Pheena

yes, but those Bhagats were Sikhs as well and as you suggested they were selling to their multi-religious cultures. Can Sikhs of this time sell wine to serve the multi-religious culture such as Christianity?

It is said that when this Bakra was alive, the continous use of Mai Mai Mai, the sound of Houmai resonated within him. But when dead at least his skin will be used to sing the praise of the Guru and then helping others to become one with God he too will be liberated...such is the story I've heard. Wine was a regular part of life during the time of Jesus and continues to be today in the lifestyle of Christians...should wine then be subject to this view point as well?

It is a fact that Bhagat Sadahana was a Butcher....if you think it is wrong for one to have an occupation as such and then call himself a Sikh then you need to reanalyze who you bow your head to and why. Because the words of Bhagat Sadahana are in the Guru Granth sahib along with Bhagat Sain who was a Barber. If you think its wrong then you must also consider these Bhagats to be in the wrong.

I am going by the general consensus that you will likely hear from majority of the Sikhs.

Why is the use of Tabla which has Goat skin on it allowed in the Gurudwara when Sikhi is against meat? Why are the words of a Chammaar included in the Guru Granth Sahib when he must have dealt with skin of an animal. Sure Bhagat Ravidas ji did not consume the meat, but he dealt with his in his daily life as a shoemaker. According to your logic then that too is wrong? You should also look into the occupation of other Bhagats whos words are in the Guru Granth Sahib such as Bhagat Sadahna who was a butcher.

Sometimes what God Orders has nothing to do with how a man uses those orders to fullfill his own personal sadistic desire to do 'God's Work'? 'Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone'. Would you take part in such a God Ordered act Safavi, rather would you be able to do it on your own, all by yourself without a mob? Ask one man to stone someone to death, he will hardly have the guts to do it, ask 100 men to stone someone to death and all will jump the chance because the guilt and the responsibility falls on the Mob not the individual.

I apologize for accusing you of something, but your post didn't mention you were recalling a discussion with someone else. I am hopefull that the content of the Guru Sahib will remain unaltered for eons to come. But truly who is to say 1500 years from now what the status of this Religion will be? Surely we have technology that will preserve the content and the quality, but sadly such wasn't the case in the Divine personalities of old. I mean its been only 308 years and we are already conflicting over whether some portions of our Shabad Guru is valid or not or over Historical refrences. I am uncertain that in another 1500 years I will be able to say the same thing as you are saying now. Whether the Historical references that I hear today will be orated or understood in the same manner with the same content...one cannot say for sure. Perhaps by then it will time for another Guru Nanak to take birth, another Buddha to seek to set people straight on the path.

I think in every discussion related to Hindu or any aspects of Hinduism you seem to come back with the same points of only Waheguru. I have yet to find anyone in this thread who disagree with you on this point. More so you seem to assume that because some user acknowledge or further more tend take a deeper look at the existential meaning of these Devi/Devtas that they are somehow going away from the path of the Gurus. There are times when you must stand for what you believe and then there are times when you must look at the knowledge that you have gathered and dust it off once a while to see if what borrowed knowledge I have gathered is really worth the weight. Just some observing thoughts, nothing more.

What necessity is there to compare the sacrifices these 2 personalities made? Will it make us a better Sikh? Will our Guru be proud that we used the sacredness of their sacrifice to belittle the message of another Divine personality? Are you sure that is what Jesus said word for word? Are you certain that through the ages of translations from language to language that the message has not been somewhat skewed? If such words of Jesus somehow express arrogance in your eyes then the same arrogance is expressed by those who say only a Sikh can reach God and they too use justifications from the Guru Granth Sahib to support their argument, just as you used the Bible to support your point.

I think i now see the intentions with which this book was written. Thanks for the short summary. Would you consider the post posted by Xylitol an example of this as well?

Was this book written in response to the arrival of the Christian Missionaries in India? If so then I can perhaps understand why the write wrote it...but if not then I must object to the idea of Comparing 2 different Masters from a different time and geographical location. Such comparisons are easily available to gross misinterpretations and judgments which can lead to an arrogant mindset. I think we tend to assume that every Enlighten soul should exhibit the same personality over time and then compare it with a Guru that we follow. We then somehow try to belittle the others in the aspect of how they were wrong or completely declare them as false because they don't fit 'our' criteria of what they should be. Ironically how we come to such a conclusion that one is or isn't enlightened without first experiencing enlightenment ourselves is beyond me.

Exactly my point sir. All of the Anti-Idol Shabads speak exactly of those who take the literal view that the rock carved out by a man to be the God alone. Where it should've been a step towards that God which is out is also within and around, where it should've been a instrument of Dhyaan, it became a hindrance and that is exactly what the Guru is preaching against in the Anti-Idol references. Just as the Guru speaks against the parrot like repetitions of Paath and Gurmantra as you have said.

It is the lifestory of bhagat Dhaana ji that I've heard from numerous sources. In Sikhi I have yet to hear one consistent story about any bhagat that everyone agrees upon. You can easily misinterpret what I said to think that somehow I am advocating the uses of Idols by Sikhs. It is not the Rock that played the role in realization of God. The Rock was just an channel for Bhagat Dhanna's innocent love to project. Yes the Guru does speak against Idol worshipping, but it is the same Guru that says, Ram Ram Karta Subh Jug firay, Raam na Payia Jayay. How is this not speaking against the act of Jap. But obviously any Sikh with a good understanding can see exactly what is being rejected in those words and what isn't. The same applies to the refrences to Moorti Poojaks.

Bhagat Dhanna ji did!

I believe Kabir ji's Guru was Swami Ramanand ji. edit: i should read first and then post..neo has already mentioned it in his post.

I think by Simran you are refering to Japa. No it is not essential that one has to do Japa, there are many methods to have Simurn (rememberence) of the Divine. Japa is a method prescribed by our Gurus, yet there exist many other means to attain the same state as reached through Japa/Simran. As for you friend thinking believing in Jesus is all he needs, to him i'd say you can only go as far as you allow yourself to. It is not believing that he should be concerned about it is his Surrender to the Divinity of Jesus...the Bhagti, devotional remembrance aspect of his Practice needs a boost. But the scattered mind sometimes has to be collected through some means. There are many ways to meditate...his focus on God can be through reading the bible early in the morning or listening to Gospel music. Believing is not enough in the sense that you go to church on Sunday to get a Stamp of attendance in Believing in Jesus. Such believing will only take you so far. As far as the pope is concerned, i don't think you should concern yourself of what the status of others are. There are those who believe Pope to be the second in command next to God. There are those who only see him a CEO in the business of the Church to save people. Who truly knows what his status is.

http://www.prantik.com/chellarampublicatio...dachellaram.htm Anyone ever heard of this individual? He and i'm assuming his family/Jatha is being invited to Austin by a Sindhi Family and will be doing Kirtan at the local Gurudwara. I was just wondering if anyone here has heard of him and could give me some info.

i do have it...i'll see if the server has enough space to upload it. I'm trying to get my hands on the Katha of Guru Teghbahadur ji's Sloaks.

Would Lao Tsu describe naam as such: The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The name is the mother of the ten thousand things.

We are going off topic here folks: here is a (i think) very balanced 35min discussion with a Bishop Harries from the UK. Richard Dawkins have collaborated on several occasions to promote the proper teaching of science in UK classrooms. This is the full unedited interview, which was originally filmed by IWC for the Channel Four documentary 'Root or All Evil?' http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007..._dawkins_8.html or http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0704/dawkins.mov Richard Dawikns has also debated Deepak Chopra which i don't think many of you will like as there is a general anti-new-age thought with some users. here is a small discussion with deepak. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007..._of_reas_2.html

its about as silly as this one. http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...&highlight=

Naam can be few things and is used in many different contexts. One of them being the Name of God. Waheguru is the Naam (Name) of the Anami, ie: Mil Saadh Sangat bhaj Kewal Naam. This refrence is to the name of God, Ram, Allah, Waheguru and so on. I have also heard most consider the 'Gurmantra' given at the time of Amrit Sanchaar to be Naam. I am a bit hesitant on this, considering the amount of mahima given to Naam that it can be just given to anyone taking Amrit. When the Guru Considers Naam to be Highest of the High I think the last word here Koe is an important which surprisingly in the translation of this line is completely ignored. Few Gurmukhs or few who are Gurmukhs attain this Naam. Not everyone who is told to Jap Waheguru. But when Naam is used in context of, jis no kirapaa karehi thin naam ratan paaeiaa || To me personally this reference is not speaking to that which can be verbalized, written in the form of a words or be captured by thought. What exactly that is, I haven't the slightest idea. A question i've been trying to find the answer to for a while.

someone needs to do some Astral Traveling into the Akashic Records.

you are like the Google for Kirtan my friend!

I have yet to hear one consistent Historical fact. It seems every event has atleast few version of it.