commander

The Hindus are divided into three great classes, viz.,

Vaishnavas who worship the Lord as Vishnu;

Saivas who worship the Lord as Siva;

Saktas who adore Devi or the Mother aspect of the Lord.

So which of these classes does Sikhism belong to?

The Sikhs are really Hindus.

There is no basis provided for this claim. What a rubbish article

I think it is. Please read Japuji Sahib. Specifically, read the second pauri.

For Sikhs, the question has little relevance. How He "created" the universe(s) is unknown to us. It may have took a single instant or billions of years. Since He is beyond time, "evolution" is really meaningless.

2. Havans are not a 'Hindu' thing. They are practised in most Indian religions including Buddhism and Sikhi (at least the oldest institutions in the Panth do i.e. Nihangs, Nirmale and Udasi)...

For what reason, if I may ask?

It is of no use to answer that question since nobody seems to agree on the definition of a 'Sikh' these days. A better question would be to ask whether a Khalsa should only marry another Khalsa.

I think the responses to the particular post on Sikhnet clear any doubts on whether Sikhism is a 'pantheistic' religion. And keep in mind that this 'Sardar' Jass 'Singh' character is apparently a Christian missionary. His motives and opinions come out quite clear in his posts.

Please apply proper formatting so that the post is at least readable. Thanks!

Did the bibi tell her new fiancée about what had transpired between her and her old fiancée?

...judge me if you want: I don't care! All I know is this: I will enter French Government buildings with my dastar and I will not remove this gift of Maharaj!!!!I do not need AKJ or ISYF to represent me: bottomline!!!

Ha ha ha.. that's the spirit! Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal! 8)

Maybe they're just looking for an excuse? :wink:

and if you really feel that "the former to be a disguise for attachment" then what are you doing on a bloody internet forum talking to people like me. I reckon you should pack your bags and head for the mountains where you can live the rest of you life in solace and free of attachment..

Because, first there is no need for it - the Guru tells us so. Secondly, maya is everywhere - even in the seemingly devoid "mountains". We just have to accept the fact maya is a part of this world and there is virtually nothing wrong with it in moderation. Finally, even if I did go out there, I would probably starve to death. Can't have that, can we?

I also find it funny that you guys say stuff like "an amritdhari person cannot fall in love".

Sure they can - with the Guru I will say this: There's nothing wrong with falling in "love" with another being - it is natural - so long as the Guru comes first before everyone and everything.

Why? Because they are succumbing to lust. OK. So if you cant expect khalsa to resist lust then who can you? Can someone tell me. IF you dont trust khalsa to avoid sinking into lust then whats the bloody point.

In another thread, another Sikh wanted to know the reason for marriage. I think it is a perfect answer here. I think it's quite difficult to totally overcome lust. Infact, it would be harmful to do so since it is needed for natural procreaton.

And now a disclaimer. Iam no scholar but i do test things against things i know to be true.

Any logical being would. But you have to have an open mind - I certainly do. The ultimate authority in this matter is the Guru. I look to the Guru to tell me what exactly "love" is. I suggest you do the same.

Saying so-and-so cant do this seems wrong to me.

Most things, we can only voice our opinions on (just like we are doing in this thread). The important things, however, are in the Rehit Marayada.

But you know what, if anyone wants to move to the mountains and become a monk you are welcome to join me, because iam confused

I don't think that would solve any problems

(Guys only cause girls cause lust)

What about gays? :wink:

Mate, you love the souls of those ppl not their physical bodies.

Practically speaking, when people fall in "love", they are attracted to the person's personality and physical features. We don't know which characteristics in a person are attributed to the "soul" and which are biological. So, the question is, is it even possible to fall in "love" with someone's "soul"? Also, how do you take reincarnation into account? Are two souls who "love" each other outside of Waheguru's hukam? If the bodies perish and are incarnated into other living beings, their "love" is no more.

Like I said earlier, everyone has their own opinions but I simply will NOT equate the Love for (Wahe)Guru as the same as we have for another person.

And i am told souls are around for an eternity so who am i to disagree.

I think they are too, but we apparently don't agree on their purpose for being.

First of all - I am british so I probably shouldnt even comment on this but in case you are interested in an outiders view, read on.

Be careful in attacking loose language employed by politicians. THe guy was on the stumps and was responding to a question. He was absolutely wrong in saying that India suffered from terrorism from Sikhs. He didnt refer to the IRA as CAtholics or Al-Queda as Muslims - he shoudl have named the groups not the faith group. That is the error that he made and it simply is an ill thought out remark.

I only say this because whilst I dont follow American politics, I do recall Kerry as being one of the earliest US law makers (in fatc maybe the first) to sign in some of the HAte Crime laws that US Sikhs rightly called for after 9/11. I also recall him speaking very publically and very passionately on NBC (I think) about the 'anyi americanism' of the backlash against Arbas, South Asians and Sikhs in the aftermath of 9/11.

We should seek to correct his statement but do it very diplomatically otherwise Sikhs in the US are liabel to lose a good friend in Washington.

Aman

I was unaware of these facts. Thanks for the information.

Gotta let everyone know about this Bad publicity can do wonders in correcting the attitudes of politicians :evil:

Maybe we should also start a petition demanding an apology. To think, Sikhs actually raised money for this guy :twisted:

Uhm you tell me how doesn't it

I asked first Anyways, I would rather not be reminded of this wicked lady any more than necessary.

Nice. Do any 3D Models? Would love for you to create a 3D model w/ Textures of a Singh/Warrior (with weapon in hand)

How does this picture fit in "Sikh Picture Posts"?

Maybe im wrong?

Perhaps you misread?

Where does the Rehat Maryada say to 'pray' five times a day?

I read through parts of the thread and i noticed some people making their own rules about how a sikh should be or not. To these, i'd like to ask this simple question. What makes you so certain that you have got it right in terms of knowledge and intution to condense Guruji into a sentence or two. "A sikh cant do this" "A sikh should do this". What makes you so sure that you can do a better job that Guruji in setting out what a sikh should be, that you so authoratively and succinctly replace Gurbani with your work.

These rules are outlined in the Rehit Marayda. That is how we can say (for example) that a Sikh cannot drink, or commit adultery etc.

I've always felt that sikhi isnt a religion of rules and regulations. If it were, then we'd have a book of rules. or something like that. Instead we have a Guru. Why you'd want to replace a Guru with a bunch of rules, i dont know. Personally i prefer to have a Guru. You know the feeling you get when you are listening to a dope Shabad and you are feeling the Gurbani. Even though you might not be a scholar of Indic and Arabic languages you might still get that heavy powerful intuitive understanding of the Bani. I love that about sikhi. I like how everything flows logically from first principles. I love how I can turn to my Guru if things are unclear and i need direction. Please dont lessen my sikhi by turning it into something its not. Something boring and trivialising like "rule #3 you may not fall in love, rule #5 you must wear a round pugh, ..." .

Will again refer you to the Rehit Marayada.

NOTE: Since I don't want to debate the meaning of the word "Sikh", I have assumed that you meant Sikh = Khalsa. If you feel different, feel free to ignore what I have said.

About the topic. Love. I think its perfectly fine to love someone. There are people i love. Family ofcourse. Then friends, both male and female. Would i do anything for them? Hard to know for sure. But i'll say now that i would, at least in principle. As long as it doesnt involve breaching my own principles. Note principles are not in general rules. Principles are truths given by the Guru. They are much more wider in scope than simple rules. For example, the principle that there is only one creator, sustainer and destroyed. One God. That is far reaching and more profound than a rule that says for example, "you must only obey the god called Harri". Principles are more suited for application in life. Life isnt about certain fixed circumstances which then involve corresponding rules about what should and should not be done. Instead life is about continuously changing situations, decision which arent always clearcut, uncertainty is real and ever present, its complex. What this means is that if you have a rigid set of rules for a limited number of situations then you are in a position of constantly trying to beat the current situtation into one resembling the rule and then like a programmed machine, implementing the rule without thought. This is not how sikhi is. Sikhi is about intuitive awareness. Its about being aware of the present of Waheguru at all times. And then to use Gurbani to help us make the right decisions and realise the truths that a thinking person does. The relationship between a Sikh and his Guru is a personal one. What place then for rigid rules, one after another, after another, instead of the learning dynamic created by a guru-disciple relationship.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As for me, I do not equate "Love" for things that will perish (mother, father, husband, wife, pet etc.) with Love for (Wahe)Guru (which I consider as the only true kind of Love). I consider the former to be a disguise for attachment (maya).

so you infront of the guru granth sahib....your doing all this ceremony and afterwards you have the passport to have sex, lol

anymore explanations?

this doubt don't go away

Nothing wrong with sex :roll: Everyone has a different view of what a marriage should be. Religiously, marriage is a union of two souls with the goal of helping each other reach Parmatma. For Sikhs, marriage is a formal commitment to your partner with the Guru as witness. It's also a nice arrangement to have and raise children After all, as living beings, we have a moral and social duty to procreate

If I loved a woman and we love been partners then why is it nessacary to have a anand karaj?

whats the importance of it?

It's quite simple really: if you are a Sikh, then you must be married (via the Anand Karaj) before you engage in any sexual contact. Otherwise, you would be in violation of the Rehit Marayada.

There are actually a lot more than two different styles (though the differences are subtle). My take on the 'styles' is that most of the current ones are only for show (I wear one of these as well). These 'samosa' style pagris are yet another impractical 'gift' of the beloved Punjabi society.

Personally, I think we have a lot bigger problems to worry about than pagri styles. Perhaps one day the Khalsa panth will provide guidelines for appropriate type of pagri to tie. The individual should have some choice in what kind of a dastar they wish to tie. I find it quite interesting to see different styles of pagris (except those laced with starch which certain people plop on like a hat - they are unacceptable :evil:).

A related question, how is "Damala" spelled in punjabi (I would like to know how to pronounce it)?

Nice pictures. Enojoyed looking at them. Share more with us.

Indeed.

commander, las vegas.........you go gambling once in a while ?

People that live in Las Vegas don't gamble - they know better :wink: Gambling's only for the visitors - they help pay our taxes