drawrof

Nirmalay with murtian?.....that's a first I've seen samadhs being created for older mahapurash but I do not know of any account of murtian.....please enlighten.

Just an FYI (if not a clarification), The avatarvaad and kala accordance to previous avatars were things that were introduced by pundit tara singh narotam, and his view does not necessarily represent the views of all sikhs, all nirmalay or smurfs for that matter..

I appreciate and welcome harjas kaur to the website. I look forward to reading your posts and learn from them. I would like some clarification in some areas and also get your point of view on the following: Was the term 'snatan' not a collective reaction to the colonial threat? would their imposition of a 'unified India' (I scoff at the Idea of a unified India because it was a subcontinent, not because of diversity but because entrance through the khyber pass and waters were the only way to enter this enclaved set of kingdoms. Mind you, a unified India, I believe was a reaction to imperial nationalism. Before I get typecasted, I'd like to share that my mother's real mamaji was shaheed bhagat singh and that through family, I have been exposed to India's nationalism)not a reaction of the british? I am not supporting khalistan,pakistan,bangladesh...but would they not have the right (by mere historical proofs) to exist as their own countries. Dividing countries on 'imposed' religious differences or accentuated/forumalated religious identities is quite pathetic....the right wing, intolerant, fundamentalists will always be in control. Getting back to the 'snatan' ideal, would a heterolingual society that does not impose 'hindi' as the national language be supported? would it/could it be possible for a sikh to not feel ostracised and picked on? I really like your interpretation of devi/devtay and raags. I see a strong 'saiv' influence in your explanation. how does that fit into 'snatan' thought...some vaishnu's see krishna as god/complete...above nirgun, how does that fit into the theory of devi/devtay... also, I don't believe in a literalist translation of gurbani. If that is what it was meant to be then raag, poetry would not be the mode of communication; It would have been written like a hukamnama. I do believe in the authenticity of 'uthanka's' and would suggest that the fact that guru nanak was talking to a vaishnu pundit from kurukshetar be taken into account when citing the 'ek krishnan'n' tuk. For refrence any sampardai sateek would give the whole story. A vaishnu would not relate to shiv/shakti as readily...if you believe both are the same and it is a semantic issue; I respect that and beg your pardon for putting words in your mouth Please respond jee aya nu

Hindu-ism is a nationalist construct that divides people on religious lines. It is neo-colonial at best, although it started off as a reaction to colonialism, and it makes those who deviate from that 'norm' to feel like 'others'....albeit from a guise of 'we're peaceful and loving'. I don't rank sikh-ism any higher as it uses the same 'constructs' to alienate people. Unity?....that is only present when identities can be fully imbibed and respected, not because they fit a place or a function on an agenda, but rather for the implicit differences that make them unique. That uniqueness was tolerated at one point through a dynamic heterolingual language (khari boli) as the standard language as opposed to 'hindi' being forced upon everyone one. That uniqueness was respected as people didn't fall into the false constructs of an aryan golden age etc etc. If you are asking me if there is a problem between sikhi/gurmat (which I would like your definition of) and 'hindu' iconography which I will accept as 'Indian' then I would say there is no problem. If you were to ask me whether there is a difference between gurmat and hindu-mat....well, I dont' know what hindu-mat is as it is a broad stroking brush that encapsulates everything, but is sikhi indic? of course. Gurmat as a 'mat' is different from other sampardai 'mats'....and those sampardai 'mats' should also be respected for their uniqueness. Can sikhs and hindu's get along? why not? Should there be unnecessary hatred between the 2? of course not....if there is meant to be a dialogue though then the 'hindu masses' must be aware that as a force they are larger and must do their part to make sure sikhs are respected (fairly) and not just seen as a cog of a wheel of a political vehicle.

waheguru is poora, a gurmukh is adhoora......avoid putting people up on pedestals otherwise it'll screw you up eventually as everyone is fallible....Just be careful, faith that person X, experience Y, or fact Z makes something truthful doesn't....Simply, because each of those have passed, are passing, or will pass.. disclaimer: I'm not a brahmgyani and wouldn't know how to discern one...spare me the one liners, unless someone is blessed with the buddhi to know, they can enlighten us.

Fateh ji, I would like to say that N30 veerji, should be less wahabi and see that the world is more about satchitanand108saroop! I also feel that sahej and bibek would be good because it will mean veerji will smile less and be more chardikallah

A video of sheikh farid and discusses guru nanak dev ji's meeting with sheikh ibrahim

We have bigger fish to fry (and pakoray for all the veggie 'massive'). The biggest nashay we have to deal with are kam, krodh, and hankaar...... I think these nashay are lesser in comparison and I'm not justifying anything before it is taken on that tangent.

N30, I would do a cyber-benti for you to give your thoughts on what you've read so far as your priceless gems make all of us go into a stage of antar-anant-sat-chit-anand-mangal-saroop! I also feel, as people who are linked to tsingh, even through a cyberconnection of being part of the same cyber community, we should engage in discussions on various aspects here and be very honest about what we understand and what we don't understand. This will open up dialogue for everyone!

The sheikh ibrahim theory has been purported and preached in the dam-dami taksal and other taksals. The belief is that guru nanak devji's conversation with sheikh ibrahim is what we experience every morning as asa-ki-vaar. In terms of the akj slant, I don't agree with the idea that no one received mukti before guru nanak or whatever is said, BUT I have read giani gurdit's research and to be honest, I find it very convincing. Mind you, I also interpret 'gur' as 'that essence of godliness within us' hence I see the assertation of each of the bhagats learning that god is within them and not a sargun diety to worship as being a kirpa of guru nanak...

TonyHP, In all due fairness, alot happened between 1839 or 1857 and 1920.....The nihangs did go down south and some went to bikaneer (the desert area called 'sri-ganganagar'. I believe the itihaasik gurdwara 'buddha-jor' is there). I encourage people to delve a bit deeper and think about what else was going on at that time. Post 1839, the namdhari's as a group emerged and if you read their own accounts; they mention that kirpans weren't kept and singhs weren't allowed to wear them. That is a reason for why the kirpan was put on the kanga and that some of the singhs of that carried axes and amrit was prepared by an axe. Interestingly, there are pics of 'nihangs' from the 1860's in places like hyderabad and some I believe in the 1880's in and around punjab.......namdhari's claim that nirmallay and nihangs were bought out by the british.... Nihangs like to carry the grudge against nirmallay for the creation of the nirmal panchayati akhara in patiala and how they were installed as caretakers etc etc. to weaken the panth. Could it have been possible that nihangs and the british had also come to an agreement at one time?.....that being said........just because 2 people come to an agreement does not mean that they see eye to eye. The point of contention at this point in this thread and many others is less informed by historical fact and more informed by ideological differences. It is interesting how we try to revert to the 'original' to understand the 'truth'......this is a completely different thread which for me is deep-rooted in sikhs being made 'the other'...or at least feeling that they are the other. We have this tendency to see the world as black and white....well I don't think it ever was and I don't think it will ever be..

Many more factors play into what happened with the annexation of punjab than mere ideological notions. Economics: People were in a position to actually own land now instead of paying revenues for borrowed land. the 'Hal' system of farming also took a back seat Politically: Many of the Malwa Sardars were enjoying their mini-kingdoms as well as the majha sardars who didn't waste a moment to join with the british to keep their status and power. People like dyal singh majithia went to the uk, shorned his kesh, and came back as a pipe smoking supporter of the brahmo samaaj (with his sikh antecedents having little if any regard in his life). Socially: People saw subservience to the british forces as a sign of prosperity. One could receive and 'own' land for their services. A middle class was on the uprise. People were enjoying the new system and sought to increase their current social and economic standing. There are many more angles and points which can be added to and could be used to refute some of what I just posted above. There was a system that was going through a dynamic change and adaptation by the socially and economically mobile was much quicker........ A poor village person's view and a middle-upper class city dweller would see the world differently as the changes would effect each according to their status in society..... Print/Press culture changed alot and shaped alot of what was going on. I find it interesting how people bring up the lahore vs. amritsar singh sabha debate...clearly by virtue of framework, lahore was going to win out because they worked into the new framework which promised more to the people...regardless of subjugation. please add more...

I don't think is acceptable at all...I see it happen alot here in Canada....It is part of that self-ingrained hate people have for their own kind...whatever 'own' kind means. I see it being used by people to put down others...who are not that different from them, but this word seems to give people a sense of empowerment because they can raise their nose up at others. Sadly, you'll have a contingent of people out there saying 'Oh it's all in good fun' not realising that they feel they are more accepted and want to just mitigate the hurt and feeling of isolation that the word creates.

Sadh Sangat ji, Waheguru ji ka khalsa, Waheguru ji ki fateh. I just came across the katha of gur partap sooraj granth-sooraj parkash by Gyani Takhur Singh. he talks about Mata Sahib kaur at 8:30 seconds in the 3rd file of the first volume. Please listen and if anyone can kindly put the link up ( I obviously don't know how). I think it would be very nice. Also, I love the prem-bhav the katha of taksali singhs evokes in the sangat

Here is a beautiful article by Prof. Balbinder Singh Bhogal commemorating the 300th anniversary of GURTA GADDI DIWAS of SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB: When I talk to my mind, I talk to myself through others. I thought I'd share some of the things I say to myself as the things others say to me. The voice of a Sikh Guru does not merely receive the power of the Voice of God in baanii (mysticism), but this revealed voice is also the voice of speaking truth to power (politics). It is not quietist. As Guru Nanak speaks against Babur, so does Guru Gobind Singh speak against Aurangzeb. The Sikh Guru is not meek and mild, he is humble and just - but in a way that is as extraordinary as it is "natural". If, then, revelation is as much about gaining a voice as it isreceiving a voice, then the writing of my Guru, the Guru Granth Sahib is intimately connected to a politico-mysticalsubjectivity deep within me yet to be born. If a Gurmukh is not only facing-the-Guru but becoming faceless, then walking the path of Sikhi is as much a path of self-discovery than it is a following of the Gurus. I walk to the Guru, walking backwards into myself. But becoming faceless means there is no inside nor outside. The Name is within and without. I also walk to the Guru when I walk with the truesangat in the world of suffering and justice. I walk truth when I enter the event of each moment without I. If God and haumai are mutually exclusive when it comes to love, then meeting my Guru demands the death of my ego; uniting with the Guru is as much a loss of a self I have grown addicted to as it is meeting a Being within my being that I have overlooked and neglected. If walking in His will, as it is written, is a code beyond formulation (since it involves the uncountable details of everyday life, in complex relations to all beings and things, a code that may be unveiled in any and every lived moment, then I cannot know how to walk it. Walking itself becomes a metaphor. Being and becoming speak more to the reality of such a "walking". I move without moving; to be without being - this is not Shakespeare's dualistic either-or choice. Sahaj is not "going with the flow". Nor is Sahaj flow itself; it is an unforeseen falling, not knowing when the landing will arrive. The ego trips and falls, for there are always things the ego cannot see nor foresee. That free fall is usually arrested immediately. Too much freedom is hell for the ego. How to accustom the ego to visit this hell more? One cannot set out to achieve this fall by the ego, since the ego is addicted to calculation and willful behavior. Nor can one be care-free, for so long as the ego maintains centre-stage, being carefree slips into being careless. From one extreme of stubborn self-will to the other of a laissez-faire acquiescence is the world of haumai bound: walking His Will is not a matter of standing by a self-assertion, nor is it letting things be. Walking in His Will is often a mist of love, where visibility is rare but the presence of soft rain invigorates as it soothes. That mist is a sacred cloud of unknowing in which The Unpredictable and Unexpected circle. To enter the mist - one has to be willing to sacrifice all things, objects, but most difficult of all, ideas - especially about who one thinks one is. Sikhi is not a rulebook of clear and distinct ideas yielding black-and-white injunctions, but a song that enraptures and transports one into a mist of love and insight. One cannot be rigid and absolutist, for God does not obey human desire. No. There is a surprise essential to life, a mist that blinds. Have you noticed it? Sahaj is by accident. The beatific moment comes to you despite your practice, it does not come as the culmination of any practice: It finds you, you do not find It. One trips. And then we see that tripping, that slipping, that fall as instigated by the hand of God. There was something I kept overlooking, until someone or something made me slip. Luckily, I did not curse nor judge, but entered the moment of the fall without thought. Then I saw something unexpected. Then I saw something unexpected. And tears roll down my face. Like in a dream. Little wonder dreams are more real than life - we have them in a dark mist of surprise. I cannot fall by pretending to slip over, for slipping over stops the habituated mind and thus falling cannot be consciously enacted, for one cannot be consciously unconscious. The fall is unpredictable. The out of the blue is out of God. The mist truly blinds the ego and humbles it. Tripping out of the ego is not something the ego knows how to do. In fact it is the only knowledge the ego will not and cannot master nor entertain - the ego's clumsy attempt fashioning a fall is tripping in the drug sense - which takes us on a false journey only to return us two steps behind where we started, burnt out. We need the Guru to surprise us out of our conscious minds through the unpredictable events that make up our lives. That's why the Guru does not say this is the truth listen to me, but rather, just mind your step and listen - be awake when you fall, for all beings fall, but few listen without imposing fearful judgments. Absorb the trip and where it takes you: listen to what life is telling you, and you will be shown a world you had not thought possible. But the surprises in dreams, as those rare events in life, are hard to interpret. Interpretation requires maturity of character and a skill that cannot be taught apart from the events of everyday life. When the accident is listened to without judgment then the slip is fortuitous - it yields a treasure. But this treasure is often contrary to what the ego imagines as treasure; hard to see a treasure in a broken leg, in a broken spine, in a death. Hard indeed. The ego has great difficulty with failure, violence and suffering, needs someone to make the enemy, someone to blame and crucify. Secularism, rationalism are such comfortable blankets for the ego - the trouble is they often come with disguised resentments which do not resolve inner doubt and pain, for blaming the other for one's own myopia never really satisfies. But when the fall is entered without thought then the Accident becomes the Voice of the Guru. The Guru arrests the haumai-mind through the event of a fall the ego cannot predict. The Guru, the Event are before choice arises. The Word is the surprising turn of events that we cannot write ourselves. The events I did and did not listen to - that is the backbone to my life. How many events I completely missed, how many I miss-interpreted and how many I half-interpreted. And how odd that when an interpretation is insightful and true, it rarely yields a law beyond the context of one's own life-world. We move in an unknowable but oddly familiar narrative written by our past actions (karam) "and" the hand of God (nadar). When we look forward, we see only what the ego can imagine (desire). When we look back, we see the unimaginable events of our life, the writing of a mysterious Hand, a great unpredictable narrative that is utterly remarkable, lest we judge and resent the cards dealt us. But how not to resent our fates? Even so, is it not telling that so many when asked to look back reply "I wouldn't change a thing"? If His ways, or in short, life, cannot be calculated, then reason is a severely limited tool to forge truth, a small torch in the mist of life. If He cannot be counted and His ways, our events, are beyond rational structure, then I am, at root, a story that cannot be told, a stranger to myself that I can never name. Can I rest in the Unknown and Unknowable, the Incalculable? Can reason countenance the unpredictable as a higher principle? Can the ego come to terms with not knowing? Can I will the death of my own ego without committing suicide? Can the self forget itself by an act of will? Can an ego escape Life's law (hukam)? How, then, to be true? How to break the Wall of Falsehood? How to fall freely and listen? How to enter each moment as an Event of unforeseeable possibility? How to enter the mist? Walk in His Will as it is Written. If the unwritable is written, then we can have some access to His Ways. We have the pages of an untellable and unfinishable string of experiences from and within and about the Mist. We're caught and lost somewhere in the middle, always in the middle of the Guru Granth Sahib - a book that has only a middle. What if the Guru Granth Sahib is such a Book of Mist? Unfinishable. Deep beyond measure - where page 1 is not page 1 and page 1430 is not 1430? What if His Word does not live in words comfortably? What if the Word is too big to be told in words? What if His Name is the World but otherwise - the World we cannot measure and grasp? What kind of world is it when one cannot name it? Is the world as Name then pure imagination? Where is the Guru talking to me from if not on my reciting and singing tongue? How does the Guru speak to me if not through my own mind? Which voices of my mind are the Guru's? What is the nature of this mist? What if the Mind is what calculates? Then the mind is that which needs to be sacrificed to hear the Word Name God. One has to leave the mind at the door of the mist - but the entrance is hidden - hidden in the surprise of the event of the everyday - hidden in the quality of one's engagement. How to listen without the mind? Like a child, better still, an animal. The animal, the plant, the elemental is the Mist in raw beauty. How to love? What to love? Who to love? Love the Creation as the miraculous work of the Creator, like a fish "loves" the water: without water a fish cannot be, nor is water an object to the fish that it admires or can have likes or dislikes about; the sufferings and challenges that come as the events of our lives are the very stuff that breath life into our lungs. Life is suffering and so much more. The Khalsa is that being that thrives on this recognition: Life is Death, Live to Die! The very things that most of us try to avoid are the very things that would give us life. How many run after happiness and become grey with abundance of material wealth, and those that suffer daily poverty still share their food, color and conviviality. Loving life for what it is (storm and calm sea) is not a matter of acceptance, it is not an ideology, nor a thought-system: it involves a severely dashed and broken heart wherein dwells only the love of a fish gasping for water: water is not an object; water is life. God is not a choice; God is the event of renewal. O mind, love the Lord, as the lotus loves the water. Tossed about by the waves, it still blossoms with love. In the water, the creatures are created; outside of the water they die. [sri Rag, Guru Nanak] Love God without thought. Feel. What if the ego that claims respect, only speaks for the body? What about the body of the Name? The body of the Word? The Body of the Guru? The body of the Fish, the Animal, the Child? To remember the elemental body. The body that feels, senses, absorbs. If I am not (only) my body, for I have emotions, and I am not only my emotions for I have a mind, and I am not only my mind for I have a soul, and I am not only a soul for I am inseparable from That which is, for there is no other nor second (avar-na-duja), then I am not what I think I am and can never be what I think I am. Does this not then make me a permanent stranger to myself? But this strangeness within me is blissful, fearless, formless, and sovereign - it permeates the animal kingdom in subconscious state. And it is only strange from the perspective of the wounded and dying ego, otherwise it is home. I want to be at home with the animal that I am. I am mystery unfathomable. If my nature truly is without limit then I am possibility, I am life, I am the force of Nature. I am strength. I am beauty. I am carefree. I am unmovable like a mountain and shapeless as water. I am elemental. I am unimaginable. I am mist. I am beyond morality. I am beyond the human. I am dedicated to being without question. I am a sublime animal - never walking out of line with Natural Law, the writing of Nature, the Body of God functioning unpredictably. How to recover the animal I already am? Get the ego to sing of Him, so much so that when the singing no longer has a singer, there is only the song, then I return to the song, the universe in all its petals sings, because singing has no audience, for singing is life. The leaf only sings. The animal only sings. Sky, sea, land sing - nature, creation is a singing. Have I sung this song yet, the song that Guru Nanak and others sang without thought, without desire to represent some truth? This song that is not an argument but the natural sound of form, that comes freely and touches those capable of hearing, the song that is not sung by a singer, but comes as a Gift to all, like the mist? And has this authorless song evaporated my human self? No. But do I believe it can? Yes. Why? Because I know when I am loving I sing, and I disappear momentarily.... and the world blossoms from the dew of my engagement.... *** This is how I've been talking to myself through others lately. It will change as relations of love always change. I'd like to read, sing, recite a little more of these middle pages of my life, of this dimension-less writing, this incalculable book of unfinishablerasa and mist, my elemental Guru. My guru and I are not two in the event of life's unpredictable moments - we meet in the mist of surprise, for my Master is perpetually new, and ever and ever the Giver.

I think sadh janna are those people who have done the kirat that has resulted in them being blessed with brahm gyan....I don't think this is limited to any one 'mat', but it would seem natural for a person to be more drawn to an individual who is walking the path of their own guru/murshi/baba and their respective 'mat'

aah yes 'the very un-christian like form of boxing'. Never knock a man for his knowledge...- drawrof

If this law is a way to make sure everyone (non-muslims included) are forced to fast, that isn't right. For the person without faith, you are inadvertently forcig them to 'starve' in public. If it applies only to muslims, then I do hope that those people who are not able to fast (as per the laws of islam) are given their rights..... Apart from that, It really doesn't concern me....but I like 'dhimmian' over 'bandhay' because I'm siddha and not binga

On a serious note, Thank you guys for actually turning this topic constructive

what's 'dhimmi'?

Waheguru ji ka khalsa, Sri Waheguru ji ki fateh! Sangat jio, I feel we should not promote this video on this website ji <much of it because of what kids learn from this site>. They have disgraced the puratan gora tradition of lalkaara with a british influenced type of lalkara making them ghoray....That is what the puraanay goray babay called the fake goray...ghoray. As you can see this ghora did not have the right jungee baana. The tradition is puratan and bau-panthi but they keep a strict rehit of a white t-shirt, jeans, doc martins and a shaved head....those are the real goray of today. Their ghoray counterparts look the same but are known to roam around stevenage and consider themselves to be 'tat' goray and they are also know as CHAVS. I feel in promoting this on this site we are disrepecting the spectacle wearing, suspender-clad, moustached brylcreemed puratan babbay!

Hi Folks, This is a very interesting take on gurmat. There is something about his katha which is simple, non-conformist and yet it is interesting. This is a sniplet and there is more.

Laziness was always there......distractions were always there....These people were probably called 'terrorists' by their kin in their time...similarly the honest jhujaroos are called terrorists by their kin now as well.....Same cycle, modern wheel.

Ji, Majh mahala 5, mera man lochai= correspondence between guru arjan sahib and guru ram dass where prithi chand's 'mina' tendencies got their credence. This ended with guru sahib bestowing guruship on guru arjan sahib. Teja singh bhasaur (not bashing the fellow here)wanted this bani to be removed from guru granth sahib as it wasn't 'akash' bani according to his standard, as guru sahib was not even guru at this point according to his theory. The dohra in 9me patshah de salok is another correspondence between gurus as that was guru tegh bahadur sahib and the dohra is 10me patshahji's.

Been to punjab, No one I saw respected Nihangs. Many disliked them for allowing their horses to graze their crops. Mind you, They don't respect the akali dal anymore (well they did when badal gave free electricity). Truth be told, alot of people are romantics. This romance is manifested as either a like for one group or another (and their supposed hey-day), a sant in particular, or a supposed ideology and or faith....getting to the meat of things(or tofu of things for the vegetarians) is really an eye opening experience.