drawrof

I didn't message my ego at all, but it made me scratch my 'tidh' as that was getting a bit itchy...btw, didn't some dude by the name of Fransisco Jose Luis do a translation of the account?

does it not make sense though?

Drawrof is thinking a bit forward and I heard 2 things which struck deep chords in me... The first is how I sometimes feel when people are singing kirtan ..... He’s the one Who likes all our pretty songs And he likes to sing along And he likes to shoot his gun But he knows not what it means Knows not what it means When I say He’s the one Who likes all our pretty songs And he likes to sing along And he likes to shoot his gun But he knows not what it means knows what it means when I say yeah More times than not, this underlying principle governs those who sing, who will then revert to...'guru knows' (with that pious 'I know I am dignified because guruji loves me') answer. The other words which echoed what I feel society's true state is..... You know the day destroys the night Night divides the day Tried to run Tried to hide Break on through to the other side Break on through to the other side Break on through to the other side, yeah We chased our pleasures here Dug our treasures there But can you still recall The time we cried Break on through to the other side Break on through to the other side I put all these lyrics together and realised this is the state of society in general!

I think it started in the 70's in the UK

I take that as insult!!!! you've only covered the obesity of my stomach with that one....I've been working my 'derrierre' by eating 3 helpings of kheer...that way I can 'drop it like its hawt!

No worries chatanga, I know you love me and you have that 'pyaar' in your heart...stop being so difficult and come on...give me a hug!!!

I'm sikh! I'm greedy too!

I have met a fervent khalistani supporter in the last few months who felt it was 'absolutely justified' to sell drugs to fund the khalistani campaign....That disgusted me, but what sickened me through and through is that he said 'singhs can sell drugs so long as it doesn't get to 'our' kids'.....I lost it right there and then. I said 'where did guru nanak differentiate and FAVOR people based on their ethnic or religious identity?...this duality and fight between good and evil being the 'nature' of creation seems to stem back to the classical ormazud vs. ahriman from zoroastrianism...but I don't want to give my khalistani buddy that much credit, he is too pompous and arrogant as a human to even fathom that! I think I've said this before...but why is it that sikhs want khalistan but have done next to nothing to help the delhi sikhs who suffered the lashbacks of the attack on Indira gandhi?...I hate to say but someone needs to....was it because they weren't punjabi? or was it simply because they were considered 'neemi jaath' (low caste) as the figures indicate that the majority were labannay (and for anyone who wants to spin this off into a caste debate, don't waste your time...The fact that you are reacting has indicated that my point has hit home!)

The problem here is reducing everything down to processes...this is a negative approach towards religion. If we can agree that guru nanak was the avtar in kalyug, then guru nanak is the full manifestation of what we can possibly perceive...meaning that 'yes' mahapurash are there, but there purpose is to exemplify that the one within and the one without are actually one....and their presence is enough of a witness to the fact. What happens too much these days is that we try to enforce what we want our guru to be instead of letting it unravel itself....I mean if it were in our control, wouldn't the 'grace' element be irrelevant? Now, in terms of what Tsingh said above with the definition of OM, I am going to give a thinkset that I believe pervades most of our parchar. We are encouraged to respect mahapurash. In this case gyani takur singh, who is a great kathavaachik, purports a view that has a specific aim....that means that the plethora of info that gyani sundar singh ji:Gyani gurbachan singh ji: would be channeled down in a way to address a particular point. This point does have other perspectives...they could have been explained at other points in time, but my point here boils down to the fact that many people spent their lives reconciling their personal spiritual growth with the current trends of spiritual scholarship at the time...and each would come to their own conclusion as to how they'd interpret their respective revelation and that revelation in itself would not be the gospel truth...we need to be mindful to not look at thigns that way. The reason why mahapurash of the past were so wise was because many WERE vidhvaans and they would do their equivalentn of comparatiive study to understand and later preach a view. Let me give an example here. 'es dehi ko simrai dev'....one view point is that 'even devtay are yearning for this body'....another viewpoint is that 'devtay are above humans in their development of life form and this could be a metaphor for their desire to become one with the one'....

It isn't that simple either, for some reason people feel annihilation of who you have been up until that 'magic' point occurs....is sikhi really that negative? As for the 'snatan' thing. Well it is a construct that I believe came into vogue during a questionable time of transition where everything from the economy to the social milieu was undergoing change. Does it make it authentic? does it mean anything which is against today's 'norm' is authentic? does it mean that sikhi is 'snatan'?..... As much as I have respect for those who dived into things deeply (as I guess I have a tendency to do at times), I wonder...what about the average joe bloggs/jeet singh/jora das...who experienced something moving/stirring when in sangat or by chance or in prachar....and decided to imbibe that goodnes....would they have run to find authenticity? or just took what they could till the had the inner volition to go further (which I am totally in support of)? The tendencies of jatha's/groups etc. today is to find means for elitism...an aggrandization one self through some authenticated or falsely substantiated 'perceived' norm. Kharag Singh, I do hope that sikhs as a group move away from 'reductionist' tendencies and actually see that 'life' (in general) is quite 'fluid' (although this is a word people don't like...I myself prefer the bluey/gray color)...

Let us define Vedanta before we actually go into this. Otherwise we get caught into a debate of 'structures'.

AMRIT PEEE0-VAH, WAHEGURU...WAHEGURU, WAHEGURU, WAHEGURU...GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU GRU....WAHEGURU!

I believe sikhi is 'deformed hinduism'. My reason for that is that I see hinduism as a construct created to appropriate a socio-religio-cultural title single banner for a pantheon of beliefs, people and practices....so why is sikhi a deformed hinduism...well in a positive sense, sikhi would have been a desconstruction of this, but in a negative sense...our punjabayat based panthic banner is a deformed version of this.

Xylitol, would it be that we gain more energy or is it that we become more open to seeing virtue...in that sense, since it is all god/guru's grace, would the simran not be a reflexive action which occurs because the grace has already happened?....how can we have more of the one which is already beyond abundance but appears as the pinnacle/epitome of abundance for us, those who can only understand quantifiable measures?

Hi Chatanga, no I am not talking about richard burton the actor...This was a researcher/indologist

That was a mistake, but I'm glad you took enough care to read through it 6 times....In the future, you should be well equipped to answer the question...Maha

There is a text, written by richard burton, on his trip to sindh...he mentions udasis giving amrit. They mention akali's and the other sikhs (who were sahejdhari)...I saw it in my university library. One thing I'd like to point out chatanga is that one incident does not substantiate a normative practice any more than repetition of a proposed ideal makes it any more substantial...hence we have to sit there and think about where we stand on many issues and try to make the best judgement therein. This isn't a personal attack on you in any way, I don't mean for it to come across that way either

There is a text, written by richard burton, on his trip to sindh...he mentions udasis giving amrit. They mention akali's and the other sikhs (who were sahejdhari)...I saw it in my university library. One thing I'd like to point out chatanga is that one incident does not substantiate a normative practice any more than repetition of a proposed ideal makes it any more substantial...hence we have to sit there and think about where we stand on many issues and try to make the best judgement therein. This isn't a personal attack on you in any way, I don't mean for it to come across that way either

There is a text, written by richard burton, on his trip to sindh...he mentions udasis giving amrit. They mention akali's and the other sikhs (who were sahejdhari)...I saw it in my university library. One thing I'd like to point out chatanga is that one incident does not substantiate a normative practice any more than repetition of a proposed ideal makes it any more substantial...hence we have to sit there and think about where we stand on many issues and try to make the best judgement therein. This isn't a personal attack on you in any way, I don't mean for it to come across that way either

There is a text, written by richard burton, on his trip to sindh...he mentions udasis giving amrit. They mention akali's and the other sikhs (who were sahejdhari)...I saw it in my university library. One thing I'd like to point out chatanga is that one incident does not substantiate a normative practice any more than repetition of a proposed ideal makes it any more substantial...hence we have to sit there and think about where we stand on many issues and try to make the best judgement therein. This isn't a personal attack on you in any way, I don't mean for it to come across that way either

There is a text, written by richard burton, on his trip to sindh...he mentions udasis giving amrit. They mention akali's and the other sikhs (who were sahejdhari)...I saw it in my university library. One thing I'd like to point out chatanga is that one incident does not substantiate a normative practice any more than repetition of a proposed ideal makes it any more substantial...hence we have to sit there and think about where we stand on many issues and try to make the best judgement therein. This isn't a personal attack on you in any way, I don't mean for it to come across that way either

There is a text, written by richard burton, on his trip to sindh...he mentions udasis giving amrit. They mention akali's and the other sikhs (who were sahejdhari)...I saw it in my university library. One thing I'd like to point out chatanga is that one incident does not substantiate a normative practice any more than repetition of a proposed ideal makes it any more substantial...hence we have to sit there and think about where we stand on many issues and try to make the best judgement therein. This isn't a personal attack on you in any way, I don't mean for it to come across that way either

Yes sir, The font that you used wasn't unicode. That means that it isn't transferable to other computers or systems that don't share the same font. If you download the following fonts...paint brush it and then go back and do the same on the other comp. you are set. http://salrc.uchicago.edu/resources/fonts/...lable/sanskrit/ cheers

LOL (usually I find this stuff mean, but this one has me on the floor)

tsingh paaji, please have more sharda! das is doing benti to your charan-sharan-varan-