BhForce

Right, you have to act like a Singh (lion), too. -You have to live in the jungle. No living in flats or detached houses. -You have to eat raw meat. What's that you say? You want to eat fried chicken? That's banned. There are no oil fryers in the jungle. -You have to drink water from watering holes. No bottled water or city water from the tap for Singhs. -You have to rip open your prey with your nails. None of this weakling using a knife stuff. Come on, people, if Gurus didn't want us to act like a lion, they would not have named us Singh!

Allah is literal 'the most high/exalted ' and Ram is not Ram Chander son of king Dasarath but Rameiya 'the One who is initmately intermingled/connected to the Creation' so superficial reading of Gurbani is not going to cut it Sure, I'd be willing to accept what you said as a meaningful interpretation of the line. The problem is the literal translation quoted by @Sukhvirk1976 , which seems to imply that the writer of the Shabad is beholden to two different entities, Allah and Ram (as normally defined). And, secondly, that that somehow negates what I quoted about "Na hum Hindu na Musalman". As if we're supposed to believe in both Allah and Ram (traditionally defined) and therefore we are both Hindu and Muslim. Nutty. I asked Sukhvirk to give his own interpretation, but he has failed to reply.

Again, you fail to post what you think the line means. Do you seriously agree with the translation posted? That's meaningless.

What point are you trying to make? Do you think that Gurbani contradicts itself? On the one hand it says that we are not Hindus (or Muslims). Given the fact that that line says "my body and breath belong to Allah and Raam", do you think that that means that, here, Allah and Ram are two distinct gods, and they hold a 50-50 percent stake in your body and breath? All that the line means is that Guru ji is saying that there's only one God, call him Allah or Ram, whatever. And he owns my body and breath. In no sense does the line negate the earlier line that we are neither Muslims or Hindus.

Seriously? I would say most of the white people becoming Hindu and Buddhist are not big intellectuals. They just hear something on the surface level from some Hindu/Buddhist preacher and latch on to this. By "tolerant and peaceful" do you mean the violent eradication of Buddhists from India by Hindus? Or you violent attempted eradication of Muslims from Buddhist countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka?

Who is "him", and where did he say Trump is a sadhu?

I agree with that. The problem is that Dhadrianwale and crew have refused to debate/discuss. There were big Dasam Granth Samagams where they were invited, they failed to show up. I agree that you have to be constructive. I disagree with some Singhs all out condemning Dhadrianwale and then call for his assassination. I'm usually constructive, though I admit I've been a bit testy with Mahadulai. (I'm not the only one. Even Harsharan000, probably the most mellow poster on this whole board, became exasperated with him. For the rare case, I think you have to take an aggressive approach, just to shock the other person into clarifying his thoughts.

Oh boo hoo hoo. Poor multinational corporations have some small fry competition? 1. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that parody is an acceptable exception to intellectual property claims. 2. When Jeff Bezos named his ecommerce company "Amazon", did he make up the name Amazon (either from the river in the Latin America or the ancient warrioress's)? Answer: No, he filched it. I don't see anyone complaining about that. It's only we who do this because of our inferiority complex.

I don't know if you meant to, but you just refuted what your own thesis: that Sikhs have an over-penchant for copyright infringement. Are all of the dozen or so fake butter brands you posted owned by Sikhs? Of course not. Not only that, but all of them are basically infringements of each other, very slight variations on a theme. So what's left of your contention that Singhs are big copyright violators, moreso than others?

What are you trying to say?

Singhballer, you are so on point with your posts in this thread. Highly detailed, they strike at the very heart of the so-called "rationalist" Sikhs, who, in the end, really don't even believe in the very existence of God, which, after all, is a superstition, according to the rationalist mode of thought. Fans of Dhadrianwale have been left flailing and mouthing generalities. Kudos.

Lol, that's the thing, all these followers of Dhadrianwale (including the NKJ crew) have to decide whether they follow the mat (philosophy) previously preached by Dhadrianwale, or they just follow Dhadrianwale, no matter what he says. If they choose to follow Dhadrianwale off a cliff, they then become bande de bande (slave of a man) instead of slave of God. ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਛਡਿ ਕੈ ਮਨਮੁਖ ਹੋਇ ਬੰਦੇ ਦਾ ਬੰਦਾ। Satigur Saahibu Chhadi Kai Manamukhu Hoi Banday Daa Bandaa | Manmukh, the mind-orientated, leaving away the true Guru Lord becomes slave of man. ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ : ਵਾਰ ੧੫ ਪਉੜੀ ੪ ਪੰ. ੧

Wow, thanks for this. Finally, the Gurdwaras are explicitly stating that this guy was not always an "Amritdhari" Sikh, especially when he committed these heinous crimes. He just took on the form afterwards, for whatever reason. This straight up refutes some posters on here who were insisting that this criminal was a Sikh of any real sort.

ਇਹ ਤੀਸਰ ਮਜ਼ਹਬ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਉਪਜਿਓ ਪਰਧਾਨਾ । This third religion, the Khalsa, was created as supreme. (Vaar Bhai Gurdas II) Bhai Gurdas II was a favored poet of Guru Gobind Singh ji. Clear as day Sikhs saw themselves as a 3rd path, separate from Hindus and Muslims.

what made Singh Sabha think it was okay to grab these places by force? Guru Gobind Singh never allowed sikhs to grab Harimandir Sahib or the Adi Granth by force. Stealing someones property by force is theft and a sin. SGPC still try and do this with remote Gurdwaras. 1. Why don't you try refuting anything I said? You have no answer, that's why. 2. "OK to grab these places by force?" Are you kidding me? Did the mahants have a title deed in their name written by Guru Raam Daas ji, who bought the area of Amritsar by paying landowners of 3 surrounding villages? 3. If someone came and started living in your house, do you think it would be horrible for you to come back? 4. I notice that you conveniently dropped the ridiculous claim that the Singh Sabha was created by the British. By asking your question, you have implicitly accepted that the Singh Sahba was not pro-British and vice versa. 5. "Guru Gobind Singh never allowed sikhs to grab Harimandir Sahib or the Adi Granth by force." What are you even talking about? First of all, if you were a Sikh, you'd say "ji", not just "Guru Gobind Singh". Secondly, do you even know that Guru Gobind Singh ji sent Bhai Mani Singh ji to take possession of the Harimander Sahib? 6. "Stealing someones property by force is theft and a sin." Good that you admit that. So, tell us, how did the Mahants come into possession of the Gurdwaras? Like you say, stealing property is a sin. The fact is that Gurdwaras are the property of the Guru. The personal property of the Gurus was passed on to their descendants. The money that the Sangat provided for Guru's works was separate, and was passed on to the next Guru, not to the Guru's sons. After Guru Gobind Singh ji, the Guruship is with Guru Granth Sahib and the Khalsa Panth. So now do you understand why the Panth is entitled to its Gurdwaras? Why don't you go back to RSS headquarters and tell them that they didn't prepare you enough.

Yeah, it's just some random fellow named "Nanak" that said we're neither Hindus or Muslims, that Hindus are blind, and that they are wrong from the start. Thank God that "Guru Guest Bhujang ji" came along to set us straight. Dhanvaad. ਨਾ ਹਮ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਨ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨ ॥ Naa Ham Hindhoo N Musalamaan || I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim. ਭੈਰਉ (ਮਃ ੫) (੩) ੪:੧ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੧੩੬ ਪੰ. ੧੧ Raag Bhaira-o Guru Arjan Dev https://www.searchgurbani.com/guru-granth-sahib/shabad/4205/line/10 ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥ Hindhoo Annhaa Thurakoo Kaanaa || The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye. ਗੋਂਡ (ਭ. ਨਾਮਦੇਵ) (੭) ੪:੧ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੮੭੫ ਪੰ. ੨ Raag Bilaaval Gond Bhagat Namdev https://www.searchgurbani.com/guru-granth-sahib/ang/875 ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੂਲੇ ਭੂਲੇ ਅਖੁਟੀ ਜਾਂਹੀ ॥ Hindhoo Moolae Bhoolae Akhuttee Jaanhee || The Hindus have erred from the start; they are going the wrong way. ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ ਵਾਰ (ਮਃ ੪) (੨੦) ਸ. (੧) ੨:੧ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੫੫੬ ਪੰ. ੯ Raag Bihaagrhaa Guru Nanak Dev

Right, the British who beat up and allowed the killing of Sikhs marching under the auspices of the SGPC? If the British were so in love with the Singh Sabha, why didn't it just hand the keys of Nanakana Sahib and other gurdwaras over to them? That's really strange ... a conspiracy hatched by the British to removed Hindu (mahant) control of the Gurdwaras and give them to their stooges. Except that that's not what happened, until their hand was forced.

Kind of a tricky question. Some people see him as the best and biggest preacher out there. The problem is that, of late, he has taken to denigrating each and every Sikh belief that he can get his hands on. From the next world, naam simran, the position of Guru Granth Sahib, sarovars, and so on, his positions have become indistinguishable from atheists. And then his dedicated followers don't even notice that he's preaching 180 degrees different from what he used to. They just say "Whatever Babaji (now Bhai Sahib) says is true." How's that any different from the blind sant-worshippers he castigates?

Well, you're right that it can't stop a vikar. But do you really want to say that "letting it all hang out" will decrease or increase likelihood of vikars? Be honest. In fact, why stop there? Do you really think vikars would be exactly the same if people walked around naked? Do you really want to claim that some people don't dress to sexually arouse others? Also, go ahead and explain why you think Guru Sahib told us to wear a kachhera?

See, the problem is that he is being dishonest in his approach. I asked him whether he takes the same approach in relation to every other author that is presented in his school or college classes. He says yes. Sorry, but I cannot but see that as a lie. The teacher starts out to teach Shakespeare, or whatever, and he (instead of reading from the play), starts talking about "What proof is there that Shakespeare even existed?" or "These are Shakespeare's actual words"? Or the teacher starts talking about WWII, and he says "What proof is there that Churchill or Hitler even existed?" Oh, I would love to hear him say "There's no proof that Hitler killed 6 million Jews." Go ahead @mahandulai. Write up an article saying that (with your actual name), send it to a newspaper, or your college professor. So, @Jaggaa, the problem people have is not with skepticism, but with a skepticism reserved only for our Gurus and Sikhism.

What are you even trying to say? Do you have a functioning level of intellect or reasoning? The line about ਚਾਲਾ ਨਿਰਾਲੀ ਭਗਤਾਹ ਕੇਰੀ ਬਿਖਮ ਮਾਰਗਿ ਚਲਣਾ ॥ is referring to devotees living a distinct lifestyle. That should be obvious: if you're going to live exactly as everyone else, what is the need for Gurbani in the first place? The line you quoted has nothing to do with that. This line is saying to view everyone equally. It does not say live like everyone else, including boozing, womanizing, doing drugs, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

You're full of ego. An egotist can never understand God or spirituality. You think that you're invincible. One day, you're going to die, and be presented in the Court of the Dharam Raj. And you'll have nothing to say for yourself. Just a useless life of poking fun at the Guru and his saints. ਆਪੀਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੈ ਭੋਗ ਭੋਗਿ ਕੈ ਹੋਇ ਭਸਮੜਿ ਭਉਰੁ ਸਿਧਾਇਆ ॥ Aapeenhai Bhog Bhog Kai Hoe Bhasamarr Bhour Sidhhaaeiaa || Enjoying his pleasures, one is reduced to a pile of ashes, and the soul passes away. ਵਡਾ ਹੋਆ ਦੁਨੀਦਾਰੁ ਗਲਿ ਸੰਗਲੁ ਘਤਿ ਚਲਾਇਆ ॥ Vaddaa Hoaa Dhuneedhaar Gal Sangal Ghath Chalaaeiaa || He may be great, but when he dies, the chain is thrown around his neck, and he is led away. ਅਗੈ ਕਰਣੀ ਕੀਰਤਿ ਵਾਚੀਐ ਬਹਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਕਰਿ ਸਮਝਾਇਆ ॥ Agai Karanee Keerath Vaacheeai Behi Laekhaa Kar Samajhaaeiaa || There, his good and bad deeds are added up; sitting there, his account is read. ਥਾਉ ਨ ਹੋਵੀ ਪਉਦੀਈ ਹੁਣਿ ਸੁਣੀਐ ਕਿਆ ਰੂਆਇਆ ॥ Thhaao N Hovee Poudheeee Hun Suneeai Kiaa Rooaaeiaa || He is whipped, but finds no place of rest, and no one hears his cries of pain. ਮਨਿ ਅੰਧੈ ਜਨਮੁ ਗਵਾਇਆ ॥੩॥ Man Andhhai Janam Gavaaeiaa ||3|| The blind man has wasted his life away. ||3|| ਆਸਾ ਵਾਰ (ਮਃ ੧) ੩:੫ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੪੬੪ ਪੰ. ੧੨ Raag Asa Guru Nanak Dev

You read a line or two, and you think you know what Gurbani is saying? The fact is, Gurbani says the vast majority of people are not distinct in the way that matters. Here, I'll give you a line, for free, that you might think supports you: ਮੇਰੈ ਪ੍ਰਭਿ ਸਾਚੈ ਇਕੁ ਖੇਲੁ ਰਚਾਇਆ ॥ Maerai Prabh Saachai Eik Khael Rachaaeiaa || My True Lord God has staged a play. ਕੋਇ ਨ ਕਿਸ ਹੀ ਜੇਹਾ ਉਪਾਇਆ ॥ Koe N Kis Hee Jaehaa Oupaaeiaa || He has created no one like anyone else. ਮਾਰੂ ਸੋਲਹੇ (ਮਃ ੩) (੧੩) ੧:੨ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੦੫੬ ਪੰ. ੧੧ Raag Maaroo Guru Amar Das That, however, is not referring to lifestyle. Regarding that, Gurbani says: ਫਰੀਦਾ ਦੁਨੀ ਵਜਾਈ ਵਜਦੀ ਤੂੰ ਭੀ ਵਜਹਿ ਨਾਲਿ ॥ Fareedhaa Dhunee Vajaaee Vajadhee Thoon Bhee Vajehi Naal || Fareed, the world dances as it dances, and you dance with it as well. ਸੋਈ ਜੀਉ ਨ ਵਜਦਾ ਜਿਸੁ ਅਲਹੁ ਕਰਦਾ ਸਾਰ ॥੧੧੦॥ Soee Jeeo N Vajadhaa Jis Alahu Karadhaa Saar ||110|| That soul alone does not dance with it, who is under the care of the Lord God. ||110|| ਸਲੋਕ ਫਰੀਦ ਜੀ (ਮਃ ੫) (੧੧੦):੨ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੩੮੩ ਪੰ. ੧੮ Salok Baba Sheikh Farid Gurbani states that the vast majority of the world are manmukhs, only a few are Gurmukhs: ਹੈਨਿ ਵਿਰਲੇ ਨਾਹੀ ਘਣੇ ਫੈਲ ਫਕੜੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੁ ॥੧੨॥ Hain Viralae Naahee Ghanae Fail Fakarr Sansaar ||12|| The Saints are few and far between; everything else in the world is just a pompous show. ||12|| ਸਲੋਕ ਵਾਰਾਂ ਤੇ ਵਧੀਕ (ਮਃ ੧) (੧੨):੧ - ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ : ਅੰਗ ੧੪੧੧ ਪੰ. ੯ Salok Vaaraan and Vadheek Guru Nanak Dev

Good point, what a loser. Hey, @mahandulai , how do you even know that there even is anybody on the other end of the Internet that you're using to connect with what you think is the Internet? For all you know, it's just GCHQ that's on the other end, there is no Bhforce, there is no JKVlondon, etc. How do you know that your mother is your mother and your father is your father? Have you done a DNA test? If so, did you do the DNA test yourself? Did you create the thermal cycler yourself? If not, how can you trust the result? Using the standard you used for our Gurus, it can only be concluded that you are a bas ta rd until you can conclusively prove to the contrary. Also, you'll have to replicate all of genetic science yourself.