Human

Lion(LK)King

Yeah ok, well I don’t purport to be an expert on Banis and page references. The point is that you know it is there.

In response I have read it many times. A Sadhu is Sadhu (a holy man), that is the common language meaning of the word. You don’t need to go to Punjab University for that. Ask anyone on the street and you will get the same response. In the English translations of Gurubani it has been misstated as meaning Sadh Sangat. But even if you accept it is Sadh Sangat, a Sadh again is a holy person. Sadh in actual fact is someone who has done Sadhnah (Baghtee).

Also, take this translation from – http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?S=y

Maajh, Fifth Mehl: 5. - p. 101

naam a-ukhaDh mo ka-o saaDhoo dee-aa.

The Holy Saint has given me the Medicine of the Naam.

In this instance it has been translated correctly. If the word means general congregation then why is it understood to be different in common language?

It is not the Namdharies, Radhaswamies or Darshan Dassis who are twisting Gurubani, the onus is on the Sikhs to explain why this is being misread. If Sikhs want Sadhu to mean Sanghat because it is more in line with their beliefs, that’s fine. But please don’t accuse others of twisting Bani.

1- Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) is completly different from Hindu mythology.. Just because Guru Ji used the word Singh -lion lol doesn't mean he copied it from an avtar of Vishnu. Jesus Christ, what's next - why was Guru Harkrishan Je's name Harkrishan.. the name probably exists in the vedas... does tha mean he's a vedist?

Nothing nonsensical about what I have stated. The point I make is that when something new comes out, there will always be some resonance from the past. The same is true about Sikhism and the point is made to those who accuse others of using their religion when much in their own beliefs has been taken from the past.

With regards to Singh / Lion, I won’t debate this as it is fairly common knowledge that the whole concept of Singh comes from Narsingh. Not just the name but from what happened historically. Please do you research. Just as the VULNERABLE child Saint Parladh was saved by Righteousness in the form of Vishnu manifesting as NarSingh to destroy the evil of Harnahshak, in the same way G. Gobind Singh Ji said my followers will be Singhs & take on the mantle of protecting the needy, the vulnerable, the Saints etc.

Also, to make references such as Hindu mythology denounces others beliefs as mere myths. I don’t think that is right. Especially, as the Guru (10th), acknowledges the 24 Incarnations.

2- The bani of Bhagat Kabir Ji per say, is not in Guru Sahib.. Only Dhur Ki Bani by Gurdev Pita ji can be found in Maharaj.

nonsensicle arguments.

Please revise.

Sorry I don’t understand what you mean by that?? This further illustrates the point that I make above -

The Bani was revealed to Kabir and forms part of his substantial holy book referred to as the Granthvali. Sections of Kabir’s bani are repeated in the SGGSJi. It is the Sikhs who claim that you can only be a liberated Sikh upon taking Kandeh dhar Amrit and yet this is not supported by the scriptures of non Sikh contributors, (even if you claim it is supported in the Bani of the Gurus).

So who is twisting whose religion / scriptures??

mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan

Outside of sikhi, people can do what they want, they can have a plant as a guru for all sikhs care.

People outside of sikhi have no right to lecture sikhs on who their master's can be.

You do your thing and let sikhs do their thing.

I am merely responding to claims by Sikhs. With that thought in mind remember it is Sikhs;

who disrupt our meetings. In the 1980’s in Derby I think, an unarmed sevak for no reason at all had his nose half sliced off with a sword attack. No doubt that Sikh will be receiving a gold medal from the Guru.

sher_panjabi

'Baani Guru, Guru hai Baani. Vich Baani Amrit saarey…

The Word, the Bani is Guru, and Guru is the Bani. Within the Bani, the Ambrosial Nectar [God's Name] is contained.' [Ang 982]

But of course the Bani is the Guru, after all it is a revelation of God. The Ambrosial Nectar is realised by some through kirtan.

That is not the issue here.

The question in play is where does Naam come from? Naam that enables us to attach ourselves to the subtle ‘Unhad Bani’ (the manifestation of Shabad Guru). Historically, it has come from Living Saints. Sikhs claim that for them it comes from the SGGSJi and accuse others of being fake, pakandi and all the rest of the garbage. But the onus is on Sikhs to explain why the opposite is stated in the SGGSJi??

The position of Sikhs can only be explained by misinterpreting words like Sadhu, Sadh & Sant etc.

Pakandi Baba

Hilarious is your utter ignorance. I tell you what, let me re-read a section of history to you with your blissful blinkered ignorance.

The 10th Guru said that he will make ‘One fight against Sava Lakh’, yet when he left Anandpur and was attacked he barely managed to save himself. It is ironic is it not to claim the strength of lions and yet not be prepared to go back and even save members of your own family, let alone your followers’. How can anyone claim faith in such an individual??

I think you get the point.

Guru Fateh.

BHAJI THIS is first time i logged on to this forum, the above example tht u hv given to Pakandi baba ws so impressive. i m a follower of Maharaz Darshan das & i m proud 2 say as i wud nt b wht i m today if i wudnt hv followed him. One simple example to all of my friends is that its upto u, how u find him(God) .....he is everywhere .....if Dhanna Jatt can find him from a Mitti da bawa........then ucan too.

I don't see what the issue is. It is clear that militant SIkhs havn't been involved in shooting innocent religious leaders in the 80's-90's, and don't see why they would now. The Link in my previous post sheds some light on why they might have decided to get rid of him. You have completly ignored that.

159827[/snapback]

i do apologise, i havent ignored ur post above.

u have pointed out on why they have shot Darshan Das, but in the minds of the killers he was guilty so for that reason they shot him. and this belief of the killers and those behind it, is a personal belief and not based on solid fact ...ie: that he was bad mouthing Sikhi. so therefore in ur peoples eyes he was shot cos he was guilty of watever the rumours are....but the FACT is that.... you dont no that for a FACT....

apologies LK if that sounds abit wishy washy... its the end of the day!

Darshan das was shot as he was aginst the so callled khalistanism at that time.