As I mentioned before, the title uses 'Shiva' not 'Siva'.

If the Guru or Gurus didn't mean what they said or said what they mean or more specifically didn't say what the 'more political' adherents preferred, then that does not mean you preclude exact words and/or definitions. Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay, you are not a moderator and neither is your friend.

Re: Deh Shiva;

1. Re: The title states Deh Shiva (not Deh Siva)

2. Even if the Guru was referring Shiva to custard pies or the playstation 3 or Hercules, the word (as with any other noun) is subject to wikipedia reference.

In the meantime get an education. Thanks, Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you gone through the ref. i placed on your talk page. Read them before making any wild claimsAjjay (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As Nishkid pointed out, Mr Bhindranwale, had his fanclub but not in their millions as you deceptively advocate (as usual).

His 'enemies' by default, were secularists and included people of all faiths as he was a theocratic fundamentalist and opposed secularism.

I hope that helps in your educational pursuits. Dave Green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not in fighting mode, I simply want information to be open and honest without prejudice and political intent. As you may be aware too many articles on Sikhism are prone to political bias especially after American and EU Governemnts placed Sikh Terrorist groups under surveillance and scrutiny post 9/11. Thanks, Dave (I suggest you heed the WARNING above) ?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the warning. by the way i cited the source which was originally put up by you.ThanksAjjay (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey if your not a fundy? Then why the fascination with Bhindranwale who clearly was one ? It doesn't quite add up does it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the same case with you. Infact you are more obsessed with him than me. I am only contributing to one of various articles, whereas you are centered around in only bhindranwale , and your other contris are sikh-bashing. Also i am not asserting anything, unlike you. And you are so shameless in your approach, it is worse than being a fundy, atleast honesty counts more than anything else, or does it (for you) ?Ajjay (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly Islam and Sikhism are two different faiths, Islam does not recognise Sikh Gurus as Prophets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

so!Even Sikhism does not recognize muhammed as true messanger of god. sikhism rejects all most all tenets of islam. eg. no namaaz in SikhismAjjay (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you feel thats the case put in in the article, why delete Islamic references when the title of the thread is "Islam & Sikhism" The idea is to state their ideological standpoints, not a biased one-sided show of one faith as you can read in the discussion section of the article.

What??Ajjay (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the bloodshed b/w the Islamic rulers and all the Gurus.

Even the battles are watered down to give the impression to the reader that the Mughals and Guru Gobind were parts of the same football team.

There is no mention that Sikhs cannot consume Halal food

Secondly, you mistake Muslims for Sufis, its like mistaking Buddhists for Sikhs just because both faith are dharmic in nature.

Reply to unsigned comment--I am not the author of article. Ok. So stop trying to harrass me as if i wrote the whole article. Feel free to change as long as you follow[1]ThanksAjjay (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ajay, Would you like to help and contribute to an page that is supposed to be made its called, Insights into Sikhism. Its about an Jew named Hari Nam Singh Khalsa who became an Sikh and appears on T.V. everyday and pursues others. and the funny thing is he doesnt know how to speak Punjabi or Gurmukhi and has no idea of Punjabi Language perhaps you would be intrested in contributing heres an start [[2]]. --UNikesh (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is kundalini yoga ?????. Nice work he seems to be doing. About the article, i think it has nothing to do with insights to Sikhism, it more like a lifstyle issue. Thanks anyways Ajjay (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Ajay it about teachings in all fields about Sikhism. Its all in english though you know those white people who convert to Sikhism and only speak English or their own Language like Hibrew check it out Ajay the link is up --UNikesh (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to help! Sorry to disappoint you. Also i have an instinct that you are already member of wiki, and this account is just a sock, don't get upset, just a hunchAjjay (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course some Hindus are dumb just as some of my own white kin are dumb and I'm sure you would agree some Sikhs are dumb.

Now about Indian civilisation, or to be precise Indus Valley Civilisation I have been studying it for the last 10 years from their insights into abstract mathematics and astronomy to medicine or (correctly termed AyurVeda medicine) to Yoga which had later would have influences on Tai Chi and martial arts, so yes I am aware of Indology studies including its central core of spirituality. See David Frawley

reply

Your understanding would not change the basics of any sikh religious philosophy. Further Lord Shiva is mentioned, but not in the traditional Shaivism sense. All this about the traditions of sikhism sharing or being influenced by Shaivism or other traditions, are churned out by historians /philosophers of north america, who are too intelligent to see the difference between the two. If they could discard some ulterior influences, they would immediatly see the difference. As someone said, half knowledge is more dangerous than none at all.

Further you cannot change the truth, to suit the convience of the reader

And when i said great ancient indian civilization, i did not mean solely the Indus valley, there are too many . One is the the "Gupta Period" , which is known as "the golden period.

And i don't need the interpretation, of a convert yogic, of Sikh scriptures.

And just because you are a little more academically qualified, does not mean that you can pass judgements on others. They might be good in fields in which you are a zero.oKAjjay (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess it depends on the integrity of the individual !

I changed Siva back to its original definition. Why ?

Because Tom, Dick or Gurpreet cant come along and change the meaning of the Word 'Allah' to suit their agenda, likewise would be the same for any other God (Shiva included). My interpretation is that it wasn't the Gurus intention to change anything, he either meant what he said and said what he meant OR really didn't know what he was talking about until many years later when a bunch of fundies show up claiming to be the heir to some self appointed gun toting saint.

Do the words Karma, Kirtan, Prashad, Vishnu, Chandi, Durga, Shakti, Bhakti etc etc... acquired alternate meanings too these days ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)