A Very Bitter Truth That Needs To Be Expressed

[jashb]

The whole Mahabharata war was won with FRAUD, the justification is "Oh Kauravs did a lot of fraud, hence in order to defeat FRAUD, you have to commit FRAUD". This pshchology has gone so ahead that FRAUD / LYING / DECEIVING has become the mainstay of the Hindu mainstream society. The argument is "It is Bhagwan Krishna Leela, he did it, so no harm even if we lie/deceive/cheat somebody".

Once you start justifying what you know is clearly wrong, you create for yourself a very slippery slope, down which you begin to slide before you reach previously unthinkable depths. Every successive evil action is worse than the last since anything can be justified under the above mindset.

This is the whole trouble with the Indian brahmanistani thought system.

On the other hand; The Gurus have taught us that the end does not justify the means. This, alone, is proof for me enough that we, and the indian brah-maniacal thought process that preaches "winning at all costs" are on opposing ends of the system.

Sagar-Manthan - in which both Devtaas and Rakhshas did the Manthan together, but then Rakshas were cheated by Devtaas to steal the pot of "AMRIT". These are the roots of current lies/cheatings if any you face at the hands of any Hindu brother.

Analogy - More than 85% of sacrifies made by Sikhs for Indian Independence, who cheated Sikhs after 1947, fall back on promises, back stabbed Sikhs is well known ... Does this reminds you of SAGAR-MANTHAN???

Jas Singh Khalsa veere, tussan ne ta akhaan hi meriyan khol liya!

You see, in the west, we are brought up outside of this brahmanistani system. It is near enough impossible for us to understand the criminal brahmanistani mentality as we have never had any exposure to these brahmin texts. Only those who have read them, I.e. those born on India, would know.

Compared to "holy" texts like this, the quran is an exquisite treatise on peace making, whispering sweet nothings and hugging each other.

Hindus even justifying "Hinduism" is a way of life - Arabs gave us the name "Hindu" as living south of Sindhu, as they were unable to pronounce "S". I am surprised how even educated Indians, so advanced now in IT/Medicine etc. can fool around themselves with such a stupid reasoning.

They are changing names of cities such as Bombay to Mumbai, Bangalore to Bangaluru, Madras to Chennai, Calcutta to Kolkatta, as the older names given by BRITISH signify SLAVERY. Then how come, the word HINDU given by ARABS still does not signify SLAVERY???

LOLLL... Bilqul sach!

It's because it's been drilled into the fabric of the subcontinent for so long that even the brahmins can't invent a new name for themselves.

Perhaps they sincerely believe that if you tell a lie enough times, everyone starts to believe it. This is, after all, more or less the mission statement of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh.

Maybe, In the future, they'll go to the arabs and ask them to "please delete the letter 'S' from your alphabet so we can support our crumbling foundation of lies"? LOL

"Hindu" means low-level petty thief in arabic. "Lala" means slave.

Why not explain away "Lala" under the above reasoning too? Oh, they can't? Ahhh. No fair! LOL

[Hindustani]

What I am not sure is how much of the scriptures have been modified, Sri Krishna / Sri Rama NEVER founded any religion such as "Hinduism". Sri Rama also ate BERS "Fruit" tasted by a low-caste woman devotee Shabri, and the same is true for Sri Krishna, however we see the concept of untouchability deep-rooted in the Indian society before Guru Nanak, which implies somewhere during the Vedic period, the epics of Ramayana and Mahabaratha have been modified, and a new structure to worship Brahmins have been put in place.

Obviously, people on this forum have limited knowledge on the characters and perhaps should do a little more research. These characters appear in these epics with warts and all. We see their rise and fall due to ego.

Here is a quick summary.

The Ramayan was compiled by Valmiki, a shudra that was once a cannibal. Today, Mr. Valmiki's Ramayan is revered by Brahmins. Ram Chander was a kysteria that fought and killed a powerful Brahmin king named Raven who despite his knowledge went astray. Hanuman was probably an advasi aboriginal king that helped Ram Chander. Both Ram (Kysteria) and Hanuman (advasi) are revered by brahmins.

The Gita and Mahabharat were written and compiled by Ved Vyas, a fisherman by birth. The main characters are krishna who was a kysteria raised by cowherds. Arjuna was a kysteria while Duryodhan was a brahmin.

So, we see the interplay of castes in these epics.

More to come.

BTW, I am reading again and again about Dharm Yudh, does anybody know the 3 conditions of dharm yudh in kysteria dharm? Hint: You can find it in these epcs.. If you want me to let you know just ask.

Thanks

[Shaastar]

pakistani khstriyeh v mildeh ah..

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

[Jonny101]

When Hindus say it was immoral for Satwant Singh and Beant Singh for breaking their duty of being a bodyguard and assassinating the Dushtni Indira Gandhi, then they are also condemning Arjun(and Krishna) for breaking the rules of war(and Kshatrya tradition) by assassinating Bhishma, Dronachya, Karan while they were unarmed.

[Jonny101]

pakistani khstriyeh v mildeh ah..

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

On that site it says Punjabi Khatris who are Muslims are known as Punjabi Shaikhs. About a few months ago I met a Punjabi Muslim who said he was a Shaikh from Mianwali but he had no idea of what is a "Khatri". I found that strange. I asked him about Punjabi Shaikhs and he said they are mostly all Shopkeepers and mostly all located in Pothohar region. And that is what Punjabi Hindu/Sikh Khatris are too. Overall, he was a nice guy with positive views about Sikhs.

[JasSinghKhalsa]

The Gita and Mahabharat were written and compiled by Ved Vyas, a fisherman by birth.

I am not sure how you say this. Rishi Ved Vyas father was Rishi Prashar, who was a Brahmin, and mother Satyvati who was the daughter of a Fisherman. If you classify the caste by father's caste, then Rishi Ved Vyas was a Brahmin Rishi.

Important point though - None of these Rishis were HINDUS, all these Rishis highly respectful, were Brahmn Gyanis, and had devotion to 1 GOD, as even shown in serials, such as OM Naam Simran, and not Poojan of Devi-Devtas, a concept in which a new Devi-Devta is invented daily, sych as Maa Kheer Bhawani, Devi Halwa Poori, Maa Chintapoorni, Maa SukhDataDevi etc.

[Jonny101]

I am not sure how you say this. Rishi Ved Vyas father was Rishi Prashar, who was a Brahmin, and mother Satyvati who was the daughter of a Fisherman. If you classify the caste by father's caste, then Rishi Ved Vyas was a Brahmin Rishi.

caste discrimination was very prevalent in the olden days too. one needs to look no further from within Mahabharat. Look at how Karan was mistreated by none other than the Pandavas who thought he was a low caste(even though he turned out to be their eldest bro). He was strangely accepted and loved by the bad guys(Kauravs).

Or how about how the noble Iklavya was discriminated by Drona because of his low caste and was not accepted as a student as a result.

[Shaastar]

On that site it says Punjabi Khatris who are Muslims are known as Punjabi Shaikhs. About a few months ago I met a Punjabi Muslim who said he was a Shaikh from Mianwali but he had no idea of what is a "Khatri". I found that strange. I asked him about Punjabi Shaikhs and he said they are mostly all Shopkeepers and mostly all located in Pothohar region. And that is what Punjabi Hindu/Sikh Khatris are too. Overall, he was a nice guy with positive views about Sikhs.

i have to admit i was surprised at first. Heres another one on the khawaja shaikhs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Shaikh .. Pakistani Khambo even have their own kabbadi star. lala ubaid ullah khambo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLhu0jSgBs

One of my college friends was mixed race His Dad had the appearance of a Singh complete with a Dastaar full tharaa parkaash, did love marriage to a Khwaaja Pakistani lady. Though the mixed race lad always described himself as a Sikh and even started reading Nitnem prior to that he grew up going to Gurdwaras Sundays and fridays the khwaaja bunch had this get together few towns out in a big house where even the boys and girls attended under a khwaaja spiritual guide liberal attitudes no gender seperation that we hear of today. But the lad then had his heart set on Gurbani and knew where he was going.. back in 1995. Different dunia now.

[jashb]

About a few months ago I met a Punjabi Muslim who said he was a Shaikh from Mianwali but he had no idea of what is a "Khatri". I found that strange

It's not strange at all bhaji.

Ask a 1% minority Sikh jat, " 'ere mate, you're a jatt , so what d' you know about jaats ".

He'll most probably look at you like; "You wot? How am I supposed to know!"

In fact, only Sikhs living in Haryana itself would ever have come across Hindu jaats in real life, or most probably even know that such exotic concoctions exist. Take my father's example; he recalls meeting a Hindu with the same gotra while at university in Chandigarh and being absolutely gobsmacked that a person of his own clan could be a Hindu!!!

In Panjaab, there are next to no Hindus of this clan whatsoever, but a large proportion of Malwa jats belong to this clan, especially in dist. Patiala. Yet across the state border, in Haryana, there are plenty of Hindu jaats from this clan. Even met a few (visa overstayers) in London.

Now, go one step further. Ask the same 1% minority Sikh jat, " 'ere mate, you're a jatt Sikh , so what d' you know about jatt muslims ".

Varying reactions here. Especially if the said Sikh jat was brought up listening to silly songs like "putt jattan de". Ranging from shock, disbelief, sorrow right up to accusations of blasphemy!

Again, only Sikhs who would have come from Pakistan would know that there is such a thing as a muslim jatt. Again, take my father's example; he met a Pakistani muslim "virk" in London. He asked him how long his family had been muslims because it's obvious the only jatts left in pakistan would have been those Sikhs left high and dry during partition who converted at the point of the sword in 1947! But Pakistani virk was like "as far back as anyone in the family knows". Same goes for cheema, chatha, even sandhu and gill.

Whereas Panjaabi Sikh virk here in London was like "no such thing as jatts in pakistan mate; the only Panjaabis there are the ones that converted by force in 1947!!!" (err... no.)

If you'd have told me ten years back that there's a film maker in pakistan with my father's gotra I dunno what I would have said!

Truth is, we, just like pakistani panjaabis, live in our own bubble, that's why we 1% minority Sikh jats don't know that jatts of other regions and religions exist, so it's no surprise that Shaikhs don't know their proverbial "Khawaja"s from their "Khashatri"s .

[username1]

If you want to explore this comparison further thought I might add this nice remake of ramayan it has English subtitles and made with some nice computer graphics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQd5GdVHuqY&feature=related