BhForce

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that. Were the civil authorities moving against him? (Was this the reason he was going to the courts?)

"He was posted as patwari in canal department," By the way, there's nothing to say that this case has anything to do with the ongoing Sikh/Sirsa struggle. All we know that happened is that some patwari (land registration official) was killed. For all we know, this could have something to do with a land dispute that was unfavourably settled or something else completely unrelated. Since there are plenty of Sirsa followers, not every Sirsa person who is robbed, killed, or has something else happen to him had it happen because he goes to the dera.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of 'surma' kills a random misguided follower of the Sirsa leader. It would have been one thing to give a adequate response to the bodyguard that killed a Sikh in Bombay, just picking off somebody who goes to or at sometime went to the dera is stupid and wrong and anti-Sikh and anti-God.

It's amazing that a fire reduced the whole building to ashes within minutes! What was it made of, matchsticks? I thought most schools are made of brick or cement blocks.

There are untold numbers of domains in the creation, but that doesn't mean they are in the same universe as us. I'll try to elaborate later.

OK, makes sense. At least the titles are better than those on SikhAwareness: Vada Jathedar | Vadi Jathedarni | Puran Sevadar | Big Honcho. Lol.

It looks like you changed the look again. The one you had yesterday was great. This one looks washed out. And the text is light grey. I know every cool website eschews black, but you could just do a light black or a dark grey. Also the "My Profile/My Settings box" top left seems to intrude into the Reply box if you have your text size increased. It didn't with the style you had yesterday.

How about some pics of the Sikh Channel bibi, anybody?

Also, as to the specific question of Mughal wealth and bank robbery: The Mughal wealth was all looted anyway. The banking system is just pure deception and thievery. The Federal Reserve is owned by member banks, which are private. The Bank of England is a private bank. In India, Indira Gandhi nationalised the all the banks. With banks in govt. control, deposits in Punjab would be used to fund industry in other states. The robbery hurt the government that was using peoples own money to fund a genocide against them. If you say, well then just don't make deposits in banks, the GOI made keeping cash of more than a half lakh (50,000 Rs.) illegal. Yeah, they thought of everything. Nothing in this post is meant to encourage people to rob banks or anything else immoral.

Your question isn't really addressed by religious granths (whether ours or others') per se. Rather, I think you would go to natural law, social contract theory, etc. For example, it's a sin to take a life. But then there's also the concept of dharam yudh, as a very last resort. So, I don't necessarily think the question is stealing riches for a dharam yudh justified, rather it's whether the dharam yudh itself is justified. By the way, the police are authorized by law to steal peoples cars and other property in certain emergency situations. It's called "commandeering". This is the prerogative of legitimate governments. The question is, if a government has broken the social contract whereby it promises to protect the governed, is it still a legitimate government?

Dear Brother, Your first pic is of a certain elderly Mataji trying to get a // (boon) of seven sons from Guru Hargobind ji. Interestingly, the sakhi states the Mataji was birdh (elderly) yet the pic shows her as about 20 years old. Think what you want about that. The second pic is of some Singh and a woman. Is she his wife, sister, or some Hindu lady he was escorting back to her house after rescuing her? And did the artist know that for sure, asking the couple as they stood in the Indian sun for 8 hours. (The shadows are short in the pic.) Or did he paint the pic as a composition after seeing a bunch of people in his travels? Anyway, it's interesting that you've posted the pic as an apparent model for Khalsa women to keep their hair bare and bellybutton peeking out under thir blouse and saying "Hello". Yet the Singh is wearing a pajami. Now read the Buddha Dal rehit, which clearly states "Don't wear a pajama". So is rehit going to be made from random pics or not? Or just for women?

khalsa_s1ngh, what are you trying to prove with the pictures? The pictures aren't from the time of 10th Guruji so what do they matter? One of the pics shows the Mehal of Guru Gobind Singh ji with ears pierced and earrings in Amrit sanchar. In most Amrit sanchars initiates are told to stay sabat surat, and not wear pierced earrings. Hukum on "Sabat surat" is right from Gurbani and also sakhis. Are you trying to disprove "sabat surat"? Better to follow hukum than pics made after the fact.

Finally, the Gurmantar is a special word. It has within it the power to make manifest the object to which it refers. Not only that, but basically, in some ways it IS the object to which it refers. Read Sukhmani Sahib about Naam ke dhare sagle jant. Naam is shown as a creative force. Read Japji sahib. Eko kavao tis te hoye lakh dariao. From one word came manifold rivers. So words can have creative force. The Gurmantar destroys our paaps (sins), destroys karams, binds us with God, and reveals God, who was with us all along. But you can't just say the Gurmantar and expect results if you don't have kirpa (grace). You get grace by living in hukum and doing seva.

Also, by saying that deeds are primal, Bh. Gurdas ji is indirectly refuting the Christian and Muslim doctrines that you just have to repeat an incantation (without any amal, or execution, whatsoever) and you'll be saved. Christians (or at least the Protestants) think you can just state your faith in Jesus and you'll be saved (salvation by faith alone -- "Sola fide"). Muslims think you can be saved just by have said the Kalma ("There is no God but God, etc.") There's a funny story regarding the latter. Guru 10esh ji was talking w/ Emperor Shah Bahadur who was saying Kalma this, Kalma that. Guru ji had a Singh try to pass a coin made of fake metal which had the Kalma stamped on it in the markets of Delhi. No shopkeeper (Muslims, too) would accept it. The Emperor ashamedly accepted that mere declarations are not enough for salvation.

Good question. I think the cause of your confusion is in not knowing the entire poem. The words that the kathavachak (exegete) was explaining seem to be from Bhai Gurdas ji's 437th Kabitt: Just by saying "Sugar, Sugar", one can't taste sweetness on one's tongue. Just by saying "Fire, Fire", the cold isn't destroyed. 1 Just by saying "Doctor, Doctor", the disease isn't removed. Just by saying "Wealth, Wealth", one doesn't enjoy wealth. 2 Just by saying "Sandalwood, Sandalwood", a nice fragrance doesn't manifest. Just by saying "Moon, Moon", there isn't an illumination of light. 3 In the same way, just by holding a dialogue for the sake of knowledge, one doesn't get the way of life. Deeds are primal, like the sun shining in the sky is. 4. The whole meaning of the poem is in line 4. Lines 1-3 are the setup. Basically Bh. Gurdas ji is saying you can't just debate, dialogue, and lecture, or pontificate on Sikhism, you have to actually practice it. Here's the way you've understood the poem: "Sugar, Sugar" is to sweetness as Naam is to spiritual bliss. That's the wrong lesson, IMHO. The right one is: "Sugar, Sugar" is to sweetness as talking about Naam is to spiritual bliss. You can't just talk about japping Naam. You can't just say "Oh, Naam is so great. Naam is wonderful." You have to actually practice it. I.e., jap it. Taking the meaning of the Kabitt as anti-japping naam wouldn't really make sense as there are plenty of Bhai Gurdas ji quotes in favour of japping naam. BCM (bhul chuk maaf)

Jakobsh is a Jew. Jews love to attack other kaums (nations) from protected positions in academia. If someone returns the favour (or even just proferrs a response), they are called anti-semites (either by Jews or their brainwashed helpers). The utter gall (Jews call it chutzpah) of a Jew criticising another religion (and that, too, Sikhism) for discrimination against women is maddeningly unbelievable if you happen to know anything about the Jews' history and religion. You can read about it in short, illustrated segments at the Brick Testament: http://www.thebricktestament.com/ Read how Jewish fathers can sell their daughters, how God tells the Jews to rape and keep the women of other nations, Eve gets made from a rib, her menstruation is punishment for plucking the forbidden fruit, and a whole lot more. Nothing stated in this post is meant to imply that we should treat Jews that we may meet in daily life prejudicially or tell lies about their history, even if they do the same to us or the others. Rather we should treat them (and others) as fellow members of the human family.

Legal representation is a basic hallmark of civilised behaviour. This goes regardless of whether you think the accused is scum. The whole flop with the lawyers in the case of Kasab, the Bombay Taj accused, where lawyers were pressured not to represent him was ridiculous. Also, sorry to say, this also goes for people accused of acts against the Sikh nation outside of times of war insofar as possible. The case of Chandu and the masands was different because we had 6th and 10th Masters present who were antarjami and jani-jan, thereby providing perfect justice.

There was an article in Outlook, a weekly Indian newsmagazine, on the fact that IB and RAW are no-fly zones for Sikhs and Muslims. I'll try to find it. IB/RAW are RSS forts just like ISI is for expansionist Muslims.

I agree with that, i.e., courts shouldn't necessarily determine who is a Sikh and who isn't. Rather the question should be is person X eligible for the Sikh quota or not, where Sikh quota is for "Kesadhari Sikhs". I don't know if there was a particular legal necessity that required arguing the case in this way, or if it was in fact argued in this way at all. Similarly, for voting in SGPC elections, we don't need to say "a mona isn't a Sikh", just that "eligble voters for SPGC elections are Kesadhari Sikhs".

Dear brutha, did you mean "Sabat surat rabb ki bhane beyiman"? (Only a untrusty fool destroys his God-given form.) That kind of tat khalsa ideology? By Akal rup Guru Nanak Dev ji?

People who are young, healthy, and beautiful don't need jewelry, or even nice clothes to attract attention. Other people use jewelry and such to increase their worldly status. Increased status (as well as a a bunch of other things) leads to increased attraction by the other sex. Gold on a building doesn't lead to the possibility of a kurehit, though.

What's the format of the DVDs? Is it text (a data DVD)? Or Gurbani as Path (spoken) with spoken English right after that?

Looks like SigkSangat moved to a new version of their forum software. How do you customize that little Gurbani tuk in the user info box that shows on post pages? This is different from the signature because that shows below a post, while the tuk shows by your username.

Stop with the Ghulam (slave) mentality thinking, veera. Why are you siding with the terrorists? - If you had intelligence saying the White House were going to be attacked, would you refuse to defend it? (The White House has surface-to-air missiles installed for its defense.) - The terrorists said they wanted SJS Bhindrawale, but if so, they could have just killed them with a sniper on June 1, when they were still holding court on the langar rooftop, in plain view. - During the attack on the Askhardham Hindu temple in Gandhinagar, Gujurat, and the Taj Hotel, Bombay, the GOI never, ever considered blowing up the whole buildings! The difference with 1984 was that the entire operation was conceived to terrorise a population, not to flush out some rogue elements.

Didn't you just answer your own question? "fully realised that there would be an onslaught and they would need to be protected??"