Raam calls meat sacred in Valmiki Ramayan.

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

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'

I know what you mean, but the references are still present. Belief, non-belief, adherence or intention is a side issue. A knowledge of Hindu religious vernacular is, arguably, a prerequisite for understanding Sikh scriptures in as much as realising when and why Sikhi refutes those figures and practices. Philosophical and mythological examples and situations are drawn and made according to a working knowledge of Hindu deities, personalities, epochs, and locations.

A prime example of this misstep in an everyday cultural sense is establishing a parallel Diwali-but-not-really-Diwali on the same day and conducting virtually the same physical rituals (the lighting of lamps). If there was a desire to truly differentiate and set apart our path from Hinduism, the best thing to do would've been to forgo the lamp lighting and simply observe the freeing of the kings on a different day.

As it stands it seems as if a group of people who became the followers of a new religious path couldn't quite bring themselves to forgo the traditions of their ancestors, for various cultural reasons, so decided to tailor a new festival that incorporates an identical outward ritual but at the same time shifting the external meaning of the ritual itself. This confuses simple people, and we are, generally, simple people. It creates doubts in minds that are not scholarly or enlightened. It opens the door to a gradual, over the centuries, submersion into the original faith accelerated by underhand subversive tactics by those who wish to see us "return home". That's something that should've been foreseen as a distinct possibility. Not having our own land as a base of operations makes this even worse because we can't inculcate our own traditions and philosophies in our people because we constantly exposed to ways and traditions that differ from our own in quite fundamental ways. Again, that does our long-term survival no favours. It erodes the existence on the part of the vast majority who don't have the discipline or the interest in maintaining a unique Sikh religious identity.

[jkvlondon]

32 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I know what you mean, but the references are still present. Belief, non-belief, adherence or intention is a side issue. A knowledge of Hindu religious vernacular is, arguably, a prerequisite for understanding Sikh scriptures in as much as realising when and why Sikhi refutes those figures and practices. Philosophical and mythological examples and situations are drawn and made according to a working knowledge of Hindu deities, personalities, epochs, and locations.

A prime example of this misstep in an everyday cultural sense is establishing a parallel Diwali-but-not-really-Diwali on the same day and conducting virtually the same physical rituals (the lighting of lamps). If there was a desire to truly differentiate and set apart our path from Hinduism, the best thing to do would've been to forgo the lamp lighting and simply observe the freeing of the kings on a different day.

As it stands it seems as if a group of people who became the followers of a new religious path couldn't quite bring themselves to forgo the traditions of their ancestors, for various cultural reasons, so decided to tailor a new festival that incorporates an identical outward ritual but at the same time shifting the external meaning of the ritual itself. This confuses simple people, and we are, generally, simple people. It creates doubts in minds that are not scholarly or enlightened. It opens the door to a gradual, over the centuries, submersion into the original faith accelerated by underhand subversive tactics by those who wish to see us "return home". That's something that should've been foreseen as a distinct possibility. Not having our own land as a base of operations makes this even worse because we can't inculcate our own traditions and philosophies in our people because we constantly exposed to ways and traditions that differ from our own in quite fundamental ways. Again, that does our long-term survival no favours. It erodes the existence on the part of the vast majority who don't have the discipline or the interest in maintaining a unique Sikh religious identity.

if you listen to the last katha video  Maskeen ji says we haven't tried to open and read the Treasure that our spiritual forefathers entrusted us with , when we do the whole game will change nad we will be the winners , so far we have just been too foolish to try .

[puzzled]

2 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

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

Yh the vedas were written by Brahma.

But the reason people dont worship brahma in india is because he actually was a very lusty and egotistical devta.

The story goes that bhrama through meditation created sandhya, his daughter, but after seeing her beauty he fell in love with sandhya, his own daughter! Sandhya then tried to hide from brahma. When shiva saw that brahma had sexual thoughts in his mind for his own daughter,  shiva cut one of brahmas heads off and cursed brahma that in the future no one will worship him and that there will be no temples built in his name. 

Another version is that kamadev also shot sandhya with a arrow and she too fell on love with brahma and when shiva found out he chastised brahma front of everyone.  Sandhya then felt guilty and disgusted of her body and went to the Himalayas and after meditating on shiva for centuries she she walked into fire and was reborn into a rishis house,   Brahma being embarrassed that shiva chastised him in front of everyone then sent kamadev to fill shivas mind with lust but shiva was a true yogi and lust didnt effect him. Brahma then told shakti to take birth as mata sati, shivas first wife and to seduce shiva and make him into a householder. Mata sati was then born into dakhshas house   brahmas son. But dakhsa never treated his daughter mata sati well because she was shivas wife.

So brahma was always known for plotting things and getting jealous.

Brahma didnt stop with the incest there! He later created saraswati, his daughter and then ended up marrying her! 

Another story is that brahma challenged vishnu to see who is more powerful, even though it was vishnu who created brahma!  Shiva turned into his gigantic lingam form, and vishnu and brahma raced towards the lingam to see who reaches there quicker, a long time went past and neither of them could reach the lingam so vishnu gave up and came back, Brahma on the other hand told a massive lotus flower to lie and say that he reached the lingam, the flower lied for brahma and said that he reached the lingam therefore is more powerful than vishnu. Shiva then from his lingam form turned into his fierce rudra form and cursed brahma and the flower for lieing, and told Brahma that for his lies and deceitful ways no one is allowed to worship him. 

Brahma was very conniving, deceitful and egotistical,  and very lusty as well. 

Shiva on the other hand was humble. 

[jkvlondon]

Just now, puzzled said:

The the vedas were written by Brahma.

But the reason people dont worship brahma in india is because he actually was a very lusty and egotistical devta.

The story goes that bhrama through meditation created sandhya, his daughter, but after seeing her beauty he fell in love with sandhya, his own daughter! Sandhya then tried to hide from brahma. When shiva saw that brahma had sexual thoughts in his mind for his own daughter,  shiva cut one of brahmas heads off and cursed brahma that in the future no one will worship him and that there will be no temples built in his name. 

Another version is that kamadev also shot sandhya with a arrow and she too fell on love with brahma and when shiva found out he chastised brahma front of everyone.  Sandhya then felt guilty and disgusted of her body and went to the Himalayas and after meditating on shiva for centuries she she walked into fire and was reborn into a rishis house,   Brahma being embarrassed that shiva chastised him in front of everyone then sent kamadev to fill shivas mind with lust but shiva was a true yogi and lust didnt effect him. Brahma then told shakti to take birth as mata sati, shivas first wife and to seduce shiva and make him into a householder. Mata sati was then born into dakhshas house   brahmas son. But dakhsa never treated his daughter mata sati well because she was shivas wife.

So brahma was always known for plotting things and getting jealous.

Brahma didnt stop with the incest there! He later created saraswati, his daughter and then ended up marrying her! 

Another story is that brahma challenged vishnu to see who is more powerful, even though it was vishnu who created brahma!  Shiva turned into his gigantic lingam form, and vishnu and brahma raced towards the lingam to see who reaches there quicker, a long time went past and neither of them could reach the lingam so vishnu gave up and came back, Brahma on the other hand told a massive lotus flower to lie and say that he reached the lingam, the flower lied for brahma and said that he reached the lingam therefore is more powerful than vishnu. Shiva then from his lingam form turned into his fierce rudra form and cursed brahma and the flower for lieing, and told Brahma that for his lies and deceitful ways no one is allowed to worship him. 

Brahma was very conniving, deceitful sums egotistical and very lusty as well. 

Shiva on the other hand was humble. 

No the vedas were written by ved vyas in Punjab  a lot later than the so called Brahma spoken word .

[puzzled]

30 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

No the vedas were written by ved vyas in Punjab  a lot later than the so called Brahma spoken word .

 Yh traditionally they believe brahma came up with the vedas and preached while it was the rishis who wrote them down, documented them.   

Brahma is normally depicted holding the vedas in one of his hands 

[puzzled]

Vedas were passed down orally for centuries from the rishis who first received them through meditation,  after being passed down orally for centuries then they were written down.  A bit like Chinese whisper isnt it lol.  ! 

[BhForce]

On 2/22/2020 at 5:55 AM, shastarSingh said:

@shastarSingh, what's your deal, bro? If it is that meat is OK in khsatryia dharam, what's the point of posting stuff like this? It'll just be explained in the Nihang dals anyway.

By posting stuff like this, do you mean to encourage the average Sikh to pick up some non-Jhatka or even halal meat at the local shop?

[shastarSingh]

46 minutes ago, BhForce said:

@shastarSingh, what's your deal, bro? If it is that meat is OK in khsatryia dharam, what's the point of posting stuff like this? It'll just be explained in the Nihang dals anyway.

By posting stuff like this, do you mean to encourage the average Sikh to pick up some non-Jhatka or even halal meat at the local shop?

My post had nuthing to do with Sikhs eating meat or not.

These days most of the Hindus are vegetarian but Valmiki Ramayana mentions raam having meat.

[jkvlondon]

56 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

My post had nuthing to do with Sikhs eating meat or not.

These days most of the Hindus are vegetarian but Valmiki Ramayana mentions raam having meat.

I agree that there is some element of contradiction for instance I have been told by a Brahmin girl that Brahmin families are not supposed to eat meat at all , but quoted translation seems to imply that they can if the paap is commited by someone else , hmm not sure Dharamraj will see them as free and easy . If you profit from a crime your are complicit in that crime , what do you think?

[chatanga1]

On 2/26/2020 at 9:13 PM, puzzled said:

a real man sticks by his woman!  she was pregnant as well!   

At the time of Sita being sent to Maharishi Balmik's ashram Ram did not know she was pregnant.

As for a "real man." Many thousands died in the war between Sri Ram Chander and Ravan. Cities were destroyed, and lineages were decimated. For one woman. A real man would have said forget killing thousands to save one. A dharmi pursh would have gone to war.

Like the Sikhs did, for the Brahman of Kasur.

 

On 2/28/2020 at 9:42 PM, jkvlondon said:

he had no nimrata

Many times you have, and many times I have reminded you, that you should engage those brain cells rather than talk out of your backside. What research have you done into this epic that you would say something so ridiculous.

If Sri ram Chander had no nimrata he would never have gone into the forest at the beckoning of Kaikei. He wouldn't have eaten from the hands of a bhilni - what we in Panjab call chuhre. He wouldn't have invited the Vanar raj, another outcaste to sit at his side to eat.

 

On 2/28/2020 at 9:42 PM, jkvlondon said:

just ahankar of his position, name,

I'm sensing ahankar. Or maybe it's agianta. Actually it seems like both.

 

On 2/28/2020 at 9:42 PM, jkvlondon said:

a cheater

Sri Ram Chander never cheated on anyone. If he wanted to take another wife, he could simply.

 

On 2/28/2020 at 9:42 PM, jkvlondon said:

If he was really a man he should have taken it up with Ravan at the first instance. Ravan would have given him an answer then and there.

Well, he did didn't he. He went there an fought against Ravan's regime.

Why haven't you gone to fight the terrorist indian regime? Why are you in UK when indian terrorist regime have been kidnapping, torturing and raping so many sikh females since 84?

Has your father been if you haven't?

 

On 2/28/2020 at 9:42 PM, jkvlondon said:

Actually Ravan never forced Sita , never took revenge for the disfigurement of his sister, he just took her to teach Ram a lesson for lying and cheating .

More backside talk. What lying and cheating did Ram do? Tell me.

 

On 2/28/2020 at 9:57 PM, Ranjeet01 said:

It could very well be that Hindus see Rama as a flawed individual who had to overcome all his faults.

The Hindus call Sri Ram Chander "purshottam" or "maryada pursh" which means "man of the highest order" or "disciplined man".

 

On 2/28/2020 at 11:08 PM, jkvlondon said:

definitely a murderer he killed shudar for doing tapsaya,

More backside talk. This shudar story is only a recent construction. It is not is Maharishi Balmiks Ramayan. It was first mentioned by Bhagat Tulsidas in his "Sri Ram CharitarManas".

Many people do not beleive this story as Sri Ram Chander dined at least twice with lowcastes in Ramayan.

 

On 2/29/2020 at 12:20 AM, puzzled said:

Marriage was not respected though they all cheating on each other lol  a lot of promiscuous characters

There was no such thing as promiscuity in the oldern yugs. Men took more than one wife in many instances. There was instances of people falling prey to kaam but it was not in the manner you are portraying them.