BhForce

It sounds like a rehitnama. If anyone knows which rehitname, please post.

22 part series by Maskin ji: http://katha.gurmatc...hya+Mool+Mantar

Although some of what ballym posts is kind of dodgy, he has some good points, regardless of the exact way he expressed it. Let's take them in order: First, the SGPC's main legal mandate is for Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh. I'm not even sure they are allowed to do activities outside this area. Yet, they do. They have a mission in Hapur, UP, and maybe some others as well. Yes, and they paid the price of total disunity. Also, people mistake their own particular translation of the Bible for the actual Bible. Instead of having one Panth (remember "One Granth, One Panth"?), you'll have 200 different ones. In a given language community, anybody with a slight command of the original text will be able to become a huge leader, will be able to mold Sikhi to his own opinions for that language community. So, if Hindus can learn Sanskrit to read Vedas, I think people can learn Gurmukhi to read Gurbani. This is actually a good point. There are two basic needs of humans: wordly and spiritual. You need to have to have the worldly taken care of before you're even able to think of the spiritual: ਭੂਖੇ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਕੀਜੈ॥ ਯਹਮਾਲਾ ਅਪਨੀ ਲੀਜੈ॥ After that, people start thinking of the next world. On both of these points, the SGPC basically has little to offer in an organised way compared to the deras. Part of the problem is we are so divided we waste our energy on fighting.

Isn't this the same person who was calling himself Pritpal Singh Khalsa? Now he's Pritpal Singh Bajwa? Dropped the Khalsa, eh?

OK, so I guess we've said all there is to say about the Sikh Channel in this thread. I think if people want to talk about S. Mann Singh of Pehova a separate thread for that topic would be best.

I guess what we can say is to the extent that someone did good, he was a Sikh. To the extent that someone did bad, he was un-Sikh. So, Lachman not looking with lust at his sister-in-law was a Sikh act. Raam cutting off some Shudras ears because he was reading Vedas was un-Sikh. Fighting for your wife could be called Sikh. Cutting off some fellow's sister's nose could be called un-Sikh. We could extend this to other figures of history, like Abraham. Sitting in the city of Ur and remembering God could be called Sikh. Marrying your sister could be called un-Sikh.

amar_jkp, thanks for the link. When making posts, could you take a few moments to write a few sentences saying 1) what the video is saying and 2) what you think about it?

I was surprised by the fact that they actually mentioned Manish Tiwari by name. While it's true that, according to various websites, the MP for Ludhiana brought up the violence in the Indian Parliament, in no way was he standing up for the Sikhs. Rather, the Congress party is taking the line that Badal mismanaged the affair and President's Rule should be imposed in Punjab. Also, they said everyone has the right to hold any samagam they want, which basically means a pro-Ashutosh statement. I think what Tiwari and the Congress would have preferred would be to use even more force, put down the Sikhs for good, and have the Ashutosh samagam go on for the full 3 days. So why are a portion of Sikhs supporting them?

Lol. In Punjabi they say that everybody presents his claim for desirable things. Everybody wants the Sikh Channel to be a reflection of themselves. I guess if some Nihangs had their way, everybody would be wearing blue on the channel. Taksalis: gol paghs and white cholas, taksali kirpan AKJs: Nobody without a keski, Missionaries: They would censor any Dasam bani shabads Veg/Nonveg: Talk about meat all day Sant followers: Sant stuff all day, ban the missionaries I think Mala got it right when he said: So basically, Sikh channel is just reflecting this. Note: I'm not parodying the groups above, just the more intolerant members of them.

Very good effort to go directly to the primary sources, research what is being said, and refute it with Tat Gurmat. Note: I mean simply real Gurmat, not "Tat Gurmat" as preached by missionaries.

Gurbani states Gurmat is the true dharam for all time (4 jugs). Bani also states that Satguru is ever-present. And that there have been Bhagats in every age. Combined, this basically means Sikhi has been around (in gupt form) ever since man remembered God, and God had grace upon him. It is in pargat (manifest) form after Baisakhi Day 1699 and the hukum (command) for devotees is different too.

Guptsingh84, Indersingh has already stated that only half Fateh greeting, not full is in Dasam Granth. I think we are waiting for you to state that the Fateh greeting is not present at all in Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

By the way, to accept the validity of sources outside Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not to say that you have to accept anything and everything outside of Guru Granth Sahib. (That would be absurd, of course.) Yet the reverse position ("Only Granth") is also an extreme and ultimately self-contradictory position.

True, all outside of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, of course.

Let's you came across a book in the library. In that book was a line that said "The book is at the place of God." Would that be enough to make you start treating that book as your religious preceptor? It seems obvious that the reason we believe in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is not because Gurbani is praised in Gurbani itself. It's a question for everybody reading the thread: Why is it, after all, that you believe in Guru Granth Sahib Ji? The answer from me, Bloom, and others is: seena-baseena tradition or verbal command. Yet once you admit something outside of Guru Granth Sahib, the "Keval Granth" doctrine of missionaries is destroyed.

That's interesting, do you have any more information on this? Was this reported anywhere, or did you hear this through sangat?

Guptsingh84, Although Bloom has a unique way of making his point, it's not too hard to discern what he's saying. In just a sentence or two it is: Why does "Y" adopt forms and customs external to Guru Granth Sahib while simultaneously maintaining the doctrine of "Keval Granth"? That's the reason why Bloom is asking why "Y" wears kakkars, says fateh, and so on. For people who are just reading along and not participating in the thread, the reason the doctrine of "Keval Granth" (only Granth) is objectionalble is that no where in Guru Granth Sahib does it say that the Gurgaddi is with Guru Granth Sahib. That's why, if you get people to reject everything outside of Guru Granth Sahib, it's quite easy to get them to also reject Guru Granth Sahib. Which, of course, the Spokesman has done. The thread with UKGuptKaur on Dasam Granth hinged on this very issue. To the end, she could not demonstrate that Guru Gobind Singh Ji had said to follow Guru Granth Sahib Ji. As Bloom said above, it is a verbal command.

While corpulence makes one look both ugly and lazy, I don't think you have to be thin to be be healthy. Scientists have at one time or another said butter is good, butter is bad, then good again. In fact, some people think a high fat diet is good: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/02/cholesterol-presentation-between.html Muscle weighs more than fat, so by being muscular, you'll be weightier than the average person.

Some supporter of this sant said he was using some Chinese healing technique. I would say: Even if there were some Chinese technique like this, I don't really think he should be practicing it. It could be done by a bibi.

Sant Mann Singh was under some serious allegations a while back, I don't know what the status of those are. Whether true or false, I guess that may be part of the reason people are taking to S. Dhadrianwale so much. He doesn't have any of that kind of stain. (No one has accused S. Ranjit Singh ji of a bajjar kurehit.) That seems to be the general perception. LOL

OK, about Hindu dharam: Sikh dharam isn't part of Hindu dharam. Rather Hindu dharam may be a part of the Sikh dharma. See, what some shararty ansar say is the Sikhi is part of the Hindu tradition. But what Baba Trilok Singh is saying is that Sikhi is the human dharam. Hence, (my comment) if there is anything that matches in Sikhi and Hindu mat, it's because of Sikhi continuing forth the human dharam, NOT Hindu mat. Similarly, if we say there is one God, it's not because we took an Islamic belief, rather we took a belief of the human dharam which had also been expressed in Islam. Also, the views expressed by Baba Trilok Singh are in the ambit of traditional Sikhi, while those expressed by Niddar Singh saying Sikhs are part of the Hindu tradition is not.

Another point regarding this is that some people feel that Sikhi is something completely new that Guru Nanak Ji came up with in the 16th century. They feel if they call Sikhi the common dharam of mankind, that that will reduce the glory of Guru Nanak Ji. I don't think this is the case. Gurbani says it was Guru Nanak Dev Ji all along who gave power to the avtars and protection to the saints and bhagats. Those saints were following the basic kernel of Sikhi: ਸਰਬ ਧਰਮ ਮਹਿ ਸ੍ਰੇਸਟ ਧਰਮੁ ॥ ਹਰਿ ਕੋ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਿ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਕਰਮੁ ॥ Later God saw fit to make things explicit, and make the path of salvation open to all man, and not just a few select saints, and sent Guru Nanak Ji to preach this path. None of this is to say that you don't have to take amrit, or keep kakkars, or do nitnem. You do. If the true Guru says you have to do something, then you have to do it. Also, nobody should try to say that the bhagats didn't keep rehit, we don't have to either. The premis of God kept such incredible God-focused rehit (lifestyle) and nitnem (daily regimen) for every second 24x7 that we can't even begin to comprehend. Keeping kakkars and nitnem banis are easy by comparison.

In the video, Baba Trilok Singh says Sikhi isn't part of Hindu Dharam, but rather Sikh Dharam is the common dharam of mankind, and that, in a sense, Raam was a Sikh, Krishan was a Sikh, etc. Anybody can take amrit and become a Sikh, it's open to anyone, including Muslims. My comments: I basically agree that Sikhi is the common dharam of mankind. When you get down to brass tacks, it comes to: ਸਰਬ ਧਰਮ ਮਹਿ ਸ੍ਰੇਸਟ ਧਰਮੁ ॥ ਹਰਿ ਕੋ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਿ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਕਰਮੁ ॥ Now, of course, to japp nam, you have to get nam from the Guru. To get nam, you have to follow the Guru's commands, hence the rest of Sikhi. As far as whether any particular person (Raam, Krishan, rishis, bhagats, Dhru) is a Gurmukh in God's eyes is up to God. If you look at other religions, they have elements of the true dharam (Gurmat path), but not all of it. Guru Gobind Singh Ji says basically the same thing: ਏਕ ਹੀ ਕੀ ਸੇਵ ਸਭ ਹੀ ਕੋ ਗੁਰਦੇਵ ਏਕ, ਏਕ ਹੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਜੋਤ ਜਾਨਬੋ॥ The Guru of all is One.

Isn't the 14th a Sunday, so wouldn't shops be closed anyway? What a joke.

Good idea, though web hosting is the easy part. Hard part is writing out all the content and fact checking. Admins, please delete the duplicate posts of this topic.