Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Hari

  • Rank
    Sehaj Kathhaa Prabh Kee Ath Meetthee

    Just so people know, the word in the sentence: is v-i-r-g-i-n.I really don't know why that's considered profane, because it's not a profanity.

    Jesus is a mythical figure.The 10 Kings were real historical people, not mythical miracle-makers. The story of Jesus is to be understood esoterically, it is like they say in Panjabi "gupt".That's just how spiritual traditions in those days liked to impart hidden knowledge.Because people in those days just didn't have Buddhi to understand, only a select few had bakshish of Buddhi to understand. That is why still today, these so called "Christians" still take the Biblical teachings literally.When in fact they are metaphorical teachings. Jesus dying on the cross, is the death of false ego.And the resurrection is the awakening of the soul to it's true immortal (Amrit) nature.The story of Jesus is a facsimile of earlier mythical God-men who died and came back to life also. Check out http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ Source: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_ch...ists_attis.html The story of Jesus mimics that of previous mythical god-men.Did you that the mythical Dionysus was also crucified at the end of his story?More than a thousand years before the Jesus story. :T:
  3. So you don't believe in learning about Sikh history?That's why I posted this message.For people who are genuinely interested in Sikh history. Obviously there are some who couldn't care...

    Sach = true, truth, real Khand = place, country, realm, world (aswell as numerous other meanings, please look under Khand in Mahan Kosh by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha) Sachkhand = True-Realm or Realm of Truth Let's look at Satya-lok mentioned by Deep Singh Ji.Satyalok is mentioned in many Indian scriptures like Veda and Srimad Bhagvad Gita.Satyalok is obviously Sanskrit. Satya = true, truth, real Lok = place, country, realm, world Satya-lok = True-Realm or Realm of Truth The words Sachkhand and Satyalok philologically mean the same thing.Go figure yourself.Also I'd like to add that Bhai Kahn Singh Ji's meaning given for Sachkhand is 100% accurate. Learn Panjabi, learn to read Gurbani.And learning a little Sanskrit won't do any harm either, in fact it will help you a lot. Teri marzi...
  5. Your reply was not a surprise.I knew this site would give such a reply. Your not going to even read the highly acclaimed article by Sardar Sunder Singh Ramgarhia are you? No, I didn't think so.
  6. The above is from the "Pass this on" thread.Why do you people still think that Ramgrahia Misl is a caste??Why are you so lacking in the intelligence department?Again and again I see poeple accusing Ramgarhia Misl of being a jaat.Now, I am sick and tired of this. If you want to know what Ramgarhia Misl is then go here: http://<banned site filter activated>/postgurus/R...m%20Sardars.htm That is if you want to know.Some of you I reckon would still want to wallow in your utter ignorance of Sikh history. Did you know that in the Ramgarhia Misl you get: Tarkhan, Jatt, Lohar, Khatri jaat? Misl = alliance/confederacy Understand now??Or is it too hard for you? :T:

    This is not your "humble" opinion.It is your wrong opinion.Allow me to correct you. You refered to Gurbani from SGGS.Let me tell you that in this Gurbani the word mat is used. Mat, matu (mamma-tatta) = stop, do not, have not. Mati (mamma-tatta-sihari/bihari) = advice, instruction. In Mahan Kosh by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, mat, matu and mati have been given accurate meanings. In reference to Mahan Kosh: Mat, mat(u) = stop, do not, have not Mat(i) = way of thinking, advice, practice So the following Pavittar Bani of Satguru is like this: 1. Bed Kateb kahahu Mat Jhute, Jhuta Jo Na Bicharai. (p.1350 SGGS) Do not say the Veda and Kateb are false, false are they who do not contemplate. r>So mat, mat(u) does mean "stop, do not, have not".You think you are more correct than Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha? You think Satguru would call Veda false, when Satguru Nanak has said: Gurmukh(i) Naadan, Gurmukh Vedan, Gurmukh Rahia Samai. The Guru's Word is the Naad, the Guru's Word is the Veda, the Guru's Word is all pervasive. (Jap Ji Sahib) So you are doing a grevious mistake in mis-translating and misleading Sikh youth. Why would Satguru tell His Sikh to call the Veda and Kateb false?What kind of a Satguru is that who preaches hatred?You are doing beizzati of Satguru by misinterpreting His Bani. Am I wrong? :T:
  8. Weird Occurance at Funeral

    Someone could've tampered with the khopree.

    Dear Khalistani Ji, You have qouted passages from a false book, namely the modern day Christian Bible.At the end you stated: I'm not surprised!The original teachings of the original Christians were tampered with by the apostate Roman Church, to suit their own ends. Just like some so called "Sikh" have desire to change Guru Granth Sahib, our Satguru and reject Dasm Patshah di Bani, like Bachitra Natak, Charitropakhyan etc. We must be very wary of any "Sikh" who want to change or reject Gurbani, just because they want Sikhi to follow their ideology.Learn from the past. The original Christians were called Gnostics.Gnostic has same meaning as gyaani.They followed the path of gnosis (gyaan), gnosis of Vahiguru.But the Roman Church didn't like their ideas, because they wanted everyone to follow their version of Christianity.Sound familiar?I could go on, but am too tired.I'll point you to some resources: http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/ (Two books I recommend you read at above URL) Heres an extract from The Jesus Mysteries: http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST18...1/Jesusmys.html
  10. STOP THE INSANITY!!!!!!!

    Sachee gal kahee, Kulpreet Singh Ji. It looks like the Puran Pavaittar Sikhi of Satguru Nanak Nirankar is going the way of Christianity and Islam. Believe it or not, but Islam and Christinaity were once true religions of Parbrahm Parmesar.But petty differences split these Dharam into what we have today. Singho!!Do you not see Kaal and Maya are taking advantage of you? Vahiguru...
  11. Meditation and Bhuddists

    Buddhists do believe in No-Thingness.They call It Shunya, it is written as Sunn in Gurbani. Vahiguru is the Great No-Thingness, where not even nothing exists, where not even emptiness has any potency. I once came across the following quote whilst browsing the internet, it's stuck in my mind ever since: In the beginning there was nothing, not even nothing... Reference is made to Sunn and Nirvan in Gurbani.Look at the following Ang of Satguru; For Nirvan/Nirvan/Nibban: p.444 Mahala 4, p.219 For Sunn: p.943 Mahala 1 (Siddh Gost) What is this Absolute-Void? :T:
  12. How do you meditate?

    Dear MKhalsa, I never said nor meant what you have stated above.I didn't talk about advantages.This is what I said: Thinking. True. r>
  13. How do you meditate?

    Nobody has a monopoly on Puran Pavittar Naam Vahiguru. To say that there is a difference between an Amritdhari doing Naam Simran of Vahiguru and non-Amritdhari, is to say that Amritdhari is thinking he/she is higher in status to non-Amritdhari. Where is Nimrata in Amritdhari nowadays?You are supposed to see your Self in all, when you are Amritdhari, not to seperate yourself from rest of humanity. Amritdhari...Amrit...is everywhere.Inside, outside is Amrit, when you are Amritdhari, chhak Khande Ka Pahul. Vahiguru Vahiguru Vahiguru...Vahiguru Naam is That(?).
  14. Lets discuss something..

    R. Dorothy Wayneright said: Did you mean ascetically or aesthetically? I'm surprised that you R. Dorothy Wayneright would find something ascetic and pleasing.Now I really am confused :umm: By the way, ascetically isn't a word.There is ascetic and asceticism.
  15. life after death

    That hardly seems like a good reason. Why would you owe your ancestors anything? I owe them my life.Without their sacrifices I wouldn't be here right now, replying to your be-izzat (disrespectful) response.Without Guru Gobind Singh and the Khalsa, I wouldn't be here enjoying life. We wouldn't exist.You would not have been here on this Sikh forum.They (Moghul Empire) didn't just want Sikh killed, but wanted to destroy our religion.They were sytematically destroying Sikh and Sikhi (Sikhism). If they'd have succeeded, you would never have heard of Sikh and Sikhi. So that is why I say you do my ancestors be-izzati (great disrespect) when you say: Please refrain from doing further be-izzati.Thank you.