scaredbahman

Every Individual having their own path? Well that sounds great. No doubt there can be multiple paths to a destination, but they need to follow guidelines. Do you seriously think one can pick their own path?

Again you are asking me same question as to how many sikhs follow caste system. Its not what a so called sikh or hindu does. Its what their religion specified them to do. As per MOST of the historians and other scholars, manu smirit has been the foundation of hindu laws guiding them and has been followed by Most hindus.

Your claim, that hindu philoshophy does not support casteism needs to be backed up by a well documentd proof, just they way you pop out the dates when shivaji beat mughals or when did mughals defeted in assam.

As for harping sikh beliefs. Do you consider sikhism as a seprate religion or a part of hinduism?

I DONT consider it part of hinduism. Then why sikhs are married under HINDU MARRIAGE ACT and why ANAND MARRIAGE ACT has not been passed. why NCERT books keep coming up with distorted history books?Why sikhs around the country are joked about 12 o clock joke?

i came on this site for some i was hoping interesting debate

I am doing a study on comparative religion in India and was leaning towards the conclusion that modern Sikh identity has developed to the thought pattern that

(1) they are distinct from Hindus (which is fine by me by the way)

(2) that they are BETTER - racially, religiously, politically etc than the Hindus

(3) Any attempt by a Hindu to promote Hinduism makes that person a 'Sikh hater' and that person wishes to destroy the Sikhs

this debate is confirming by thoughts

A researcher! Kudos to you for your study. Its intresting to see you make your conclusions from hearing answers from a handful of ppl on a forum, whom you cant even confirm for being sikhs. If thats how you have been coming to your conclusions than i call quits for a debate with you.

Hi Palm - inder

I try and do some research in my own capacity - if you think one of the posts here is not represenataive of Sikh feelings then please let me know

Heres some historical references for you if you are interested:

Battle of Saraighat of the Ahoms against the Mughals

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-saraighat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saraighat

heres some about Shivaji

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivaji

some about the Jaat rebellion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Ram_Jat

heres some about the Berads of south India

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume11/airavat.html

theres more if youare genuinly interested

The key point to note is that Aurangzeb remained in the Southern India fighting for the last twenty five years of his life and not in Punjab which is much closer to Delhi/Agra

Peacemaker

Oh yeah - I dont consider Sikhs as part of Hinduism

I see it as having become the movement of being part of the Indic family of dharmic faiths to the abrahmiac monotheistic paths of others - hence the eternal need to find distinction and seperation which will never end

By beleif in Hinduism rejects such narrow thinking and therefore if that is what Sikhs beleive then i do noit beleive them to be part of Hinduism

As for the Government of India - it is a secular left leaning instritution which has inherited an essentialy corrupt systmen from the British which Nehru never saw fit to replace

The NCERT book have oftern given derogatorty references to Shivaji, Rana Pratap and freedom fighters etc - the left establishment fights tooth and nail to promote such referneces

The empire in Punjab fell because of internal weakness - are you trying to say that the Sikhs were utterley blameless in hisotry - that they were just sitting around doing paath surrounding by cunning bahmans ?

are you trying to say that the Sikh leadership has NO PART or RESPONSIBILITY for 1984 ?

I'm a tolerant chap, after all isn't that the whole essence of Sikhism! :TH:

Now, No matter what part Sikhs may have played in the 1984 disaster, nobody can condone an attack on a holy shrine! I'm not sure if you're a ware but a few years ago, in Jeruslam, a few insurgents took shelter in a sacred Synagogue, or it may have been a mosque. Well the jewish forces surrounded it and planned a 4/5 day stakeout, they did not shoot/bomb the holy place as they realised it's sancitiy, veera do you agree, that a place so holy should not be desecrated? After all the 9th Guru saved the Hindu faith?

hi Pakandi,

the events leading to 1984 were a culmination of years of brinkmanship on the part of both parties and the rasing of hysteria on all sides

I dont think that anybody can walk away from that incident with clean hands thinking they have done Gods work- we can have a seperate debate about that if you want

and about your comment about the 9th Guru saving the Hindu faith

Where are you, kurtas! HAHAHA I was right about this bahman all along! I knew he just wanted to start trouble! Bahman, you are so full of crap and have no life! We can't take anyone like you so seriously. You spell everyone's name wrong. Why is that? Did you not go to school? Maybe you're just plain stupid!

Bahman, you give hindus and all your gods a bad name. You should really find something better to do with your time. SEE KURTAS, MAN I told you he was spelling Guru Gobind Singh ji's name wrong on purpose! KURTAS, you wouldn't listen to me either, so you can also get lost! You sided with a hindu over your fellow sikh, so in my eyes, you are no better!

KHALISTAN ZINDABAD!

Peacemaker you are right - How dare somebody agree with a Hindu and a bahman to top that !

does debating worry you - or shoudl all us four foot black skinned skinny bahmans worship at the altar of seven foot white skinned religiously superior Sikhs ?

reminds of a a learned quote i heard some years ago

'I always tell the truth - even when I lie'

Tony Montana from Scarface

ONLY the Sikhs did something in history - the Hindus did NOTHING - which is a falsehood we have talked a bit about this

yeah they did

they used 2 humiliate lower castes

they used 2 call themselves superiors

they used 2 do yugs/havans to earn more money from illitrate yujmaans.

what used 2 be the behavior of bAhmans when their daughters/wives used 2 come back home after they were kidnapped by mugals or afghans ???

ive heard lord rama kicked his wife sita out coz of a dhobi .

whats a dhobi?

oh yaar, dhobi means 'kapre dhon wala' (laundry guy)

Women kidnapped by the Afghans Mughals etc were not returned to their families. If you bother to read more than the Kuldip Manak and Jazzy B version of history you will realise that some parts of INdian hisotry rank amongst the most bloodthirsty periods in human history - people were not sitting around singing bhajans whilst their near and dear ones were being murdered and killed

it seems u should read some part of Sikh history. Hindu women were rescued by Sikhs from Afghan and Nadir Shah's army and returned to their families, but those idiots refused 2 accept their daughters back coz they were now untouchable.

hi Duchess , p[lease read some of history I have stated before

waheguru ji ka khalsa wahegueu ji ki fateh.

sat sri akaal

and namaste to u mr bahman. and salam to all the muslims undercover on this site.

mr brahmin i want to do a benthi to u (a plea). please do not promote idol worshipping on sikhsangat.com by saying it is a means of attaining god. dont take offence to my post, if it strikes a nerve then argue the point. we'll see who can and who cannot handle the truth.

sikhs mocked in bollywood

In your defence of bollywood u said :

"why do so many bollywood films and programmes show the villians with tilaks on their foreheads "

Are u trying to soften the blow by saying this? so what if there are alot of hindu villains in bollywood? rightly so..... since its hindus making the films then its only right that the villains should have tilaks on their foreheads. why do they ridicule sikhs then? stop dressing jonny lever up as the <banned word filter activated> singh in every film. leave the sikhs alone. make the tilak foreheads the clowns and idiots in bollywood not the singh. Guru ji gave us the sikh identity and its to be respected, its not there for hindu film makers to mock.

sacrifices

mr brahmin, u said :

"The Sikhs made some sacrifices "

"but to say that without the Sikhs there would be no Hindus is a total lie"

Actually sikhs made the majority of sacrifices. sikhism was the thorn in the mughal rule. mughals offered many pieces of silver for heads of singhs....remember that. for every sikh head that was brought to the emporer, many pieces of silver were paid to that person. there was no prices on heads of hindus.

u think hinduism would exist today if khalsa hadnt existed? it is illogical to assume that.

guru ji defeated the formidable emporer aurangazeb. how many times did sikh armies save thousands of hindu women sex slaves kidnapped by the mughals??? sikhs fought with a passion while most brahmins handed over their daughters as "presents" to mughal emporers.

Most the hindu royalty (princes and kings) made friends with mughals because they were cowards and feared being killed. e.g. the hindu hill chiefs.

yes some hindus did also fight, and i aknowledge thier sacrifices. But u must respect the sikH sacrifices also.

Promoting idol worshiping on a sikh site

your said:

"The Upanishands speak of the supreme reality which represents the essential unity of God which can be attained through the personal expereiences of all living beings

Hence idol worship in its own right may lead a person to fulfullment in his own experiences"

This is insulting to say on a sikh site and i am offended. In sikhism idol worshipping is strictly banned.

a stone is not god mr bahman...let me explain.

In the reheraas there is a line that says:

pa kau kar pahan anumanat maha murh kach bhed na janat

the great fool thinks that god is stone but he does not know the difference between the two.

praying to stone gives u nothing. bhagat dhanna ji prayed to a shiv ling. (before he became bhagat). A pandit had told him that praying to the stone fullfills your wishes. Then bhaga dhanna ji went to river ganges and met bhagat ramanand ji where he asked him "why does bhagti bear no fruit?" to which bhagat ramanand relied "beacause idol worship gives u nothing. bhagti is meditating on the lords name".

After his darshan with bhagat ramanand ji , he stopped idol worshipping and then spent his time being absorbed in the naam.

bhagat naamdev ji says : whats the difference between the stone u pray to and the stone u walk on? 1 stone u wash with milk and the other u walk on.

there is powerful philosophy behind this, if u can look into it mr bahman.

Sat sri akaal

Mr AK 47 Jatha

I try and give you the Kalashnikov response

I have already discuessed the point about murti puja because the question was asked by one your colleagues. If the answer and somebodies beleif systmen offends your mode of thinking then please fo not ask the question

Murti puja has given spiritual satisfaction to people for millenia - some Hindu panths reject it like the Arys Samaj and Brahmo Samaj etc

for some people it provides a focal point for worship much lke the Muslims facing Mecca five times a day

its a matter of who you view things -

it seems that in the effort to become like the monotheistic religions we are taking on board their fanatacism

As for Bollywood - i dont really give a toss about it - it is hardly a organistion which promotes Hindu interests

as for your historical points - are you serious

The Mughals had already lost the war in Assam by the 1680's- Battle of Saraighat

Shivaji has already lived and died before Guru Govind - The Marathas were almost a nation in arms by the death of Aurangzeb

The two large Rajput clans of Jodhpur and Udaipur were in arms against the empire under the guidance of Durga Das and Ajit Singh

The Satnami and Jaat rebellion were all before that time

and much more

Dear sacred bhaman. Can you provide me with the names(spelling errors doesnt matter) of 33 crore devi devte to start finding TRUTH about them? And then if you got some time, please enlighten us about the significance of dividing ppl in 4 different castes and treating lower castes worse than animals? Do you brahims loose their spirituality if even a shadow of shudra falls on them?

As for mentioning shri ganesh without shri, being a non issue for you depicts your lack of respect for your deity.

dear Palm -inder

what is your point - there can be millions of paths and names - they all lead to the same goal

why is that so hard to understand

does it offend the monotheistic tendency of one path, book etc etc ?

Hi Palm- inder

how many sikhs practise casteism today - how many Hindus follow the Manusmriti

Even hisotrcially the Manusmriti has not been regarded was a major scrupture and was challenged even during its time by many other theories

Hindu philsophy does not promte caste system

you say that it hard for God created such a large number of dieties

that is not the point - the point is that every person is disticnt and unique and in the end their own path to salvation will be unique as we are all created different

the scary thing is to say that for all of there is only ONE path

sounds like the Borg from Star Trek

and yeah- before playing the tragedy scene please calrify where Sikhism has been insulted as opposed to the vile thrown against Hinduism ?

i came on this site for some i was hoping interesting debate

I am doing a study on comparative religion in India and was leaning towards the conclusion that modern Sikh identity has developed to the thought pattern that

(1) they are distinct from Hindus (which is fine by me by the way)

(2) that they are BETTER - racially, religiously, politically etc than the Hindus

(3) Any attempt by a Hindu to promote Hinduism makes that person a 'Sikh hater' and that person wishes to destroy the Sikhs

this debate is confirming by thoughts

Dear sacred bhaman. Can you provide me with the names(spelling errors doesnt matter) of 33 crore devi devte to start finding TRUTH about them? And then if you got some time, please enlighten us about the significance of dividing ppl in 4 different castes and treating lower castes worse than animals? Do you brahims loose their spirituality if even a shadow of shudra falls on them?

As for mentioning shri ganesh without shri, being a non issue for you depicts your lack of respect for your deity.

dear Palm -inder

what is your point - there can be millions of paths and names - they all lead to the same goal

why is that so hard to understand

does it offend the monotheistic tendency of one path, book etc etc ?

A cartoonist came on tv in india once. They asked him who his fav. cartoon was. He said don't ask me as some people might offended. When they kept asking him, he said ...................................Ganesh. Forget about other things. Your whole belief system is a joke. Bhim threw the elephans into air and are still flying. E.g. What was krishan?? Where was his moral character??? Wat did raam do??? Didn't he do havans and yugs where he burned animals alive???? Didn't you guys use to have balis of people and used to eat them??? Wasn't this practice stopped by Aurangzeb. You are using govind because krishan is also called govind. As for Vishnu and Inder. Weren't they cousins and they screwed Prehlaad??? What is 5 guvveyaa? Why does everyone except brahmans have to drink it???? How about pittar poojaa??? Have you guys ever worked hard??? Why did raam kill the innocent shuddar who was meditating on God??? Just because he was low caste??? What about raam him a footprint on his belly becuase he got kicked by a brahman.

I think you should read your scriptures again and see how much bull they contain. You guys included Budd into one of your 24 avtars. Included Mahavir too. Both of them had nothing to do with brahmanism. Both of them opposed u guys. However, because they were great guys. You guys included them into ur 24 avtars of vishnu. Only reason why marathas were able to get something one was:

1. They gave their daughters to mughals and accepted them as dilishvaro vah eshvaro va

2. All of mughal empire and buddies were fighting the Khalsa.

They were fighting us because of your hill rajas. They were the ones who brought the mugals to fight us. It is due to you guys we lost our raaj. It is due to you guys that our dharam has been filled up with bipran kee reets. It is due to you guys, 84+ happened. You guys are the ones who also filled Jahagir's ears. If your marathas were so good, then why din you guys take ur complaints to them???? Why came running to Guru and Guru Ka Khalsa???

I did not think it was possible to talk more crap in a single post - but congratulations Mr so called Khalsa Fauj

Where is Peacemaker ?

Wihtout me making a derogatory reference to the Sikh religion you people (who beleive that there is no caste, race and the whole world is one family etc etc? have predictably turned a conversation about hisotry into a crap throwing contest

Anyway - my turn now -

To your first paragraph of crap - please read the essentials of the Hindu religion before you puff your chest and attempt to prove your superiority -

The oldest scriptures are called the Vedas and the philsophy exemplified in the Upanishads and the Geeta - the latter exemplifiy the spirit and beleif of dharma - the others are stories- whether you beleive them or not - whether or not most Hindus follow them or not which are given through the ages as examples of dharmic life - i am happy to debate them if you want

The same scriptures which you pathetically claim talk crap gave insprirations to saints and sadhus who are quoted in your holy books

your hate has turned you blind as well as stupid

historically you are talking about Rajputs not Marathas

The hill rajas were amongst the smallest and weakest of the 550 odd Indian kingdoms and some gave shelter and supprt to the Sikhs as well

The empire in Punjab fell because of internal weakness - are you trying to say that the Sikhs were utterley blameless in hisotry - that they were just sitting around doing paath surrounding by cunning bahmans ?

are you trying to say that the Sikh leadership has NO PART or RESPONSIBILITY for 1984 ?

heres some advise - stop listening to Juggy D , Stop thinking that you are seven feet tall with white wheatish complexion with racial links to the Sakas and Sythians and try and open your mind to the truth

Heres some advice - stop listening to

Too right you hear about the Dogra bahmans and the sappers from UP and Bihar as we keep hearing how the Sikhs sided with the East India Company during the mutiny (note I say mutiny and not War of Independence as it was nothing of the sort unless you are into reinventing history). The Dogra clan claim to be top notch bahmans so I will hold them to that. The maratha Holkar of Indore had ample chances to form an alliance with Shere e Panjab but the dirty scoundral was holding secret parleys to negotiate his virtual surrender with the British.

The Patiala Rajas claim to be descended form the Bhatti clan of Jaisalmer so I guess that argument does not hold much weight.

Diwan Mokham Chand (not Mokhan...another spelling merry go round coming up) is respected by Sikhs, the dogra bahmans, the bahman Teja Singh etc are not respected.

The Dogras were and till today claim Rajput status - Brahmin clans will not generally apply the name 'Singh' to their names

Jaswant Rao Holkar after defeating Col Monson tried to attack Delhi . After being replulsed her retreared towards Punjab - there most historians agree that he met and tried to convince Ranjit Singh to fight the British. Ranjit Singh refused (probably a prudent decision at that time?).

You have not answered the question of the Patiala and other Malwa Sikh chiefs - the fact that they claim descent from Bhatti Rajputs is totally irelevant - they were Sikhs at that time a new and seperate religion

Teja Singh was a Sikh. Many other Brahmins became Sikh but lo and behold when one goes bad he becaome a 'evil bahman' again - how convenient

ONLY the Sikhs did something in history - the Hindus did NOTHING - which is a falsehood we have talked a bit about this

yeah they did

they used 2 humiliate lower castes

they used 2 call themselves superiors

they used 2 do yugs/havans to earn more money from illitrate yujmaans.

what used 2 be the behavior of bAhmans when their daughters/wives used 2 come back home after they were kidnapped by mugals or afghans ???

ive heard lord rama kicked his wife sita out coz of a dhobi.

hi Duchess,

nice to see the level of debate improving

the caste systmen is prevelant all acrorss India cutting through religius barriers - look at rural Punjab today- these divisions did not come up overnight

it changed and evolved through the millenia from a fluid system to a rigid one. for example Stacey in his 'martial races of India' talks about the UP Bhumihar Brahmins in the lates 1700's recruited into the British army as accepting virtualy anyone who began to adopt their mannerisms and senisbibilties into their ranks after a suitbale period whilst fifty odd years later their caste rigidity massively increased'

Hinduism itself does not promote such divisions and recognises the soul as having no caste, class etc - it is anoither matter that people have chosen to exert their domination over others. Is the Sikh religion responsible for caste domination in Punjabs villages which are about 80% Sikh ?

The rest of your points are puerile

Women kidnapped by the Afghans Mughals etc were not returned to their families. If you bother to read more than the Kuldip Manak and Jazzy B version of history you will realise that some parts of INdian hisotry rank amongst the most bloodthirsty periods in human history - people were not sitting around singing bhajans whilst their near and dear ones were being murdered and killed

Lal in 'the growth of scehuled castes in India' also lays the lomng period of outside attack casuing the internalisiton and rigidity of Indian castes as a protective mechanism

I asked Bahman to kindly explain what "misconceptions" he was talking about. And then, kurtas, you just came in here and turned it around and put this all on me. It was not meant to be about me this time. I've seen how you act in other threads, so I guess that's your excuse, but I'm asking Bahman again what misconceptions have you found?

Btw, one more time, I don't really care about spellings either, but Guru Gobind Singh or Guru Govind Singh should always have the "Singh" or "Seng" attached to guru sahib's name.

Peacemaker

firstly I did not make an issue that you said Ganesh instead of Shri Ganesh because it is a non issue

some misconceptions we have already talked about like

ONLY the Sikhs did something in history - the Hindus did NOTHING - which is a falsehood we have talked a bit about this

the other one is about what Kurtas just said -

'dirty Dogra bahmans'

the Dogras were Rajputs from the hill areas who rose through their connection with Ranjit Singh

There were many brahmins who fought for Ranjit Singh like Dewan Mokhan Chand, Moti Ram and Beli Ram and who remained loyal to him and his family

The Dogras were only part of a tragedy that unfolded after the death of Ranjit Singh- remember two of the brothers and sons died in the plotting and counter plotting until Gulab Singh utilised his machiavellian agenda

but is is also interesting to note that a largre percentage of Sikh leaders of the cis Sutlej region supported the British to fight against the Khalsa army. Before that they were under the indirect guidance of the marathas udner the treaty of 1785. And did not Ala Singh of Patiala receive the 'tika' of Maharajah from Ahmed Shah Abdali.

They also supplied troops in the Anglo Sikhs wars

but all we hear about is the evil Dogra brothers or the 'bhaiya bahmans' from UP in the British army

whats the common link - thats right they were all Hindus

'Jack Nicholson is that you??

REPLY

almost - its Jag Nicel-Sen of the Nikalsaini faqirs

Pakandi Baba

as I have read and understand Hinduism it does not give promote or deny the validity of what you call idol worship

The Upanishands speak of the supreme reality which represents the essential unity of God which can be attained through the personal expereiences of all living beings

Hence idol worship in its own right may lead a person to fulfullment in his own experiences

Ramakrishna Parmhans the guru of Vivekananda beleived that a person can take any spiritual path , eg Murti Puja, meditation on the supreme lord, Islam, Christianity etc and acheive mukti

apart from that dharmic thought has undergone constant evoluation and adaptation through the ages. the Vedas as I understand talk of the Vedas themselves being endless - much gyan of liberated minds came before them and certainly after them and are continuning to this day

That I beleive is the essential difference in what people mockingly call polytheism and monotheism - its not really about one god and many gods

peacemaker I am here to debate about the truth

can you handle the truth ?

Peacemaker - I am not making fun of you. I can only write from my own perspective

I am not here to casue trouble but have found on your site many many references to Hindus and many misconceptions - I am here, if you are prepared to debate the truth of some of these perceptions

Mabye you are right - I am ready to learn

I have found many Sikhs to be self proclaimed experts on Hinduism in a very neagative way

listen baman without the khalsa Hindus would be muslim and so would the hwole of asia the frontier 4 invasions was Panjab we like 'al muhajiroun' extreamits islamist facist group says 'Have been a thorn in Islam for 400 yrs' can c why they say that cos of us asia wasnt converted 2 islam so allow the marathis and rajasthanis they were jus hindu kings 2 which our 10th Guru had declared war on end of

Militant Singh - is that a response ? is that supposed to be an answer ?

like I said pride is a good thing but when it turns to arrogance there is a problem

Peacemaker

as you can guess I am a Hindu - and I am talking about my perspective in which I refer to Guru Govind according to my my own perspective - unless you are applying the Taliban perspective

In any event I have seen far worse disrespcet to Hindu Devi Devtas from many online Sikhs

did you write all of that without taking any breaths ? @

Tell me - why do so many bollywood films and programmes show the villians with tilaks on their foreheads ?

The Sikhs made some sacrifices - yes

but to say that without the Sikhs there would be no Hindus is a total lie

Guru Govind fought in Punjab and the hills

The Marathas fought and freed Maharashtra before that time

The Assamese defeated the Mughals before 1680 in the Battle of Saraighat (Aurangzeb sent the Rajputs under Ram Singh to fight with them afterwards and it is sadi he took Guru Tegh Bahadur with him)

The Rajput clans of the Rathores and Sisodias were in open rebellion by the 1680's under Durga Das and Raj SIngh

The Bundelas in Central India began a war against the Mughals from the 1670's until the early 1700's

The Jaats of Bharatpur under Gokual and Rajaram were in arms from the 1670's

The Satmani rebellion took place before them which threated even Delhi

by the 1757 the Marathas invaded Punjab under Raghunath Rao and Sabaji Sindhia

etc etc etc the list goes on

so take it easy

It is good to be proud of your community - but when you think that you are the only ones who ever did anything there is a problem

Is it that bollywood has an agenda to hate Sikhs ?

or is it just a general non inclination to religious sensitivities ?