Inder Singh

Why do they have to have existed in history? Isn't what they stood for more important then if they actually existed. If the deeds and life of Krishna or Rama help a Hindu spiritually what does it matter if they existed historically or not. The discussion is moot, it has no effect on a persons life if they existed or not.

My interpretation (it is only that) is that narak and hell are not the same because they are part of two very different philosphies. Narak is not to be taken literally it is a metaphor - "One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol" - Gurbani uses these strong images to show us the correct path to Akaal.

Also dont the Catholics, Jehova witnesses, Jews all use the term 'Hell' in their books? then how is it just a 'protestant' Christian sermon?

Of course they do i never said they did not. It was an opinion not a universal statement.

and isn't the term 'neophytes' also a socalled 'protestant' christian term?

it can be used in that way but it also can be used in the way i meant it to be used

neophyte

A recent convert to a belief; a proselyte.

A beginner or novice: a neophyte at politics.

Roman Catholic Church. A newly ordained priest.

A novice of a religious order or congregation.

hell

often Hell The abode of condemned souls and devils in some religions; the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death, presided over by Satan.

A state of separation from God; exclusion from God's presence.

The abode of the dead, identified with the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades; the underworld.

Word History: Hell comes to us directly from Old English hel. Because the Roman Church prevailed in England from an early date, the Romanthat is, Mediterraneanbelief that hell was hot prevailed there too; in Old English hel is a black and fiery place of eternal torment for the damned. But because the Vikings were converted to Christianity centuries after the Anglo-Saxons, the Old Norse hel, from the same source as Old English hel, retained its earlier pagan senses as both a place and a person

heav·en

The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural.

Christianity.

often Heaven The abode of God, the angels, and the souls of those who are granted salvation.

An eternal state of communion with God; everlasting bliss.

Any of the places in or beyond the sky conceived of as domains of divine beings in various religions.

Naranjana, how else would you translate the terms Nark or Dozak into English? the only word I can think of is 'Hell'.

See thats the problem with translations, words that seem similar are used but these two different words have entirely different connotations even if they seem similar on the face of it. This is what misleads neophytes who have little knowledge of Gurmukhi or indian religions.

Regarding the article, it seems to be protestant Christian sermon with Sikh terminology inserted.

that is what i meant but i did not use Sikh terminology, maybe i should in future.

Just a final opiniated statement from me on this topic: heaven and hell don't really matter, their usefulness in only within the psyche of the individual, they do not "exist" in reality only in a persons mind, just like everything else..................

What is it like sach kand? i heard there are big gates out side?

yeah the gates are very big and there are some singhs playing harps as well with wings coming out of their backs. They also have some very nice ladoo's there or maybe you prefer jalebi's. There is also the ever flowing fountain of lassi (mango flavour) oh yeah and they have kabaddi tournaments every saturday

here is my interpretation,

Heaven and hell are concepts which are derived from the Occident. Where "God" is viewed as an entity seperate from oneself. (In my view unscrupulous priests manipulated the idea of heaven and hell to get people to do what they wanted i.e. do good deeds and you will go to heaven. Much the same as do good deeds and you will be liberated from reincarnation - how is good defined?) Anyhow, the Soul after death must pass into either heaven or hell depending on deeds.

In Sikhism you are God but you don't know it, so there are no such concepts as heaven or hell. You are pure consciousness veiled by maya. So concepts of heaven and hell are not really compatible with sikh philosophy. The main aim of the scriptures is to reveal your true nature to yourself.

In hindu philosophy there is mention of hell with seven levels but i cannot remember. Where on one level there are being who have tiny mouths but voracious appetites - so they are continually unfufulled. The hindu concept of hell or heaven would be psychological whereby if your mental state in life was of frustration this would leave imprints on your mind whereby after your body dies those mental imprints survive maybe in your subtle body. I apologise for being so vague

regarding life after death- reincarnation heaven hell etc. it doesn't matter what you believe, who has come back from the other side to tell us? if a person feels comfortable believing in heaven or hell or reincarnation good for him. In my opinion aiming for a good next life or heaven is a lesser aim. The higher aim is to transcend existence altogether.

what happens to the person after they die, and where has the person who is born come from

it doesn't matter , what YOU think is what matters

first of all did Guru sahib say there "was no Hindu or Mussalman" or i am not Hindu or musalman" i really am not sure could someone clarify.

Secondly i never denied the existence of Hindu gods, I merely proposed a different sort of existence.

Thirdly i don't understand how your question "then why do you deny their existence" follows on from the answer i gave in a previous post. I merely stated that Hindu gods can be worshipped as an aid to meditation, for Hindus, to realise the all encompassing divinty which is beyond shape or form, subject and object - the one true god. This does not mean they have to exist.

To clarify in another post i stated that Hindu gods can be looked at as metaphors for internal spriritual concepts, they can be viewed in this way by someone standing outside the tradition and analysing it, but someone who is active inside Hindu tradition will see their Gods as a means of aiding meditation, towards higher goals. Assuming they are not ignorant of the real teaching of their religion.

the difference between Sikhi and Hinduism is that we dont worship the Hindu gods.

if you do some reading about the hindu religious tradition you will find out that Hindus are not supposed to worship their pantheon of deities as gods or as a god, but they are used as props or meditation devices to reach the higher universal divinity (call it what you want)

It is due to degredation of hindu religious tradition and ignorance (lack of education/reading) that hindu people worship deities.

I understand what you are saying, sohneyo, but we cannot confuse different planes. We are discussing in this thread hindu and sikh religion, if we start saying "O it doesn't matter everything is waheguru" then there is no point in discssing anything.

Let me give you an example that i read somewhere once, to clarify what i mean. If everything is one, if everyone is Brahman or underlying divinity or whatever. Then there is no difference between mother sister or wife but in everyday life there is a difference

Look at God from being a Human without a Lable from any Sect/Religion/Ethinicty..etc and tell me if you cannot see Jesus, Muhammed, Guru Nanak, Buddha, Krishan as all his forms. When we confine ourselves to a religion/sect/ethinicty then everything else becomes the other and what our personal religion/sect/ethnicty belives in becomes ours.

if you are a sikh you see "god" from the specific cultural viewpoint of a sikh, if you are a muslim or christian you see god in a different way to a Sikh. I am sorry but all this new age drivel of the "sameness" of all religions is quite wrong. Religions/cultures are different we should respect diversity within religions, not try to make them all the same, in my view that is a deep insult to religious traditions.

With regard to the rest of Pheena's post it is very nicely put, but 99.9% of people have not realised spritual union with whatever, and are striving to do so (or not) these people live in a world of differences and simply saying that we are all one etc. will not help a spirtual aspirant in any way. Enquiry into Sikhism and trying to understand how Hinduism relates to it, can help a spiritual aspirant on his/her journey, rather just prattling on about with meaningless niceties.

This same old topic again.

Sikhism originated in Hindustan, as a result it drew upon Hindu mythology. There are numerous traditions in Hindustan that use shiva vishnu kali etc as metaphors for internal concepts. There is not one uniform interpretation of the godess kali across India she is portrayed differently in different traditions.

These devta and devtian are just metaphors for sprirtual concepts, they are not "real", in the way we westerners use the word. Spiritual teachers can use these concepts to expound their own philosophy. Sikh philosphy is different to some traditions in hindustan and it also shares some similarities with some traditions.

In other words don't worry be happy

Mr Shasterkovich said

There is no point giving yourself problems by becoming repressed. The only effect of being a part of an insular minority with more repressed sexuality than the majority population is that your minority becomes increasingly both insular and minor.

How is it by quashing thoughts of sex with women that the minority becomes "increasingly insular and minor" i am assuming that when you are speaking of minorities you mean sikhs. I do not understand your point please clarify.

Don't you think it's a bit disgusting to be always fondling some girl, for several months until you marry her (or not) with your good intentions? An honest man will either do her properly or leave her.

Also, if all 3 are aware and consenting, is it really something "wrong" if you make love to your wife while fondling your mistress at the same time. If so, where is the scriptural authority for this?

You misunderstand me shasterpaavich i meant if u are not married you can do whatever to ur girlfriend.

I would in no way condone cheating on a women

Sexual thoughts about other women should be brutally repressed in a sikhs mind, a sikh should have iron control over his mind.

All women, except partner, should be seen as sisters.

But there is nothing wrong with enjoying sex with your spouse, or fondling your girlfriend.

I'm very interested in this topic and have done good amounts of research into it.

The aryans originated from an area around the caspian sea some drifted into Europe while others drifted towards asia and India. The Aryans were a light skinned race and were proficent in the use of weapons, upon reaching northern India they encountered a dark skinned race called Dravidans. They defeated the Dravidans and pushed them into southern India.

A lot of historians talk about civilisation growing first in Egypt and mesopotamia (middle east) but one of the first civilised cities was called Mohenjo-Daro in northern India built around 4000BC (not sure of exact date thats just from memory)

the majority of northern Indians are descended from aryans

A point i'm not sure about in the above post is about Arabs being Aryans i'm sure Arabs and Jews are descended from semites. The persians were definetly Aryans they overthrew the semitic rule of the assyrians in ancient mesopatamia.

History of the Sikhs - Khushwant Singh

Brilliant book, begins by explaining origins of sikhism and covers all events in sikh history up to 1984.

Saint Soldier - S S Kumar

Another excellent book explaining Guru Gobind Singh's view of the ideal man

Banda Bahadur Singh - Sohan Singh

The definitive work on Banda Bahadur Singh witten by his direct ancestor, Wrote in 1920 very biased towards british rule, but facts are accurate.

Battles of Guru Gobind Singh

Military encounters described in depth

Safarnama and Zafarnama: Being an Account of the Guru Gobind Singh and the Epistle of moral Victory written by him to Emperor Aurangzeb - Giani Ishar Singh Nara

My Bleeding Punjab - Khushwant Singh

Inder SIngh wrote:

Are you accusing Maharaj of being vain? Guru HariRai is renowned for wearing long jamas and delicate necklaces and so did Guru Gobind Singh. It is not the necklace or the khol that makes one vain: it's your attachment to it that is a problem!

That comment was with reference to todays society (normal people), Guru Maharaj Ji cannot be compared to normal people.

The wearing of make-up and jewellery is an admittance of a persons vanity. Whether you are attached to wearing jewellery or make up is irrelevant, its just a confidence boost for insecure people.

Looking after yourself and keeping healthy and fit and eating the right foods needs to be encouraged more in these degenerate days, instead of draping yourself in jewellery and slapping on kg's of make-up.