charge? As our staff has to be tasked to recite your particular prayer, it is necessary to charge a fee to cover their time. Check this out as a rationale for charging money: "Also, we believe that there must always be an exchange of energy to keep the Universe in Balance. Thus the small amount charged helps to achieve and maintain this Karmic Balance." LOL! And: "Your prayer is recited without judgment or prejudice." Translation: this is a business, and we'll pray for you to get whatever you want, regardless of whether it's totally anti-Gurmat. O Lord, please grant me a boon of a full container load of booze And a bevy of pretty girls And grant thy humble servant a few hundred mg of cocaine And mayest a dog maul my neighbor, who snores too loudly Thanking you in advance, O Lord I think the point of "Your prayer is recited without judgment or prejudice." is you can't find anyone (friend, relative, whoever) who thinks enough of your desire/goal to pray for you for free, so you have to bribe someone to do so. By the way, when gianis do the (joint) morning and evening prayer, they don't pray that God fulfill all the congregation's desires ("manokamnavan"), rather, they pray that God fulfill their correct/proper/good desires ("shub manokamnavan"). To offer to pray for someone regardless of the subject matter is, sorry to say, the worst kind of prostitution of your conscience. It's a vice (greed) dressed up as a virtue (the modern so-called virtue of non-judgement). Unbelievable!

Thanks for this insightful post. A few comments: Lust is the only one among the five thieves which also finds a place among the four bajjar kurehits. Therefore, we can see how serious the problem of lust is. It will make you patit from Sikhi. (This is also the reason, I believe, that lust comes in for special treatment with an entire section of the Dasam Granth devoted to it.) If lust is so powerful, and so damaging, I think it makes sense to do those things which reduce lust and avoid those things that increase it (either for ourselves or others). This may mean -avoiding checking out girls -avoiding trying to get checked out -avoiding wearing tight, revealing, transparent, or flashy clothes -avoiding using chemical attractants (i.e., perfumes) -avoiding the unnecessary company of the other sex -avoiding flirting This may seem paranoid to some, but the fact is that if you see lust as mortally damaging to your Sikhi, you'll take steps to avoid it, and if you don't, you won't.

I have to say I view the so-called rules whereby somebody is supposed to abstain from something or another for a set period of time for the sake of religion with suspicion. These include: -Not eating meat on Fridays and some holy days for Catholics. But they can eat fish! (Do fish not feel pain or have blood just because they live in the water?) -Ramjan "fasting" for Muslims. They eat a big breakfast, and sit down at their dinner tables in the evening so they don't have to waste a second after sunset before eating. -Jews don't work on Saturdays, what they call the "Sabbath". So they don't ride elevators, either. Or use electricity. But it's OK if someone else turns it on for them. -Fasts of all kinds in Hinduism, including karva chauth. -"Moderate Sikhs": Mainstream Sikhs eat anything that moves, but don't eat meat on Tuesdays or Sundays or some day that a Brahmin tells them not to. Come on, get on one side or the other. Either be man enough to hunt or kill your own food, or abstain from meat altogether, like sant-mat believers do. Eating meat, but abstaining on "holy days" is a farce. If it's a sin to eat meat, it's a sin every day of the week. And if it's not, it's not on a "holy day", either.

I think the question isn't substantive, but rather about definitions. (That's not meant to be an insult.) As far as I would argue, in Gurbani, the word "Gursikh" means the same as "Sikh". Sikh is just short for Gursikh, which in turn is short for Sikh of the Guru (Guru Nanak Dev ji, to be specific). In the same way, Sangat isn't different from GurSangat or SatSang or SadhSangat, it's just the same thing. And Bani is just short for GurBani. And Guru is used as being short for SatGuru. However, I think what you're really asking is this: Do you have to be [a Sikh-1, as defined by Gurbani] in order to be [a Sikh-2, as defined by the Census]. Well, the answer to that is no. Bani has a very strict definition of Sikh. The census (in every country) has a very loose definition. If you actually meant something else, go ahead and define your terms and we can go from there.

1. The bana (chola/pyjamee) is a universal and good dress for Sikhs. 2. As for Punjabi dress, it includes (for women) salwar-kameez and also ghagra (a kind of skirt). Note, however, some differences between the ghagra and skirts as they are normally worn in modern western society. Ghagras are loose fitting, and they don't show the shape of the legs or hips. They come all the way down to the ankles, and don't ride up and show your legs when you sit down. They are worn with a kind of blouse/kameez that covers your hips and thighs. Western skirts (as worn in the modern era) are meant to emphasise extending hips and buttocks and the narrowness of the waist. They aren't usually full length, and if they are, they don't keep your legs covered if you sit down. They usually have a slit up to the knees. They are usually worn with a blouse which is tucked into the skirt. If you modify a skirt and wear it with a blouse like a ghagra, you basically have: a ghagra. 3. If you're wearing a ghagra, you're unlikely to be any cooler in summer than if you were wearing anything else, so that's not really a reason to wear it. 4. If you want to wear a skirt to "fit in", you're likely under mental pressure to conform in other ways as well (hair, facial hair, eyebrows, kakkars), so you should probably face the source of your problems. 5. In general, clothes are seen by societies as means of social demarcation. If you're a member of a given society, you're expected to wear clothes that conform to that societies "norms". So, by wearing skirts, you signal that you accept and desire to be a full member of modern western society. By wearing a sari you'd signal that you desire to be accepted into Hindu/Hindi society. A man wearing a salwar/kameez signals his desire to be a part of Pakistani society. A dishdashah for Arabic society. Etc. By the same token, not wearing a given society's normal clothes signals that you are different in some way. This could be seen as obstinacy by some, and courage by others. As to what signal you want to send, that's your choice. 6. These sorts of things aren't really logical, rather, they're mostly illogical. Western brides wear white; Indian ones wear red. You can't convince someone to wear one or the other based on logic. What you desire to wear mostly depends on your level of affinity for a particular culture. I think the answer to your question isn't really "Where is it written Sikhs can't wear skirts." Rather, it's what culture do I want to show affinity for.

In general, people already know the maryada at Hazur Sahib differs in some respect from SGPC maryada. I don't think we should act shocked. If you disagree with some aspect, I think you should write a reasoned letter to the Jathedar there. From somebody's post, it seems these are Marathi musicians. Although it would probably be better to have Sikh musicians, this doesn't really seem like a huge deal (in the bigger picture). Granted, when someone is saying a shabad regarding Amrit Vela, and doesn't follow it himself, then you get into "Avar Updeshe Aap Na Karai" (Preaching to others, not practicing yourself). But they were just playing chenne (a percussion instrument). The Dasam Granth doesn't have anything to do with the point above. The Granthi just happened to mention this during the Katha. The hukum to give horses and weapons was given by Guru Harbobind Ji, far before the Dasam Granth. Maybe, maybe not, but the value of humans in India is less than that of animals, so why worry? (At least animals can be made into meat, which has a price -- in the jaded view of many.) Would you like to go to the trouble of posting the differences for the benefit of readers who haven't been to Hazur Sahib?

Although, one the one hand I think it's somewhat pitiful when some of our gurdwaras are half-constructed or not to the level of surrounding buildings, on the other hand, as far as God is concerned, there's no need at all for fancy buildings or marble floors to worship God. In fact some might argue that one is better able to focus on God in humble surroundings. I wonder if the Nanaksar tradition of no money donated is better. Yes, I realise Guru Arjan Dev Ji took monetary donations, but 1) Guru ji tested the Sikh donors, and 2) the receiver was divine. Gurdwara comittees today can't claim that. A secondary benefit of this system is that it acts as an automatic veto or check on the committee's power. It's somewhat harder, and not quite as lucrative, to embezzle 100 kg of cement vs. 100 currency notes. And if nobody cares to buy a huge air-conditioner for the Gurdwara president's office, it won't be installed, whereas with money, he can do whatever he wants.

Thanks for posting this. This is from Guru Nanak Dev ji's teachings as recorded in Nanak Parkash, the first part of Suraj Parkash, the poetical history of the Sikhs written by Poet Santokh Singh. The whole setup of modern western society is to advance as fast as possible from step 1 to step 9. This is referred to as "getting lucky". I really hope and wish the misled Sikhs who for some reason think they can't get married without dating will read this. Dating = dancing on a highwire rope. Dating = practice for divorce: You start dating, if something about that person bugs you, you drop them for someone else. Sikhi is about accepting the other's faults. Dating is nowhere close to Sikhi. Dating is based on the concept of courtly love; what people don't realise, however, is that courtly love is based on adultery! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love Western marriages are based on a false conception of love. Sikh marriages are based on dharam (duty). To someone brainwashed in the Western concept of romance, this sounds dreary. The reality of Western life is a short period of ersatz paradise followed by a hell as the partners each attempt to measure the other against their romantic ideals. When they don't measure up, they are abandoned in search of another. Sikh marriages also have love, but the base of the love (like the foundation of a house) is duty. Love is a decoration and adornment. It's not a foundation on which you can build a house. If you're still at steps 1-7 of starting a relationship with someone, you can extricate yourself with the help of the Gurmanter. You're still at the man/bachan phase of pap. You still have time to pull back before you get to the karam (action) phase. Bani calls the mind an elephant and the Guru's word a whip, so wield the whip and beat the mind back into submission.

fordcapri, sorry to pick on you. I just wish you had sort of researched the situation before speaking up. Another point I'd like to reiterate is the fact that standing above all the scriptures produced by humanity so far is God's word, Guru Granth Sahib Ji, written in ... Punjabi in Punjab. (I don't mean to imply Guru Sahib was created by humans, just if someone was looking at a non-Sikh, world perspective.) Other scriptures talk about the war histories of specific tribes or groups, but Guru Granth Sahib Ji talks about the unity of all mankind. Like khalis said above, it's mindblowing. If you can name a prophet who has arisen among the French or if a scripture has been written in German, go ahead. If you see some great difference between 1830s London and 1830s Lahore, go ahead and point it out. The only reason the British surged ahead is they took the Punjab by treachery, otherwise we'd have no reason to emigrate.

The unfortunate fact is there seem to be some slight differences in printed and other versions of Dasam Bani. I'd like to encourage everyone not to pick on some one who is doing path and happens to pronounce a word different from your gutka's.

Are other cultures logical? Is the wearing of a necktie logical? Is it based on some sort of philosophical analysis? And the wearing of skirts in dead cold winter? Is that also logical? Is your mother better than anybody else's mother? Maybe, maybe not. Do you still love her? If so, why wouldn't you want people to love their mother tongue? Zameen means land, not floor. Floor is farsh in Punjabi. People have a love for their land, not for their floors, whether they be marble, granite, harwood, or tile. Do you also apply the same standard to the American song "The home of the free, the *land* of the brave?" "From sea to shining sea" "Over amber waves of grain"? That's all OK, but it bugs you when a Punjabi sings about the green fields of his motherland? You have got to be kidding. Do you apply the same standard to the country in which you live (US, Canada, UK, whatever) or just to Punjab? When your teacher teaches about George Washington, Churchill, the Greek gods, or whatever, do you also counter with "Who cares"?

Dasmesh Bani doesn't promote worship of minor deities. As for your work "friends", I think it's best to avoid debates at work. It could get you fired. You can debate non-work acquaintances if you like. Even then, if someone believes that either Gurbani/Dasam Bani promotes Hinduism or a mix, just tell them, OK whatever, but please read the banis end to end. If they do that, they'll have to face the fact that Bani severely criticises Hindu and other beliefs, from Guru Nanak Dev ji to Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

Although an early morning Anand Karaj seems best, I can't really say 3pm wedding is anti-Sikh per se. As for the English breakfast, LOL! As for the two separate halls for men and women, I don't really see the problem. That's not anti-Sikh in and of itself. Checking girls/boys out, mixed dancing, copping a feel on the sly, etc., doesn't really seem to me what Guru Nanak Dev ji had in mind when saying women shouldn't be called bad.

OK, I'll grant you that. On the other hand, the examples of famous (and ordinary) people, as well as our Gurus, should shame some of our overgrown babies into growing up. You can't really do anything for someone who's already that age, but for one's own children you can start early teaching them everything about life.

Papi, 22 is not a baby. Babar was 11 when he succeeded his father in 1494. Women need to have babies before 30 to avoid genetic defects, which accelerate rapidly after 30. To do so, and to also have a space of a few years between children, you need to marry in your early twenties. As well, why give your best and most youthful years to your career. Why would you not spend them with your husband? If you say, why not give them to Guru ji, well Sikhi doesn't say wait till you have gout, cervical spondilitis, an aging womb, etc. to get married. Truly conceived, marriage is a help to Sikhi, and not a hindrance.

LOL, I didn't know that. What information do you have about this? Please post in a new thread, if you could. When you've totally rejected any kind of rule or regulation for Sikhi, what kind of Rehit Maryada could you possibly come up with? 1. A Sikh is defined as: Someone who believes in Baba Nanak (they don't like to say Guru Nanak, for some reason), and as many of his successors as he likes, and whatever portion of Bani he prefers. 2. A Sikh wakes up whenever he wants to. 3. A Sikh eats whatever he wants to. 4. A Sikh can drink whatever he wants to. 5. A Sikh reads The Spokesman daily. A True Sikh has a full-year prepaid subscription. 6. A Sikh should not visit places of idolatry (like Gurdwaras). ???

I think it would be handy to have a list of the entire Sikh heretical universe (from minor heretics to big ones), along with brief biographies and backgrounds. Since the social sphere (including religion) isn't a hard science, it truly matters what the background of a person is when they speak. Interesting. Could you post it in a new thread? Missionary Sikhs protest time and again that what they are doing is only for the pre-eminence of Guru Granth Sahib ji, but we have plenty of examples of the heretical faction already starting to openly insult Guru Sahib. I would advise my missionary brethren to get off the ship before it sinks.

In India and other traditional societies it is common for men (or boys or girls) to be seen walking down the street holding hands. This doesn't mean they are homosexual, but rather just normal BFFs. I think this is a wonderful thing, as friendship is a wonderful human institution. Showing your friendship by holding hands is a beautiful expression of empathy and solidarity. But when the sexual element is introduced to same-sex relationships, something beautiful turns quickly into something nasty. A well adjusted person restricts his fondness for the same sex to friendship, and overcomes the sex barrier to form social and sexual bonds with the opposite sex. According to Guru Nanak Dev ji in Asa di Vaar, such bonds with women are the basis of all social relations. In a sense, homosexuality can be seen as a form of hatred of women.

There are some extreme missionary thinking Sikhs who are denying Guru sahibs ever had tilak in the Guru initiation ceremonies. Then we apparently have some Sikhs who think we're suppose to annoint Guru Sahib as a routine thing. The middle way is to recognise that Guru Sahib (human form) were annointed, but that doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) done by us. The mukhvak taken by Baba Budha Ji wasn't related to Gurgaddi ceremony. Mukhvak was taken by Baba Budha ji when Guru Arjan Dev Ji's compilation of Gurbani (excluding M. 9) was complete, not in connection with Gurgaddi (which was done by Guru Gobind Singh ji). Receiving mukhvak (it's actually wrong to say "take" like I did above) is like requesting an answer to a question, which a Sikh can do with his Guru. Chaur is done by a lower person to a higher person. Annointment, however, is done by a higher authority. Baba Budha ji didn't annoint Guru Nanak Dev ji, but did so for subsequent Gurus on Guru ji's command. Think about it. There are things that a Sikh does to his Guru (matha tek), there are things that a Guru does to his Sikh (like laying of hands upon the head), there are things that were done once (like annointment), there are other things that are done daily (like mukhvak). We need to recognise the difference. What does it even mean to think we can annoint (apply tilak to) our Guru? Jassa vir, no one (apart from some missionaries) are disputing the annointment of our (human form) Gurus in the Gurgaddi ceremonies by exalted souls such as Baba Budha ji. The question is about us thinking we can or should annoint pothi-avtar Guru Granth Sahib ji, as Guru Sahib already holds the Gurgaddi. It would sort of be like saying we need to submerge Guru Granth Sahib ji in the Bein river because Guru Nanak Dev ji was also.

It's somewhat of a paradox. The same bani that says "bura nahi koi" (no one is bad) also says "nigure ka nam bura" (the very name of a guruless person is bad). The same bani that says the light is within everybody also condemns thieves, adulterers, and other sinners. To say that gays are equal to everybody else is in some sense very true. But that's also true for alcoholics, thieves, slanderers, murderers, prostitutes, and others. The desire to slander, drink, kill, gamble, fornicate and experiment, are present in every human being. The whole point of religion is to tame our wild desires. To claim that gays are equal in the same sense that whites are equal to blacks is to suppose them to be born that way. You can't stop being black. But, depending on the definition of gay, you can stop being gay by not putting your *** in another man's ### (self-censored). The funny thing is, even though there was a big deal made a few years ago about the brains of gays being different to "normals", that research wasn't able to be sustained. In addition, natural selection would easily have selected the homosexual trait, if any, out of the human population. A trait which leads one not to reproduce is the very definition of unfit. (This is not pro or anti evolution, or about the origin of life, just natural selection.) The only justifications for such a trait remaining are just stretches. In traditional societies, people who, for some reason or another can't or don't want to fit into normal society, are tolerated on the periphery. What gays want in the modern era, however, is a place at the very center of society, teaching children about their lifestyle, providing community support (and recruitment), seeding/birthing and adopting children, etc. This latter is something that many people don't want, and hence the conflict.

OK, thanks for the clarification on Persia. That was sure to trip a lot of people up. So this was historical Persia. (I was sort of unclear on that.) I just read that (after being rule by other rulers), Baghdad was under Iranian control in 1511 when Guru Nanak Dev ji visited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad#The_end_of_the_Abbasids_in_Baghdad When you say Guru ji used Persian to communicate with the people of Baghdad, is that based on the Janam Sakhis? Or on the one Persian shabad from Gurbani? I ask this just in case I were to rely on your statement. Since, in the Indian experience, Persian was the rulers' language, but the people still spoke Desi tongues.

xHarinderSIngh, I guess the answer would depend on what your bride-to-be prefers to wear in the normal course of life: 1) Bana (chola) with a neutral coloured pyjami 2) Simple punjabi suit (salwar/kameej) 3) Tight fitting, low-neckline, see-through punjabi suit embroidered and with sequins 4) Jeans and t-shirts If only #1, you'll have to search for a while. If you can accept #2, it'll be easier. If you can accept #3, easier still, but will she accept you? #4: She's an Angrez living in Punjab, so she probably doesn't even know what those people running around in blue tunics are supposed to be.

If true, this is regrettable. I encourage you to ascertain the details of the matter. I would caution you against inferring that the Dasam Granth is invalid due to the zealotry of its supporters. It should be noted that supporters of Guru Granth Sahib (that sounds weird, sorry) are similarly zealous. For example, you may have heard that some people killed Seonwala after he wrote in the Spokesman that Guru Granth Sahib didn't receive the Gurgaddi. (By that token, "Guru" Granth Sahib is a misnomer. Should we say "Bhai" Granth Sahib ji instead?)