Niranjana

wahegurubol wrote: "Sikhs in india believe that Mata Sahib Kaur was was incarnation of durga mata , ofcourse I dont believe that..but thats what I heard from some ppl when i came across. Total crap !" The obvious question that comes to mind is if Mata Sahib Devi was indeed Durga, then (a) why did Guru Sahib marry her? Surely he would be inclined to do her pooja, given that the same group of people who advocate his myth also assert that Guru Sahib was Dhust Daman in his past life and obtained a boon from the Devi? ( Durga Devi always personally goes to war (in all her previous incarnations as Chamundi Maa or otherwise), our Mata Sahibs (contrary to the mascline image of Sikh warrior women portrayed by certain groups) never went to war themselves. This is also an issue I have with mainstream Hindus refering to Indira Ghandi as an incarnation of Durga last century, in this case, such an assertion it is nothing more than an insult to the Devi Durga, who is beyond comparison to a politician like Ghandi.

amardeep asked: "what is the reason of Mata jis low importance among sikhs, compared to the importance of Mariya in catcholicm and Lady Fatima in Shia Islam?" Making such comparisons at face value are not always so appropriate given the differences in traditions, however the importance of the Mata Sahibs have been in recent times either under emphasised (usually because certain groups like to further their own petty agendas by focusing on exceptional figures like Mai Bhago, who has become rather strangely the epitome of a Sikh woman compared to the likes of Mata Sahib Devan, Mata Khivi Jee etc) or over-emphasised by ill-thought out links to Mata Durga or revisionist expressions of what their roles were, these again are motivated by individual group agendas or jumping (rather blindly) onto the so-called "feminist" bandwagon.

Shaheediyan asked: "2) a moralist view in which humans only exist in the mind, where free will is located,but that physical processes are predetermined?" How can free will and physical processes be seperate? Is a physical process not an outcome of freewill? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have the same issue with the above position, however is this not too far from what you imply by suggesting that "the only true free will in existence is that of Vaheguru", hence freewill from the human perspective freewill appears to exist in the mind ("we have decision making ability"), however physical processes are pre-determined ("but our freedom to think, decide and act all operate under his supreme command"). I fully agree with you in that this "is a difficult subject for many of us to grasp", so would be grateful for learned members of the forum to bring forth their understanding.

Forgive my ignorance, however what specific requirements would a prayer room for "Sikhs" have that a prayer room for say Muslims, Jews or Christians would not have?

Matheen wrote: "I tried to understand this for many years and have given up - just seeing everything as Waheguru's tamasha." Question: Does this not amount to simple self-delusion to avoid addressing the basic underlying issue? "I heard an interesting Katha the other day, that when in the stage of Brahmgyanta, there are no punn/paap, because the ego is no longer there - only Waheguru. This implies that punn/papp and hence freewill are tied in to the ego/haumai" Question: As the vast majority of us are not Brahmgyanis, does this assertion not amount to little more than glossing over the reality of paaps/punns that we are witness to in our daily lives? If freewill is a figment of the ego, then are you looking to align with position number 2) above: 2) a moralist view in which humans only exist in the mind, where free will is located,but that physical processes are predetermined?

Gur Fateh! What are the sangat's thoughts on 'free will' within the framework of Gurmat? Below are some common questions that most religious commentaries work through (notably in the West, although I believe Adi Sankarchaya and others like him have done the same in their writings on Vedanta). Ordinarily, this discussion (re: free will) reduces to the following three possibilities: 1) no: a determinist position in which freedom is an illusion and human will is predetermined? 2) a moralist view in which humans only exist in the mind, where free will is located,but that physical processes are predetermined? 3) compatablist approach is which will is free unless coerced by force or intimidation? Please could the forum provide their views in relation to the above three positions in answering the wider question of Free Will from a Sikh perspective. Secondly, for those who feel that free will does exist, please could you reconcile this with issues such as: a) What is the relation between free will and karma? How does God have knowledge of our actions (past, present and future) if free will exists? c) What is God's grand plan and how does free will feature in this? e) How does one explain sins committed by Humans if free will exists, yet God has foreknowledge of all actions with God being all powerful, loving, caring, protector etc.

Let's cut to the chase. Kavita and amardeep, let us, for the time being, agree to work with your argument, i.e. the Rehitnama is silent on matters such as murdering one's father or spouse, hence either (1) this is, as you repeatedly suggest, implying that one is still a member of the "Brotherhood" provides no explicit rehit items are violated, even though one has committed murder. and/or (2), the Khalsa must default to some other legal system to assess such matters and to use the example of murdering one's father or spouse, assess if this in addition to whatever sentence is passed down say in secular courts of law, the guilty person also needs to be removed from the Panth. With the above in mind, please could you continue with your arguments as to the implications thereafter as you see things. Thanks, Niranjana.

If one looks into rehitnama literature it will become apparent that the term "Bujjar Kurehit" is a relatively recent innovation, historically one had rehit and kurehit. It is questionable that the punj pyare ever served as a legal authority, however in any event, rehit and legal jurisprudence are two different items.

I am not seeking to employ any 'trapping' techniques and if I was, I would hardly describe the above as 'crafty'!!! You failed to differentiate between the regime and its citizens in the above commentary, even when prompted, there is a difference between overthrowing a regime and bombing the entire nation off the face of the earth - the latter is what you appear to have been suggesting, however for the benefit of doubt (and noting any language issues), I have asked you for clarification - what the mods do is their business!

I had asked IS Dhillon: In event, let's concede for the timebeing, that you are correct in your assessment of Iran as a tyrannical regime, surely it would be the regime that you would want to see ended rather than the entire country? To which he responded: thats another possibility, in any case it would be through bombs surely? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you are now condoning terrorist type activity against an entire nation based on your assessment of their political regime being tyrannical, with no option considered for alternative methods let alone a thought spared for its innocent citizens. Are you sure this is what you mean?

Just a suggestion, however would you not agree that there are many "tyrannical" regimes currently in force around the globe? In event, let's concede for the timebeing, that you are correct in your assessment of Iran as a tyrannical regime, surely it would be the regime that you would want to see ended rather than the entire country? On another note, if you're feeling lethargic, I always find a quick walk outside or some yoga provides more energy, otherwise a simple cup of tea works fine.

Shaheediyan, Agreed, however as per my initial response to the first post, the oldest Rehitnama begun with only a restriction on Hookah, this was later expanded to include the items listed above in the Bhai Desa Singh rehitnama such that the definitive modern day Sikh Rehit Maryada clearly states all intoxicants to cover Alcohol through to other recretional drugs. I still believe we are flogging a dead horse here.

OK, just so we understand, please could you answer the following: 1. What about the "regime" have you grown 'tiresome' about? 2. If you "harbour no feelings towards them", why would need them 'destroyed'?

IS Dhillon wrote: i sincerely without hate would like iran destroyed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you explaind what the above statement means - it seems to be rather contradictory.

Dhillon wrote: shove youre warning up your arse!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How charming!

Back to the main topic, Iran and its citizens (of course with the wider ever popular Shia Islam discussion), below is an interesting link where Shias from the around the world are discussing present day Iran: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1352

tonyhp wrote: This English book seems tame in comparision to the ones brought out by polemicists of all religions in the native languages. Some books actually led to murder as in the case of the author of Rangila Rasul (the colourful Prophet). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please could you provide some further information about the content of "rangila rasul" and its author.

Shaheediyan, Thanks for the health update, with all due respect and agreement to the comparison perhaps not being the best one available, we are doing little more than beating a dead horse here. For clarification: 1. Gurbani and Rehit are both essential for the Khalsa Panth. 2. The natural implication of this being that absence of direct references to prohibitions on smoking, cutting one's Kesh, eating non-Halal meat etc etc in the Guru Granth Sahib does not in any way invalidate the rehit maryada's injunction on these items. 3. What ghee and milk meant to those engaged in physical labour back in the "old days" or what it means to the Pahlwans today is really of no significance, the example above (however poor it may be in one's estimation) was simply meant to show that we cannot reduce the ban on hookah simply down to (modern) "health-issues", there are clearly wider implications of the ban on smoking. Best regards, Niranjana.

No worries Mehtab Singh - simply supporting your position, smoking is a certain taboo for Sikhs.

Tonyhp stated: (1) These aren't bans solely because the oppressors who were Muslims were doing these things but because not taking intoxicants and not cutting hair is part of the Gurus teachings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is evident from sources depicting Guru Nanak’s followers being told to maintain Kesh (Gyanratnavali indicates Bhai Mardana relaying this to his son in addition to Satnam Jaap and Seva of the Sadh Sangat) (2) Persian was the language of the oppressors so then why didn't the Gurus ban the use of Persian amongst the Sikhs? What is the use of banning a few usages of the oppressor when the greatest influence which is the adoption of the oppressors language is allowed to remain? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whilst this is true, it is also evident from Bhai Daya Singh Rehitnama, that certain individual(s), presumably with thought processes similar to amardeep, saw fit to introduce a ban on Persian (Do not desire to learn Persian. Anyone who reads Persian is a tanakhahia and not my Sikh).

amardeep wrote: I personally do not think that Hajamat and Hookah are limited to a ban on cutting kesh and smoking the pipe. I think these are universal "bans and messages" and they can change over time. I consider the ban on hookah as a symbol of a ban on adopting the lifestyle of your opressor. The bani of Guru Nanak clearly criticize hindus for having adopted the lifestyle of muslims, and i think that this is what Maharaj banned his sikhs, as the Hookah was a muslim invention. in a larger scale i would think this also meant that sikhs during britiish raj were forbidden to adopt the lifestyle of the british, wearing their clothes, joining their army and using their instruments of kirtan etc.. Guru Gobind Singh clearly says that aslong as the khalsa remains disticnt, i will give them my power. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Bani of Guru Nanak actually criticises those Hindus who on one hand work for their Moghul employers and rulers (i.e. accept their money and food), adopt their clothing and customs but YET continue to refer to them as Malech – see the following extract taken from (http://www.amritworld.com/nihangs/bluedress.html): Money or articles obtained from ‘Malechh’ patronage is termed ‘Malechh-Dhaan’. In short, this points to the double standards and parsimoniousness of such Hindus, who on one hand refer to the foreign Muslim rulers as ‘Malechh’ and one the other, except their ‘Malechh Dhaan’ for use in their livelihood and for the performance of their religious ceremonies. It is in this settting that Guru Nanak Dev Ji made these comments: - Neel Vastar Pahir Hovainh Parvaan. Malechh Dhaan Le Poojainh Puraan. (Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval {of the Muslim rulers}. Accepting bread from the 'Malechh' people, they worship the 'Puraanas'). (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, page 472). The argument concerning the adoption of British employment and/or Western Clothing is nothing but petty revisionism by those who have other agenda - there were no such restrictions. Please could you state the quote you attribute to Guru Gobind Singh in full and also provide a source as a reference, this is often quoted for various purposes and perhaps a better look at this passage is warranted. amardeep goes on to say: the Hajamat is not limited to a ban on cutting kesh only, but means that the sikh should stand out at all times.. imagine a man created a religion tommorow and calls it "chariism" and orders his followers to wear dastaar and long beard and they grow to milions in number througout Punjab and rest of india... how will people know the difference between these men and the khalsa? i therefore think that a sikh at these times are allowed to change their psychchal appereance to look distinct once again as they did in the times of the Gurus. maybe not by cutting their kesh, but by giving other kakaars or different appereance, and hereby making it is a bujar kurehit to remove these items as it is bujar kurehit to cut kesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The obsession with physical appearance and so-called distinctiveness is quite laughable. The practice of keeping kesh, wearing a dastaar etc have not been invented by the Sikh Gurus, these have long been signifiers of the noble and learned. As tonyhp stated “If someone starts a new religion and adopts some of physical appearance of a Sikh it doesn't mean that Sikhs have to then change their own appearance to maintain their distinctinveness!†It is understandable why you would harbour such thoughts in view of the Bhasauria propaganda that has been conducted over the past 100 years within the Panth and continues to survive at large on the internet.

Mehtab Singh, With all due respect, that is far from the notion I am trying to spread or even hint towards - particularly seeing that the Rehit Maryada and all Rehitnamas are equally consistent on this topic. The actual message I am trying to convey is for the Khalsa Panth, Gurbani and Rehit go hand in hand and that one needs to understand both. Hope this clarifies any doubts.

Matheen, You are quoting out of context again: paan supaaree khaatheeaa mukh beerreeaa laaeeaa || Those who eat betel nuts and betel leaf and apply lipstick, har har kadhae n chaethiou jam pakarr chalaaeeaa ||13|| BUT DO NOT COMTEMPLATE, Har, Har - the Messenger of Death will seize them and take them away. ||13|| The above will clarify that the shabd is not an injuntion against smoking per se. Likewise with the comment: "This was way before the dangers of tobacco were known" which is often cited by Sikhs in respect to the injunction on smoking, however it doesn't seem to have been the true concern when considering the wider aspects of permitted Sikh diet, which relies heavily on ghee and diary products both of which have negative aspects by modern dietary understanding.

The Guru Granth Sahib has no particular reference to the prohibition on smoking, these are found in the Sikh Rehit Maryada and the puratan Rehitnamas. The initial prohibition from the rehitnama literature relates exclusively to Hookah, this later expands to Tobacco, Snuff and all forms of intoxicants. There is no formal restriction on tea or coffee, although certain zealous Sikhs express it as such owing to their personal stance or that stance of their Baba/Sant/Bhai Sahib. The rationale is clear given that Tobacco and intoxicants such as a alcohol depress the mind and fatigue the body which are contrary to the life of a Singh, moreover "Hookah" was distinctly Muslim practice during the 18th century and in line with the ban on Halal meat, the non-trimming of the beard (including the Moustache) are all part and parcel of the Khalsa's dinstictive rehit.

Fateh Singh, Any update on the above? Also please could you explain what you mean by: "For us unneccesary Parkash of the Aswara Sahib is disrespectful" Thanks.