Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Rav singh

Radha Soami

Recommended Posts

Guest Rav singh   
Guest Rav singh

Is it wrong for me a as a true SIKH to not like the cult known as radha soami, there so called leader wears a turban has a beard and yet changes the name in the guru granth where ever it says nanak they change it to there own living gurus name...!!!!!! disgusting ...!!! i better stop here as have lots more to say and i am getting very angry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wingz23    188

i think that changing the name of Nanak in GGSJ is pretty wrong.... but we cannot judge, yes we can get nagry n swear ns hout and have a rant about it.... but unless we do somehting personally like confront these people then these actions are useless....Let God judge these people, remember were not here forever but Mahraj is :)

Chin up singh

btw what is radha soami?

Fateh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Heretic or a Turk. Both are repulsive. The heretic is an internal threat where as the Turk is external. Whether or not he's insulted the Gurus (as of yet), is not the issue. It's the fact that he's Turk-Beeraj.
    • I do not believe in an absolute morality, dharam is not the same for each and every individual. This is not to say that dharam does not exist, only that it doesn't exist in a monolithic form.  This concept is reflected very well in the life of the Mahapurakh Sant Baba Thakur Singh, 14th jathedar of Damdami Taksaal. Babaji was a strict vegetarian like all members of Taksaal, so for him eating meat was a great sin. However when he visited the chaunis (encampments) of Nihang Singhs around Chowk Mehta he would often bring offerings of goats to be jhatkaa'd by the nihangs and later consumed. Because eating meat was not a great paap for them as it was for babaji, rather it was their tradition and he respected that the role they were given by the Almighty was different from his own.  Satguru's Hukam affects each person differently.  Eastern dharams tend not to impose moral codes on the whole of humankind, as though such codes apply to everybody. Yes there are certain basic guiding principles of human morality - don't murder, don't rape, but most sane people don't really need to be told not to do these things by a religion because they feel an inherent revulsion towards them. However beyond this things can get quite flexible. Some people are meant to be householders and provide for a family, whilst others are meant to be celibates and devote their lives and all their energy to Akaal Purakh and Seva of the Panth. If God creates someone with the intention that they will become a warrior, battle becomes dharam for this person, a righteous deed. If however God creates a man and by his hukam determines that this man is to be peaceful saint, battle is adharam for him, not righteous. This is why different sampardas/jathebandiaan exist in Sikhi. Guru Ji is not/was not anti-samparda or anti-jathebandi, if they were, they wouldn't have created or blessed so many of them themselves. I don't know if what I'm saying is right, but this is the conclusion I have arrived at from my study of Sikhi. Others will have arrived at different conclusions, and good thing too -  Sikhi is a garden full of many diverse flowers.  I do not believe Guru Ji aspired to make all Sikhs, or all people,  identical in their religious outlook and practice. 
    • So you think that Sikhs and Muslims need to remain bitter enemies for as long as this world exists?   And because of 84 do we also need to become eternal enemies of the Hindus forever and ever?   Yesterday Hindus were our friends but they ended up knifing us in the back. And Yesterday's enemies can become strategic allies of today. Try to see the bigger picture.
    • This one statement just proves you should know before commenting on such complex topics.
×