tva prasad

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?

Importance of jat sat:

Quote

One day Lord Krishna was playing with his queen Rukmani in the banks of Yamuna. Suddenly the Lord told her, "Rukmani, on the other shore of Yamuna, sage Durwasa has come and he is very hungry. Please prepare good food and take it to the sage".

Rukmani immediately prepared a sumptuous food and packed it and came back to the shores of Yamuna. Then she told her lord, "Lord, The Yamuna is in floods and there is no boat or boatman in sight. How can poor me, cross this mighty river?"

Lord Krishna replied, "Dear Rukmani, that should not be any problem. Approach the river and tell the river that the Nitya Brahmachari (perennial bachelor) has asked her to give way to you. She will surely give you way".

Rukmani was surprised and asked her Lord, "Lord, who is this Nitya Brahmachari and why am I not able to see him?"

The Lord replied, "Of course, Rukmani, it is myself".

Rukmani was surprised. She could not understand how her husband who has seven other wives could call himself, Nitya Brahmachari. Anyway she decided to obey him. She went near Yamuna and told the river, "River Yamuna, my husband, the Nitya Brahmachari has asked you to give way to me, so that I can reach the other shore".

The river immediately obliged. Rukmani crossed the Yamuna, met sage Durwasa, saluted him and served him the sumptuous food that she has brought with her. The Sage liked the food and became very happy and blessed her. 

Then Rukmani told him, "Sir, I am very gratified by the blessing of the sage like you. Now I have to cross back the river Yamuna and join my husband. Can you please help me do it?"

Sage Durwasa replied, "Of course Rukmani, that is my pleasure and duty. Go to the river Yamuna and tell her that the Nitya Upavasi (He who never takes food) has asked her to give way to you. She will help you".

Rukmani was taken aback. She thought how this sage who has just had a sumptuous feast can call himself Nitya Upavasi. She did not bother to ask him, because he was well known for his short temper. She went near the river and told her, "River Yamuna, now I have to cross you and reach the other shore. The Nitya Upavasi has asked you to give way to me".

The river obliged and Rukmani crossed the river and joined her husband. Her face showed that she was terribly confused. She approached her lord and told him, "Lord, as per your direction I served good food and crossed back the river. I told her to give way as per the wishes of Nitya Upavasi. Strangely she did it".

Lord Krishna laughingly replied, "I know Rukmani that you are terribly confused to see me calling myself as Nitya Brahmachari and the sage calling himself as Nitya Upavasi. We both were telling only the truth. This is because we both are realized souls and do not attach ourselves to this ethereal body of ours. We both know that we are really the souls within this body. That soul does not marry and does not take food and that is how I (my soul) am a Brahmachari and Sage Durwasa (his soul) is an Upavasi. Once you understand this simple truth, you can lead a very contended and happy life".

http://www.shastras.com/stories-and-anecdotes/krishna-nitya-brahmachari/ 

13 hours ago, Sukh_preet said:

O that makes it easy.

I heard a Hindu story months ago where a bhagat used to sit near a river and did bhagti all in his thoughts...  in his thoughts he used to cook for 'Ram ji', bring flowers made garlands and so on. While he's busy sitting near the river all the day, his farms used to bear bountiful crops whereas his brother's farm- instead of working hard couldn't bear good crops...

So he being jealous came to his brother near the river and kicked him hard . at that time his brother was cooking kheer for his Lord in the ' surat' , the brothers' feet thus got badly burnt.

But that's NOT as per Gurmat .. Right?? I mean serving your LOrd  in Surat 

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. 

1 hour ago, Sukh_preet said:

 

Thank u so much. That makes sense.

Just one more thing?? ( m sorry if I am being unreasonable) how do I serve 'him' with 'Surat'?? Does it refer to Jaap/ reciting baani quietly in surat?

 

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.

On 6/2/2019 at 10:12 PM, dalsingh101 said:

I agree that widespread mentalities are a  root cause of this. And it is 'respectable' people in positions that the ahhm junta look up to, that cowardly turn a blind eye, or underplay what goes on. 

I mean look at that Huddersfield grooming case where one of the leaders of the groomers (Dhaliwal) had a grandfather that was a Gurdwara pardaan. 

If all the stuff about gorian being groomed didn't blow up - I still believe most of our 'respectable' elders would still pretend this doesn't happen to us on the scale it does. I get a feeling they would rather this all blew away so they can get on with the usual rubbish they get up to. 

I think some subtle but deep- rooted insecurity about poverty amongst our lot plays a part too btw. They are so obsessed with appearing a certain way and keeping up with the Jones, that they blind themselves to serious family security measures as a consequence. 

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. 

On 5/29/2019 at 11:25 PM, Jageera said:

I hear what you are saying but doing nothing would be worse than doing something and not succeeding. It will take time and many failures to achieve any significant result.We would really be in trouble when our panth stops trying.

The least that we can do as a community would be protecting our young girls from exploitation and sexual grooming, keeping males away from drugs etc and a community support network that protects the community from outside hostility. What is the point of everything else when we are failing at the basics.

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. 

On 5/23/2019 at 11:40 PM, Jageera said:

How do we change this behaviour Veerji? Any suggestions. If you are free you should start writing an article on this issue with criticisms and solutions step by step. We could make it a group project here with all contributing. Would love to hear more on this.

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. 

On 10/12/2008 at 1:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

i was watcching Jai Hanumaan this morning, and uit feartured the point where Ravan took Sita. When Sita was telling Lakshman to go after Ram Chander, Lakshman took an arrow and cretaed a border round the kutia which would keep Sita safe. He defintley was NOT looking at her feet when he was telling her not to step outside if it. He was looking at her face.

 

The suberp thread of Lakhsman's high moral seems to be lost on the cretaors of this show, and the y are hindus as well.

 

right ,now that ive got that point off my chest im off to tapoban to see what they rattling their cages over.

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. 

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? 

Dalsingh brother is right. You should find a compatible partner and marry.  

6 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Like I said previously, I think it highly likely that she didn't actually planned to have him killed but that banged up Singh might have gone a bit bonkers when he was supposed to just batter him? 

Yeah, that could be.

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? 

21 minutes ago, Jageera said:

So does it mean if her spouse refuses,she can't take Amrit forever? Any way to go around this?

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. 

4 hours ago, Mooorakh said:

 

Thank u so much ji

What to say.. this video made my situation even worse.. cos till now I was under the impression that all I need was his acceptance/ permission but if maryada says that he has to take it alongwith 

Only a miraculous Kirpal can help me now.. practically as per present scenario I am gone, it's impossible. 

Anyway pls pray for me ,is all I can say. Thank u all again for supporting. Atleast now I know m not wrong or stupid in asking or talking about Sikhi

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.

* Bhai sahib Singh

18 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

It's even more murky than that. That first guy allegedly raped her. 

I don't really have much sympathy for rapists myself. 

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? 

Quote

The sister of a police officer, Mahil grew up in Chatham, Kent, dreaming of following in her elder sister’s footsteps and becoming a doctor.

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?  

Quote

When she was arrested for his murder she claimed she had merely wanted him lectured about his attitude to women and expected he would be given ‘a few slaps’ at most.

 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. 

Quote

She showed her cold and calculating side when she dew up a list of pros and cons after Shoker declared his love for her.

After taking him through the list, she concluded they would be better of as ‘good friends’ – but referred to him as ‘my gay friend’ when speaking with others.

 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. 

Quote

Described by Mahil’s defence barrister as an ‘attempted rape’, the alleged offence was never reported to the police but Mahil later underwent counselling.

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. 

Quote

She added: ‘I think the victim was in love with her.

‘He would offer her gifts and things – anything really that she wanted.’

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. 

Quote

Shoker and Peters blamed each other for the killing during the trial, while Mahil claimed she had only ever intended for Mr Singh to be lectured about his attitude to women and had no idea they would set about him with such ferocity.

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? 

Quote

Gagandip was nervous, but eventually agreed to come and arrived bearing a cuddly toy for Mahil. But as he entered her basement room, Shoker – also known as Ravi – and cycle mechanic Peters pounced.

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? 

Quote

During the trial, Mahil claimed she was left ‘traumatised’ by Mr Singh’s beating at the hands of Shoker and Peters, but later admitted she sat down in her kitchen to eat a Key Lime pie minutes after the assault got underway.

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. 

Quote

Det Ch Insp Damian Allain said: ‘Throughout this investigation and trial, Mundill Mahil portrayed herself as a victim, denying in any way she had lured Gagandip to Brighton knowing Shoker and Peters were going to attack him.

‘It is clear to me now, endorsed by the jury’s verdict, that her actions were calculating and that she was at the heart of a criminal conspiracy of tricking Gagandip to Brighton to seriously assault him, which ultimately resulted in his death.

Source: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/mundill-mahil-darren-peters-and-harvinder-shoker/ 

Is there any evidence that suggests he actually raped her? 

@Mooorakh Bhen ji, this a good video.

19 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

You got to say. This b1tch is gangsta.

She obviously has a thing for dastar wearing men of status and wealth. She was allegedly sexually abused (raped) by that TV executive. She got that other Singh (with his gora co-def) to burn his ar5e alive in retaliation. 

Does her time and then comes out and pulls this politician. 

I wonder if she ever gives a thought about the Singh banged up for her? Does she support him? Keep in touch etc. In prison, people might be laughing at that Singh saying, you're doing all this time for this bird and she's gone and married a next geezer. 

I wonder what it is about her that made so many blokes do crazy things around her?

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. 

Why did she get such a light punishment?

Also if I was Bola I wouldn't marry her- just sayin'.