Niranjana

That's fine Matheen, however Karamjeet, like other similar "Sikh 20 year old adults" who obviously are not married (let alone having ever had a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, save perhaps for the Bhaji-Bhenji club during the University Sikh Society Samosa party) seems to think its within his ability to advise married Sikh couples about their sex lives.

Masturbation invites negative entities/spirits to you, making naam jap very difficult. so masturbation should be avoided at all costs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please expand on what "negative entities/spirits" you refer to, this would be interesting to understand. You seem like you're an educated man, so I would be grateful for a fairly comprehensive answer as this is something I personally do not understand.

what so sick about this? a black girl in USA was kidnapped by some white guys, she was made to eat (admin-cut) of rat, rabbits and then human (admin-cut) and raped several times. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes you are right, what's so sick about this, when we have to have your retarded comments to read. Do you even realise the stupidity of your comments?

w-bol, please comment on the subject at hand. Can we put this to bed, as I and many others would like to see the arguments discussed rather than learn any more about Singho and Javanmard's personality or lifestyle, positive or negative.

Certain scholars view the Gyanratnavali (Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi) being influenced by Bala and Vilayatwali janamsakhis, although it doesn’t mention the character of Bala until the Udasi to the north, which interestingly is commonly cited in arguments for the non-existence of Bala, rather than what the janamsakhi appears to indicate (i.e. Bala only accompanied Guru Nanak in his latter travels). It also asserted that this janamsakhi bases its commentary on the visit to Mecca on “Macce di Gosht†(aka “Paknamaâ€) by Rukn-ud-Din, text considered to be written after the Vilayatwali, Miharban and Bala janamsakhis. It is interesting to note that this is the only janansakhi to relate in extensive detail that visit of Guru Nanak to Mecca-Medina and in addition to the assertion concerning the Shivling presence at Mecca as highlighted by Tony above, it also claims that the Islamic revulsion for pork arises because of God’s incarnation as “Varah†avtar. Unsurprisingly, some scholars dispute the authorship of this text, attributing it to someone within Bhai Mani Singh’s congregation. As with other historical texts, many stories have subsequently been propagated by latter texts such as Gur Bilas Patshahi 6 which claims that it is based upon a katha that Bhai Mani Singh relayed to Bhai Bhagat Singh. In view of the discussion thus far on this thread however, I would point out the following as my 2 cents: - The comments provided by Tony would appear valid with regard to the use of this text by JM, however it does not necessarily negate their comments concerning the historical attitudes towards Shias compared to Sunnis, as whoever the author of the janamsakhi, it clearly presents at the very least an account of certain prevalent thoughts within the then contemporary community. - Over and above this, as per T Singh’s comments from several months back concerning JM’s assertion, the above begins to highlight (admittedly at a high level) the scholarly issues prevalent with making conclusions from such heavy reliance on a single janamsakhi. - Finally, for what it’s worth, I would like to clarify that JM and Singho are separate individuals and not the same person with different user IDs as this continued assertion is beginning to cloud discussions which I personally as a avid reader would rather not happen, since the arguments from both sides are interesting to read, however risk becoming more focused with personalities rather than the subject matter.

Matheen, This is precisely my point. Whilst w-bol hasn't as yet on this thread gone this far, his line of argument is heading down the same route as many Sikh Preachers, which usually works along the following example: 1. Raise an issue through finding some objectionable practice in another religion (usually Hinduism for most), such as gender equality or rituals for instance. 2. Dwell on the point for a while to drum up at best a low-opinion of the subject matter and the religion being assessed (usually incorrectly). 3. Then for the conclusion come in with a thundering finale about how only Sikhi provides solace and overcomes these negative aspects and therefore is the one true path and so on and so forth. This type of preaching is admittedly common amongst all faiths (sadly) and to a degree can be seen as a reaction by the Sikhs, however it has done nothing to promote Sikhi and done a lot to damage it and partly explains the activities of say the RSS and others in the petty tit-for-tat war over historical and scriptural revisionism that has unfortunately resulted from it.

As for sants in our own community, lets not forget that we have had some of the greatest sants like Baba Nand Singh Sahib, Sant Ishar Singh, Sant Harnaam Singh Rampur Khere waley and the names go on ... ... Yes, there are some fake dudes also, but a true sant is one that will talk about the SGGS only ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the same token, the true Mahatma will talk about the Vedas et al only, the true Saint will refer only to the Bible, the true Iman to the Koran and so forth...

amrikans are fools.. the real United States of America belong to Native Indians. Texas, New Mexico all belonged to Mexico. They talk about freedom and liberty but they themselves conquerored and captured Natives ------------------------------------------------------------------ So now all "Amrikans" are fools! I recall they were your saviours against Iran back during your discussions with Singho and JM? By the way, not to argue semantics but to suggest that the "real United States of America belong to Native Indians" doesn't make sense, since the "United States of America" was created by legal constitution not by the Native Aboriginals. I'm only highlighting this, since using the type of language you are spewing and thought-process you are elucidating will only cause someone in Deep Singh's shoes more trouble than help solve anything. Shaheediyan, thanks for your post - as you suggest, it is best to be aware of one's rights rather than relying on quirky one-liner responses.

If you go and see in buddhism, anyone who has meditated for a few years and had some uncommon spiritual experiences, becomes a Guru and begins to lead other students, same also goes for Hinduism, where we can see so many swamis, mahatmas just popping up, who after having few ridhi sidhis become Gurus themsleves. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W-Bol, the same is true for Sikhs today - anyone with a White Chola and round White Turban becomes a Sant, the reality is that whilst people may insist that this is our Sant, and the Sri Guru Granth Sahib our Guru, they are in fact treating the Sant or "Spiritual Teacher" like a Guru. Perhaps have a closer look into the traditions you mentioned and have more open mind as opposed to judging everything at face value - the problems you keep highlighting with other religions are evident within the Sikh community too - no one group is exempt, however just like the Sikh community may not always live up to Sikh ideals, the same goes for any other community, so in summary, please get off this "let's big up ourselves and put everyone else down" type attitude that can be found amongst Sikhs today from the likes of you through to parcharaks and gyanis. Let's not forget you have already made "death threats" on this forum which are in many legal jurisdictions, including that of your own country, a criminal offence, yet it is very easy to pick up another community for similar actions.

Let's hear it.

w-bol wrote: Leaving everything to Guru Maharaaj doesnt mean becoming lazy and drinking tea and getting diabetics. leaving everything to Guru Maharaaj means... loosing yourself in Guru's naam simran and continuous rememberance and surrender to God ..that is what is called leaving everything to Guru ji. If you drank all the tea and got yourself diabetes, that means you surrendered yourself to the desire of Tea, you didnt leave everything to Guru Maharaaj. -------------------------------- Yes, thanks for spelling out the obvious from my earlier post. The point that I was trying to highlight is the danger in making such a wide statement as "leave it all to Guru Maharaj" and the example I have is a realistic one, one that I've encountered time and time again using a twisted and flawed understanding of this phrase.

Very nice - Admin, please lock this thread, this discussion will not go anywhere, it's only continue to circle around issues that have been discussed 100x on this forum and elsewhere, those are unhappy being veggies or meat-eaters and want to change can easily find this info online and on this site, discussed to death from both sides.

Let's cut to the chase guys: Keeping uncut hair as done by Singhs, will eventually result in a receding hairline (regardless of how 'long' the actual strands may or may not grow). Leaving aside the cosmic 'it helps meditation' points, tying the beard has the exact same effect on the beard hairs as a top knot has on the Kesh of the head, it is only exaggerated by the use of hair fixers and the like, however these can be avoided depending on the method of tying employed. I personally keep my beard open on most occasions (i.e. 99% of the time), however my beard is barely a fist long and I have little to be concerned about compared to others with consdirably longer facial hair - as Kavita pointed out, there are genuine reasons for others to tie theirs. This whole argument of 'seena-baseena' is nothing but a convenient argument, the AKJ love using it for their sarablohi rehit and hyper ventilating simran sessions, others for something else, like all fundamentalists, their position is ultimately that today the mainstream are not aware of certain practices of the ancients, so we need to correct it, however the sources of their evidence for what the ancients supposedly did are invariably highly questionable.

The above posts (pro and anti meat) are equally hilarious and frankly a pitiful testimony to the backward mindset of Sikhs, who have almost 60 something years after similar discussions were raised last century (and even then because of heretical bigots who choose to deny Gurbani and then see fit to reinvent rehit), still continue to argue over the same small insignificant topic.

This whole thing is a non-issue, yet Sikhs love to keep beating it on the head again and again. Site Admin - please lock down these meat-discussions, I recall SAdmin doing just that a few years back on an extensive thread concerning this topic, anyone wanting to explore it further can look it up on those threads and links provided therein. The Sikh Rehit maryada is very clear on this topic - the only restriction is on Halal Meat. We can argue semantics about what is Halal and what isn't, what is Kutha and what isn't, but that's why you have a choice, if you don't want to eat it, fine don't, if your latest Baba requires you to be a veggie or a vegan, then fine, these are your choices. Let's close this ridiculous topic.

w-bol, actually the stance you are taking is common amongst many Sikh today - being lazy, because Guru Maharaj will sort it all out. This type of thinking then extends to situations such as the rise of diabetics in the Sikh community, the response to which is usually, "well, its hukam, but Guru Maharaj will sort it out, I'll keep knocking back the sugar-filled teas and jalebis". I have met many "Gyanis" in person and on-line who subscribe to this type of attitude and frankly it's pathetic.

I'm sure most of us have come across the much famed Richard Dawkins and his series of scientific bestsellers, notably "The God Delusion". Whilst Dawkins' own attitude towards creationists (not too far from the 'don't argue with fools, they only bring you down to their own level and beat you with experience'), is one that I've personally held towards most critics of religious belief, particularly in view of them typically coming from backgrounds of Abrahamic/Sematic traditions and their arguments/issues not necessarily being applicable to Dharmic/Indic traditions (for want of better terms). That said, the below is a summarisation of Dawkins main arguments, some of which I would be interested to learn of the forum's views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

Considering sikhs in this modern-age.. do you think sikhs of present-times need to eat meat..when especially majority of us are not even training to be warriors. Absolutely, for a balanced diet, there is nothing wrong with the comsumption of meat.

quote: The type of understanding that you are dealing with is only "Intellectual"---"Scholastic"---type of understanding ... this the Guru Saab has already spoken of in Gurbani is of no use as even brahmins, qazis day and night keep themselves engaged in intellectual talks and discussions ! but they are no where close to the God. ----------------------------------------- This is all very well, however I am a little tired of hearing this type of argument, as it in reality does little more than dumb down the sangat into a non-questioning, blindly accepting naive group of people, which in turn leads to a whole series of totally avoidable situations that we all witness around us today. Reality is faith has its place, however it is doubt (i.e. the ability to question, seek understanding etc) which gets you an education.

quote: kinda like lynx snake peel except without the 'lynx effect' ----------- fantastic!!!

Thanks Singho. Only comments from my side are: 1. I am familiar with referenced article, as you say "The definition of 'Shiva' has remained fluid and adaptable through the millenia, and is likely to remain so". 2. Guru Gobind Singh's Chandi Charitr Utki Bilas from where the shabd "Deh Siva Bar Mohe" is actually a reference to the Devi Durga (Siva) rather than Shiva. 3. I am aware of Nihang Oral traditions, however I would like to understand a little more about how "neelakantha' traditionally meant 'naked' vs. blue-clad" and the connection with the sky. 4. This is interesting and worth further exploration, do you have any additional information?

w-bol, my question was simple. You asserted that the Shivalingam is nothing but a representation of Shiva's penis and the milk poured on top of it a substitute for semen. This type of thinking is also apparent amongst many Muslims (of the variety that you describe) I have met, who use such thinking to justify their right to destroy the idols of the Tantriks, however I am asking you, if you are aware of the alternative views regarding what the Shivalingam represents and are you aware of the view you have only gaining popularity in relatively recent times?

w-bol, For the record, I am not supporting Singho or Javanmard or for that matter you, I am interested in the debate at hand, which is revealing some interesting new information, sadly much of that is being clouded with new (and not so new) information about the personalities of those having the debate, which is something I'm not too interested in. Back to the debate, as I stated, I am an observer to this debate as I frankly have little value to add (I have never been to Iran and am not familiar with the place enough to make commentary about it), however I don't recall singho stating that Iran is a "free country" in the way you are alluding. p.s. Why do Sikhs need to "do open propoganda in public about Gurmat", surely "promote" is the word you are looking for?

w-bol, please answer the question, I am not asking you for your faith in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, but your statements regarding the shivalingam.

w-bol, As someone who has been on this forum for a number of years, I can confirm that Singho is a different person to Javanmard, to alleviate your doubts on this front. I am doing this, so you can focus on your arguments and the discussion at hand without continuing to tie yourself up with secondary concerns and non-issues (even if Singho was Javanmard, their arguments still stand and they are what should be addressed not them as individuals). As previously stated another thread, I am looking forward to your contribution for this to be a good debate.