This Is Maha Beadhi Infront Of Maharaj Darbar.

[jassa]

i dont understand how thats funny? jassa one of the clips there is a farladhari nihang doing kirtan i thought you love buddha dal but seems like in this thread you have no problem laughin about a nihang. why is it in the thread about niddar singh you kept losing your cool over buddha dal but here your happy making fun of them

we nihangs unlike akj are not afraid of point fingers at our samparda also ... beadbi is a beadbi .... if its nehang he will questioned first .... i have love for whole sikh panth not just for budha dal ....

u might follow samparda love but we dont .... dont know how far people can go to just prove that this isnt beadbi ....

[jassa]

if the same recording had belonged to budhadal ... we have been again declared nangs by now by AKJ know as its belong to them its ok if nehangs can start such simren then it would be in mareyada ....

i dont understand your post

bhajji i said if nehangs have said same gurrah whhh gar and so on .... by now their would have been quotes and translations of sri guru granth sahib ji by my other brothers from other samparda .... proving its beadbi .... its hinduism .... all the simren abheyasis are nangs ....

but as its not done by nehangs its acceptable ....

[gurmukh_singh]

we nihangs unlike akj are not afraid of point fingers at our samparda also ... beadbi is a beadbi .... if its nehang he will questioned first .... i have love for whole sikh panth not just for budha dal ....

u might follow samparda love but we dont .... dont know how far people can go to just prove that this isnt beadbi ....

lol i dont like the way you have just stuck the whole of akj together there by saying they all can't accept their own mistakes i don't think there was any need for that. also you say you have love for sikhi panth but then a few posts ago you were making fun of the recordings. in your opinion this is beadbi so instead if ridiculing them why don't you show them, with this love you say you have, where they are going wrong instead of making fun of them.

[jassa]

u must have seen this .... ek sir chareya bacha jai ohda daddy ohnu marrey too eh kam nahi karna ... oh gussech 10 war hor karru ... jai oh ohda majak udda de oh sharam ch oh kam dubara nahi karru ....

AKJ sikh panth da ek vigdeya hoye bacha .... and from now all the akj people after frustration from this thread ... will do more beadbi like that just to satisfy their minds ....

ok you tell me is it beadbi or not ???? yes or no without an essay ....

[khalsa15]

who said i was a sir ? dont assume lool

[Guest peacemaker]

who said i was a sir ? dont assume lool

Maam!

[Guest baba amarjeet singh]

its not beadbi

i have said before the gurmantar is occuring in their heads where you cant hear it

the noises you hear, is just there way of expressing their pyaar/rang for maharaaj

[Charandhoor Singh]

Yes I accept that cussinig Gursikhs is wrong which is why I havent cussed Gursikhs. I have certainly commented on the abuse of the Gurmantr and the level of beadbi that such distortions constitute. And i have extensively mention why such actions are entirely contradictory to Gursikhi. So unless you can refute my arguements made in each one of my posts then stop posting random things:

"you do not know what level they are on"

"You should cuss Gursikhs"

"Its not Gurmantr Simran they are doing" etc etc etc

If your read my posts you will see these points have been extensively refuted already, so stop bringing up old stuff.

Above any jathebandi, dal, taksal etc... we as Sikhs are alligned to truth. And the truth is that the distortion of Gurbani or Gurmantr is wrong. Please I beg of you not to keep stating the same ideals again and again.

Next i sense a random quote from gurbani coming up to try and illustrate something, please dont go there as the Gurbani card is something that we can both draw. Instead, either refute my points in line with Sikh theology and justify the pervertion of Gurbani. Or accept its wrong and stop trying to justify it.

[Guest baba amarjeet singh]

give me the points to refute then

im not going to go looking through all of your posts

i have said before there is no distortion of gurmantar as the gurmantar is being japped internaly

[Charandhoor Singh]

its not beadbi

i have said before the gurmantar is occuring in their heads where you cant hear it

the noises you hear, is just there way of expressing their pyaar/rang for maharaaj

when people start by doing vaheguru vaheguru and then move on to GRUUU GRRRU GRRUU and then GRRRRRR GRRRR GRRRR, are they not dervied from/immitating the gurmantar?

The noises we hear are being heard because they are being made, and they are certainly not vaheguru. I have stated previously the importance of correct sound for spirtual feeling and then the importance in relation to theology. Vaheguru is written with the letter 'rara', not 'rharrha' and therefore it should be pronounced with the rara sound (any spirtual parcticer will no the significance of this). Using Rharha is mispronuciation - which is equivalent to breaking maharajs limbs. So people express their love to maharaj by breaking maharajs limbs? They express their love for maharaj by making animal noises that they heard someone else doing, they express their love by disturbing the other sangata around them? They express their love by ignoring what out Gurus taught and do what they want? Is this what you are saying?

What you are saying is its ok read path incorrectly or even making animal noises instead of actually reciting japji sahib - because i have japji sahib going in my mind.

some of my main points:

- pervertion of Gurmantar and ins implications/connotations

- importance of reciting Gurbani and Gurmantrar correct

- The pervertion of the sound currents

- the invention of tantric simran which is not what out gurus taught us - are individuals above what the gurus experienced?

- The disturbence caused to sangat

- THE CONCEPT OF SEHAJ WHICH IS PERHAPS THE CENTRAL/CRUCIAL POINT AT THE HEART OF SIKHI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

none of these points have been refuted