Mr_D

Don't rely on Macleod for studying Sikhism. His work does have a place, but it shouldn't be the main focus of Sikh studies. His work is critical, to say the least. If you put your faith in his facts, there's not much left of the Sikhi most of us know of. He's non-Sikh and was educated to be a missionary. He's now an atheist. Don't expect him to contradict his atheist belief. He believes Sikhism (as taught by the Gurus) is flawed and contradictory, like any other religion. This is important to note before jumping into his books.

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

I like the online steek by Prof Sahib Singh. Check it out.

Harbans Singh Doabia has the best pronounciation. You can do nitnem without even reading Gurmukhi, if that's what you need. Some of the other english gutkas use old english and use overly complicated words. Comparing his translations with Prof Sahib Singh ji's Punjabi steek( one the best so far), I would say it is one the best translations. I actually tried this. Read the Punjabi translation and then read the english translation. I would say that Harbans Singh ji is very good.

I have the nitnem and sukhmani gutkas by Harbans Singh Doabia. I have english gutkas from two other authors aswell, And I must say Harbans Singh is much better. I think he has done the best translation/transliteration so far. Don't expect every author to have the exact translations. There are literally hundreds of different translations of Japji sahib, and as Sant Singh Maskeen said, they are all correct in their own way. If the translation doesn't contradict gurmat, then it should be valued.

You know most of those guys are amritdharis. Just cause they kicked you out (lol, the reason is funny) doesn't make them un-Sikh. Just chill out and take a breather.

SikhSangat is cool in it's own way. Some people are sensitive and can't handle some of the nonsense on many unmoderated forums. I think the only thing they do is keep "controversial" subjects out. Whenever things heat up, they lock the threads. Anyway, it's cool to post there sometimes because it's more laid back and calm. Sukhi, maybe Sikhsangat just isn't for you.

Classic Arya Samaj tactics, now adpoted by the Hindutva thumpers. -reduce Guru Nanak and the other Gurus to mere mortals with failings and mistakes -Show Guru Gobind Singh as a crusader against Islam -say that the Khalsa was created as an army force, nothing spiritual (I find this the funniest since they should explain how the Sikhs were armed from the time Guru Hargobind ji) -equate Guru Granth sahib with an idol I've noticed these as being some the most repeated points that these Hindu extremists make.

Sorry dude, but that's just too hilarious. lol He said he'd pray for your weight...lol Gyani hit squad....lol.....but be carefull, Gyanis are gonna get you good if you arouse their gussa.

Males and females are made different and act different, we all know this. Bhagati, or devotion towards God, is very feminine. The Bani of Guru Granth sahib ji is feminine ( vast majority). Kirtan is feminine. Strength is masculine. Power and control in masculine. Leadership is masculine. Dhadi vaars are masculine. Sexy singh, my only cautionary words will be to not manipulate history, ideals, values, scripture to come to your conclusion (whatever it is). I’m not accusing you of doing this, but just cautioning you. Take the example of the Guru’s not being female, lets not take our assumptions to mean anything more than what they are, assumptions. Given that the male is dominant, which I agree with, what privilege does that give? I know someone already asked you this, but I’ll ask again, doesn’t your wife also have the right to screw other guys because she doesn’t get the wild love she may want? I think it’s a case of give and get. I can understand if you want to be in control, but does it mean you have the exclusive right to have sex outside of marriage? I think these questions will hep you make up your mind, hopefully. p.s why don’t you think your wife will enjoy passionate round the clock sex?

I doubt Budhism was ever an all prevading religion in India. I think it was probably viewed as the "latest" revealtion of a sage. I don't think Indians had a concept of Hinduism and the "others". Hinduism always had more history behind it, so Budhism couldn't possibly delete a mammoth faith group like that. Plus, I don't think the Budhist ideal of non-violence and living in poverty made any die-hard Budhists. Just some personal thoughts.