Raam calls meat sacred in Valmiki Ramayan.

[BhForce]

1 minute ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Yes I probably would so if we can refute their points.

It's not a matter of their "points". It's the fact of them claiming to be Satguru.

Let me ask you: If you someone claimed to be your father, would you invite him over to give a discourse on whatever?

By father, I mean the man who had relations with your mother to conceive you.

He claims to be your father, and you invite him over because his views on, say karma are interesting? Have some integrity, bro.

(Do please answer the above question.)

[Ranjeet01]

6 minutes ago, BhForce said:

It's not a matter of their "points". It's the fact of them claiming to be Satguru.

Let me ask you: If you someone claimed to be your father, would you invite him over to give a discourse on whatever?

By father, I mean the man who had relations with your mother to conceive you.

He claims to be your father, and you invite him over because his views on, say karma are interesting? Have some integrity, bro.

(Do please answer the above question.)

No I wouldn't.

But where did he claim to be my guru?

Though he calls himself 'Sadhguru ' which he claims to mean 'uneducated guru'.

There are many people to claim to be "god", should we stop debating them?

[BhForce]

13 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

No I wouldn't.

Well, that's something. I have to do something, but I'd like to pick this up later.

[MisterrSingh]

I thought his name was sadhguru? 

Plus, let's not inadvertently begin conveying Islamic-esque insecurity whenever someone begins to preach or speak to people in a way that proves to be popular. We've nothing to worry or fear if someone like this fellow begins amassing a following.

Spiritual teachers existed before 1469 and they'll continue to exist for as long as the human race inhabits this world. Unless he starts chatting 5hite about Sikhi or Guru Sahibs -- which he doesn't have any conceivable reason to -- tone down the butt clenching. To any intelligent Sikh or non-Sikh it appears as if Sikh hostility towards whoever this guy happens to be, stems from a knowing deficiency in our own ideology and beliefs. There's nothing this guy preaches that surpasses the truth in Gurbani. Don't make it seem otherwise. 

[jkvlondon]

53 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I thought his name was sadhguru? 

Plus, let's not inadvertently begin conveying Islamic-esque insecurity whenever someone begins to preach or speak to people in a way that proves to be popular. We've nothing to worry or fear if someone like this fellow begins amassing a following.

Spiritual teachers existed before 1469 and they'll continue to exist for as long as the human race inhabits this world. Unless he starts chatting 5hite about Sikhi or Guru Sahibs -- which he doesn't have any conceivable reason to -- tone down the butt clenching. To any intelligent Sikh or non-Sikh it appears as if Sikh hostility towards whoever this guy happens to be, stems from a knowing deficiency in our own ideology and beliefs. There's nothing this guy preaches that surpasses the truth in Gurbani. Don't make it seem otherwise. 

agreed he regularly courts tv appearences where he belittles questioners for legimately questioning the following of dubious behavioural examples e.g. lying to Arjun , murder of shudar etc
we know from gurmat that those who call themselves good have good nowhere near, also true saintly people do not seek limelight but stay santokhi in their abhiaas .

[jkvlondon]

 

[jkvlondon]

how much stock to hold in ramayan ? answer

 

[MisterrSingh]

If only our entire mythology and cultural and religious frames of reference weren't so inextricably binded to the Hindu faith. There's no getting away from it unfortunately. The branch may have deviated from the other branches, but the trunk and the roots are sadly one and the same. 

[Ranjeet01]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

If only our entire mythology and cultural and religious frames of reference weren't so inextricably binded to the Hindu faith. There's no getting away from it unfortunately. The branch may have deviated from the other branches, but the trunk and the roots are sadly one and the same. 

Probably because it is ultimately about dharma. 

If the Abrahamics shed their Abrahamicness they will also revert to dharma. 

I think that much of Europe is possibly becoming more dharmic like in some ways particularly in post Christian society.

Much of Hindu devtes /avatars are kind of placeholder terms for something more scientific. 

The trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and shiva for example are kind of based on the state of the universe,  "creation ", "preservation " and "destruction ".

Dharma has to be understood at many levels. At one level it is bleedingly obvious and simple but it delves such nuance and depth.

[jkvlondon]

2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

If only our entire mythology and cultural and religious frames of reference weren't so inextricably binded to the Hindu faith. There's no getting away from it unfortunately. The branch may have deviated from the other branches, but the trunk and the roots are sadly one and the same. 

but that is not true , they worship the cheley not the True master , whereas we disregard the pantheon and focus on the shabad and naam. Their mul is starting from vedas but they mostly disregard the worship of paramatma plumping for the fear angle covered by Vishnu and Shiva(sustenance and destruction). Even Brahma is not worshipped the same way.

Their vedas supposedly came from Brahma but do they even acknowledge him? They seem to prefer humans who they allocated superhuman status to.

whereas we focussed on the formless one and trusted them/it/he/she to assign us what was needed just carried on striving meanwhile to be better humans ultimately becoming superhumans /sant sipahi .

Guru Granth Sahib ji only mentions them to refute their 'supremacy'