Jump to content

tva prasad

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by tva prasad

  1. So, is the void nothing, yet everything. Nothing because it is unmamifest therefore free of maya. Yet, everything because maya... well, basically everything originates from it?
  2. No worries, mate Dhan Dhan Guru Ramdas ji Maharaj.
  3. http://www.shastras.com/stories-and-anecdotes/krishna-nitya-brahmachari/
  4. It is not against gurmat, rather the opposite I may add. I heard this sakhi a few years ago where a gursikh (can't remember who exactly) was bringing a mango for Guru ji (again can't remember specifically which of the 10 gurus, but it barely matters here). He ate the mango while remembering Guru ji through his surat. Guru ji was acting as though eating a mango despite holding nothing in his hands. The gursikhs present asked what he was doing and guru ji said he was eating a mango given by a devotee. There is another sakhi where a gursikh holds the Guru's feet through his surat and Guru Hargobind ji (I think it was) couldn't move his feet. However, looking at the context of the pankti, it means to serve the lord through constant awareness of pleasing him. I understand how you might have confused it.
  5. You are quite welcome. It is good to resolve doubts. Surat simply refers to awareness, in this context, as per my understanding. The awareness of doing what pleases god is the surat referred to here. I.e. trying to do things that you believe will please God. This could be anything as long as your awareness is aimed at pleasing God through your actions.
  6. "Neti, neti" comes from "na iti, na iti" which translates to 'not this, not this'. Thus, an attempt to understand Brahman (God) through identifying what he is not. Sunn samadhi, as explained in the video is when one transcends this notion of "neti, neti" as one realises all is Brahman. This is when the sense of "I am", therefore ego, is eradicated. This results in coming out of trigunn maya as the ego is dissolved. As for the pankti above, it is saying that, serve with the awareness that: only that is approved which pleases the Lord. Thus, know that the actions which are pleasing to God as worthwhile. Funny story, just a few days ago I was wondering 'what is it that makes a good action good and a bad action bad?' As they are both created by God, then why is one considered 'good' and another 'bad'? Then as I was listening to Tva Prasad Swaiye, it struck me... The translation said "the Great Giver looks daily at our flaws but does not stop providing (even when annoyed at our evil deeds)". This implies that evil deeds are something which is not pleasing to God. Therefore, good deeds please the Lord. It all made sense... Even though nothing is 'good' or 'bad' (advait), during the initial stages one should do 'good' deeds in order to please God. This is why each religion is bound by rules, despite the fact that all is the same due to one source.
  7. Yes, I agree with you. It is a very sad reality, indeed. Sometimes, the best we can do is bring about awareness, but people believe what they want to believe. As I gain more and more experience, the more I realise how helpless we are as individuals, sometimes. We are forced to witness all these horrible acts and can do nothing about them. The corrupt rule, the masses follow like sheep, revering them as if they are superhuman. People who oppose the corrupt rule are looked down upon. Yes, I agree regarding the Huddersfield grooming case- these people who represent the community don't care at all. It's utterly disgusting! We, as a community are experts at ignoring such sensitive issues. I agree with you on your last point as well. An inferiority complex among our people is quite a problem. Would you put strict parenting or a lack thereof into the equation as well? I've seen kids in relationships without their parents having a single clue about it. It's heartbreaking to see the types of things kids get to behind their parents' backs, including drugs and stuff. But yes, keeping up with the times and trying to look cool has certainly taken a backseat to morals and family among our youth. It's detrimental to our future as they are our future. I think the best thing our community can do is focus on the youth, before it's too late.
  8. That is the whole point, we are failing at the basics. The mentality of our people is the problem and hard to fix. You are right, giving up is not the answer, neither am I advising the same. I'm suggesting that we start with fixing our own mentality as also encourage our friends. I think if we have a respectable character we will be able to help others fix themselves. I see hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and dishonesty as the problems as there are people who say one thing and do another. They are the ones that hold high and respectable positions. Further there is this whole 'family reputation' crap as opposed to daughter's wellbeing when it comes to the grooming of our daughters and sisters. That mentality has to go if we want to advance to do something about this problem. All in all, I think we should start at fixing the mentality of our people by first starting with ourselves and those around us. I believe our mentality is the reason of most problems.
  9. Not trying to be pessimistic but, if we look at it realistically, it is near impossible. The thing is everyone blames each other and ignore their own faults. I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone on this forum, rather I'm just saying that in general people turn a blind eye to their faults while blaming others for the same. That is where the problem starts. Cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy seem to be rather big issues, in general. I think the world would be a much better place, if instead of ridiculing eachother for faults, we focus on improving ourselves and encouraging eachother to do the same. I believe any solution is ineffective if we aren't willing to change ourselves, first, otherwise we are the biggest problem as we are doing exactly what we are opposing, this is hipocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Understanding and communication is also important among people. Further, people seem to have a rather messed up moral compass. I'm still trying to observe this behaviour. If someone is in a position of authority or in a position recognised as 'holy', people automatically assume that that person is indeed faultless. I think people tend to think in terms of black and white, they don't necessarily know what righteouness is. Righteouness is to oppose corrupt authority not to respect the same. Believe it or not, some people think that respecting authority even if they are corrupt, is morally right compared to opposing them. That is just one example among many that indicates people know not morals. It is indeed a crooked world we live in. All in all, what I wish to say is that people who are major partakers of a problem are often ignorant of their part in the same. They very frequently tend to ignore their own faults. The main thing would be to bring greater awareness on their impact on the problem. This is very hard. People will find it painful to see their own faults, it's like medicine, bitter and detestable but it is the solution. For example, if we take the bangra dancers or the booze gurglers into account, I doubt they will see much wrong with their actions. If they do, it is cognitive dissonance. Therefore, most problems stem from internal feuds or ego.
  10. Bro, you can't be serious. Everything they show in the TV serial is 100% accurate isn't it? If you haven't realised, feminism has severely plagued indian shows like Ramayan, etc. I was watching the newer version of it called 'Siya ke Ram', in which Ram and Sita had a go at Lakshman for chopping off Surpnakha's nose. Whereas, in the Valmiki Ramayana, Ram asked Lakshman to cut off Surpnakha's nose. Furthermore, in Valmiki Ramayan, there was no Lakshman rekha. Lakshman rekha was added later on. Even within Valmiki Ramayan, Lakshman does not recognise Sita's ornaments and only recongnises her anklets. Instead of creating the 'Lakshman rekha' Lakshman told Sita to stay safe and pleaded to the Gods and dieties of the forest to protect her. He did not look at her above her feet, still. He was angry, at this point. I hope you know what compelled him to go in search of Ram, eventhough he knew for a fact it was a bad idea. Sita accused him of 'wanting to get Ram killed so that he could enjoy her'. It's mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayan. Don't judge the characters based on the TV shows, they aren't accurate, lol.
  11. Does anyone know how the Sikh soldiers kept Guru Granth Sahib Ji in the world wars? How did the sikh soldiers give proper respect to Guru ji during the time of the world wars (especially given the fact that hygiene was pretty hard to maintain in the trenches)? I also came across this blog when my curiosity was aroused. http://amanpreet-singh.blogspot.com/2012/03/one-inch-saroop-of-guru-granth-sahib-ji.html Where did the Singhs keep the one-inch saroop of Guru Granth Sahib, knowing they would have to crawl on the ground, etc?
  12. Dalsingh brother is right. You should find a compatible partner and marry.
  13. To those who think that I'm giving sympathy to the guy because he's amritdhari, I'm really not. Even if the guy was a tobacco user and mona, and the girl was a sarblohi, jatka-only, amritdhari gursikh I would take the mona's side because I don't think the merciless and painful death was necessary. However, I am not saying the guy was completely innocent or anything, either. He did not have to accept her sleep over request, knowing that he was the average passionate, young man. Then again, why did the girl invite him for a sleep over in the first place?
  14. I'm not sure although I've heard that sometimes the panj pyare make exeptions. I think @Mooorakh benji should try to talk with the panj pyare to get their views.
  15. I'm sorry. Although I think it is better to take it with your spouse because then you can be at the same stage and you can inspire each other to keep rehit. I hope vaheguru will soon listen to your prays.
  16. It said he 'tried' to rape her. Check out this video. This sounds a bit dodgy IMO, like why did she wait 6 months before she took any form of action? The text message sent by Gagandeep Singh to Mahil was about talking something out, and Singh was well aware that she might kill him from the text he sent her but he might have underestimated her thinking a lone woman cannot kill me or something of the like. Also if she had a genuine reason for doing what she did, it would make more sense that she call the cops instead of taking the matter into her own hands. One more thing, the article portrays one side of the story, we do not have Shoker's and Peter's side of the story, since they were the ones that murdered Singh doesn't it make sense to incorporate their side of the story as well, what do they have to say? If she was the sister of a police officer surely it wouldn't be hard for her to get police help, so why then did she choose to take the matter into her own hands? If this was true why did she have two men, namely Shoker and Peters ready to kill him? This claim of her's also contradicts the text message where Singh explicitly expresses that she wants to kill him. Also why did she wait 6 months if she only wanted to "lecture" him or give him "a few slaps"? She could have easily confronted him earlier. Since Shoker was in love with her she could have easily used this against him to get what she wanted. The fact that she referred to him as her "gay friend" while speaking to others shows that she might have been ashamed of him declaring his love for social reasons and did not want to be seen as a couple by others hence "gay friend". This might also hint that she did not want him in her life, therefore she might have got him to commit a crime to get him jailed (revenge, maybe)- so basically a win/win situation for her. So, Singh "attempted rape" but didn't rape her. She underwent counselling but she was still friends with him or acted like she was friends with him. I believe she might have been too ashamed of the encounter so started to plot Singh's death using Shoker to her advantage along with Peters. If Singh had tried to rape her why was she still keeping contact with him and asking for gifts from him? Would it not be normal for her to distance herself from him had she been disturbed by the incident that happened between them. They blamed each other... hmmm... This shows that they came to realise that they had been tricked into killing Singh but now they do not want to face the punishment. Mahil has thrown them under the bus by saying she only wanted to lecture Singh and wasn't aware that Shoker and Peters would do such a thing. She clearly knew what Shoker and Peters did as they called her shortly after the doing the deed, so why does she claim she didn;t know? Did she not see them tie him up and put him in the boot of the Mercedes? Did she not see the two men drive Singh off? If she wanted to lecture him why wasn't she present with Shoker and Peters? However, if Mahil was telling the truth why did she need two men to hide in her basement until he arrived to pounce on him? If she was worried that he might try to rape her again, she could have easily got her girlfriends, no? If Mahil was "traumatised" why did she not try to stop Shoker and Peters from beating Singh up why was she just sitting there eating a Key Lime pie? Since she was friends with Shoker he would have listened to what she would have to say, right? Why didn't she stop them when they tied Singh with cables, chucked him in the boot and drove him off? Surely, she agreed with what was happening and refused to get her hands dirty as Peters and Shoker murdered Singh therefore leaving no evidence of finger prints on his body. Source: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/mundill-mahil-darren-peters-and-harvinder-shoker/ Is there any evidence that suggests he actually raped her?
  17. Bro, what is this tube patka you speak of? I searched up 'sikh tube patka' and nothing matched the description you gave. Do you have pics? I know there's a patka style that looks like a do-rag.
  18. I know right? She looks rather average from her pictures. This sort of reminds me of Cleopatra, she was an average looking woman but she easily seduced Mark Antony and Julius Caesar. Apparently Cleopatra's charm lied in her words, actions and behaviour rather than her looks, the same might hold true for this girl. She also seems highly skilled in making up lies and fooling the authorities. She said she did not have any role in the murder, (yet she was the mastermind behind the whole thing) but she got two guys to kill the man therefore got a meagre sentence. She so cunningly took the backseat as she ruined the life of two men, killed one and caused many people to grieve. That's why it is so important to study Charitropakhyan, apne seem rather naive with this sort of stuff.
  • Create New...