Q About Niddar'S Akhara

[Only five]

Read Sri Guru Granth Sahib for a definition of Muslim, then compare against Bhai Mardana.

Many Muslims accept 'Baba Nanak Shah' as their Pir, so why would have Bhai Mardana had a problem?

What pray was Bulleh Shah, who had such immense respect for Guru Sahiban? He called Guru Tegh Bahadur a 'Ghazi'... the true meanings of words used by spiritual beings is beyond the 'black and white brigades' comprehension.

Read up on Bhai Mardanas kul, and tell me where they became Singhs.

Chatanga, did Baba Farid Ji or Rumi Sahib have a kill the Kafir mentallity, I am suprised at your silly comment.

Tony, was Prehlad a Sikh of Guru Nanak?

You people are stuck in your little hamster wheel - trying to continue to divide and categorise the whole world based on your biased and box logic.

Singh you define Bhai Mardana as a Muslim and I asked define Muslim. You say we are lacking the knowledge, so tell us the true definition of Muslim, so we can learn. Then give us the definition of Sikh and Singh and TrueMuslim.

You have avoided these questions of mine. I already asked these question previous, now askin for the second time.

[shaheediyan]

All your definitions can be found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji & Bhai Gurdas Ji diyan Vaaran - Singh definition take your pick - main criteria is one who has recieved Khande de Pahul. Personally, I like Nirmala Giani Giaan Singhs defintion.

[tonyhp32]

Shaheediyan,

Let's use some logic here. Gurbani gives a definition of a Muslmaan, now is that in line with the definition given by the Quran? If not, then the Guru is asking a Muslim (according to the Quran) to not follow the teachings of the Quran and follow Gurbani. I know it's heretical for Sanatanists to think that the Gurus could ever believe Islam to be false or it's rituals as empty.

The fact that certain persons from an Islamic family background can accept Baba Nanak as their pir does not make them Muslim Sikhs, it just shows how confused they are both about Islam and about the teachings of Guru Nanak. You also say then why would Bhai Mardana have a problem, well if you think that a Muslim can eat every Ramadan and yet still remain a Muslim then that shows your ignorance.

I don't know how many of Bhai Mardana's kul became Singhs. Do you know? But I do know that many Mirasis who are Singhs in Punjab. Does the fact that some or all of Bhai Maradana's kul didn't become Singh prove that he was not a Sikh but a Muslim? How many members of the Gurus house never became Sikhs. Some Hindu Bedis and Sodhis in Punjab claim to be descendents of the Gurus and yet claim to be Hindus. Does this mean that the Gurus were Hindus and never founded Sikhism?

Were Baba Farid and Rumi Muslims in the Quranic sense? If they had Hindu friends then they were certainly going against the teachings of the Quran.

I see you are still playing the same game of accusing anyone who does not lend any credence to your sanatanists 'anything goes' Sikhism of being conspiracy theorists and blinkered.

[Only five]

All your definitions can be found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji & Bhai Gurdas Ji diyan Vaaran - Singh definition take your pick - main criteria is one who has recieved Khande de Pahul. Personally, I like Nirmala Giani Giaan Singhs defintion.

You are still not wanting to define Muslim and Sikh. Why is that. First you said Bhai Mardana is a Muslim, but now your not willing to define Muslim, which you call Bhai Mardana. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji gives the definition then give us this definition because Guru Sahib hasn't said Bhai Mardana is a Muslim, you have said it.

I am beginning to believe you are purposely avoiding these definitions.

Well even Bhai Gurdas ji doesn't agree with you. He says the following:

Blw rbwb vjwieMdw mjls mrdwnw mIrwsI]

bhalaa rabaab vajaaei(n)dhaa majalas maradhaanaa meeraasee||

Mardana, the bard and witty person and a good player of Rabab in assemblies was a disciple of Guru Nanak.

[Xylitol]

Haha.

The definitions I gave were the literal meanings.

Ok heres the more Social-Order version.

Muslim: One who submits to Allah and Mohammad is the last messenger.

Sikh: Disciple who believes in the teachings of the 10 Gurus.

Singh: Tiger. One who has taken Khande Da Pahul.

Bhai Mardana ji was a follower of Gurmat. Since Guru ji changed / redefined some of Islam dharm's teachings and Bhai Mardana Ji accepted this, he clearly saw Guru ji as a messenger of God, and didn't see Prophet Mohammed sahib as the last messenger.

[Mystical]

Bhai Mardana ji was a follower of Gurmat. Since Guru ji changed / redefined some of Islam dharm's teachings and Bhai Mardana Ji accepted this, he clearly saw Guru ji as a messenger of God, and didn't see Prophet Mohammed sahib as the last messenger.

Yes Satguru comes in every age when Adharma over-bares Dharma. Guru Ji will come to establish Satyug. But Satguru's message will be the same as it always been. True Before Time, True Now and forever True.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Mystical

[tonyhp32]

Therefore the logical conclusion is that Islam as founded by Mohammed was false or as Bachittar Natak states, Mohammed subverted and corrupted the message given to him.

Watch out or you'll have some Sikhs on this forum foaming at their mouths shouting ISLAMOPHOBIA!

The oft repeated reference to Bhai Mardana as a Muslim follower of Guru Nanak owes it origin to foreign writers on Sikhism who did not have ready access to most of the Janamsakhis or Bhai Gurdas' vars. Modern Sikh writers have followed the same trend without researching further. Mahan Kosh mentions that Guru Nanak personally did the antim sanskar (cremation) of Bhai Mardana at Kurram in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Bhai Mardana was born in a Muslim family but did live his life as a Muslim, that is the question.

Edited October 4, 2009 by tonyhp32

[Mithar]

Therefore the logical conclusion is that Islam as founded by Mohammed was false or as Bachittar Natak states, Mohammed subverted and corrupted the message given to him.

Watch out or you'll have some Sikhs on this forum foaming at their mouths shouting ISLAMOPHOBIA!

The oft repeated reference to Bhai Mardana as a Muslim follower of Guru Nanak owes it origin to foreign writers on Sikhism who did not have ready access to most of the Janamsakhis or Bhai Gurdas' vars. Modern Sikh writers have followed the same trend without researching further. Mahan Kosh mentions that Guru Nanak personally did the antim sanskar (cremation) of Bhai Mardana at Kurram in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Bhai Mardana was born in a Muslim family but did live his life as a Muslim, that is the question.

I feel many secularist Sikhs will have a very severe allergic reactions to your stated facts.

[chatanga1]

Chatanga, did Baba Farid Ji or Rumi Sahib have a kill the Kafir mentallity, I am suprised at your silly comment.

sorry shaheediyan bro, what i meant to say was that in the quran there is, in black and white is that non-muslims are kafirs and are not to be associated with. also as the Holy Profit(pbuh) was the seal of the profhets would Bhai Mardana still be a muslim, ie one who accepts God AND his rasool, not just God only, or a disciple of Guru Nanak , making him a sikh?

I just find from reading the Qu'ran that with it being Allah's word, the beleivers will never doubt it. Ever. ut here you are saying that Bhai Mardana did doubt it in parts but was still a Muslim.

sorry if ive said anyting wrong.

[amardeep]

Sangat ji please read the thread called "sikhism outshoof of shia'ism" where Bahadur outlines the concept of sharia vs. tariqa in Islam. Then you will see the place of Pir Budhu Shah, Mian Meer, Bhai Mardana, Pir Bhikham Shah etc in Sikhi.

Tony: Is'nt it Bhai Mardana who asks Guru Nanak to assist him to Mecca in the early Janamsakhi litterature?

[amardeep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariqa

see this and remember how muslims saw Guru Nanak in the light of their own religion. Nanak shah faqeer, hindu ka guru musalman ka pir

Edited October 4, 2009 by amardeep

[Kaljug]

Sangat ji please read the thread called "sikhism outshoof of shia'ism" where Bahadur outlines the concept of sharia vs. tariqa in Islam. Then you will see the place of Pir Budhu Shah, Mian Meer, Bhai Mardana, Pir Bhikham Shah etc in Sikhi.

Tony: Is'nt it Bhai Mardana who asks Guru Nanak to assist him to Mecca in the early Janamsakhi litterature?

LOL

Since when are Singhs using the lies and delusions of the charlatan Bahadur Ali as some sort of authoritative guide to what is and isn't parvaan in Sikhi (or Islam for that matter)? Did you even read the topic title that reveals that idiot sullah's agenda?

Also, in case you have fallen for Bhadur Ali's bullshit, murshid is a term that applies only to a Muslim leader of particular Islamic school in its strict Islamic definition, it would not apply to the non-Muslim teacher of a Muslim. Also, tariqah comes after sharia, it is not a level of spiritual experience where one can ignore the insane rules of Islam.

Even the wiki article that you pointed out makes that much clear.

K.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Kaljug

[amardeep]

focus on what is being said instead of who is saying it. Bahadur has talked lots of BS but that does'nt mean that everything he says is wrong. In any case read the link from wikipedia posted above.

[Kaljug]

Bahadur has talked lots of BS but that does'nt mean that everything he says is wrong.

I disagree.

I suggest you actually go back and read the article yourself. You cannot give up sharia and claim to be a Muslim. It is pretty clear from the examples given above about Bhai Mardana not moving Guru Nanak Dev Ji's feet away from the ka'aba and his cremation that he had already given up his belief in Islamic sharia.

K.

[amardeep]

Also, in case you have fallen for Bhadur Ali's bullshit, murshid is a term that applies only to a Muslim leader of particular Islamic school in its strict Islamic definition, it would not apply to the non-Muslim teacher of a Muslim. Also, tariqah comes after sharia, it is not a level of spiritual experience where one can ignore the insane rules of Islam.

You and i both know that muslims in the days of Guru Nanak saw Maharaj as a muslim. So he could be their Murshid since they considered him to be a muslim

[amardeep]

I suggest you actually go back and read the article yourself. You cannot give up sharia and claim to be a Muslim. It is pretty clear from the examples given above about Bhai Mardana not moving Guru Nanak Dev Ji's feet away from the ka'aba and his cremation that he had already given up his belief in Islamic sharia.

tell that to the ismailis, alevis and ahl-haqq communities. Bahadur has already answered these questions earlier so singha please find the post and see what he has written on the sharia vs tariqa issue.

On a site note, do sikh scholars agree that Baba Fareed rejected the Sharia? i've wanted to do a research on this but never had the time.

[Kaljug]

You and i both know that muslims in the days of Guru Nanak saw Maharaj as a muslim. So he could be their Murshid since they considered him to be a muslim

Nope, a few of them may have considered Guru Nanak Dev Ji a Muslim, but if you feel Bhai Mardana considered Guru Nanak Dev Ji a Muslim, then you are mistaken or are here to spread some pro-Islamic agenda.

And you are still not getting that a Murshid had to be part of an Islamic (usually Sufi) order to be considered a Murshid, and Guru Nanak Dev Ji was clearly no member of any Muslim order, unless you buy into Bahadur Ali's persinal delusions.

K.

[Kaljug]

tell that to the ismailis, alevis and ahl-haqq communities. Bahadur has already answered these questions earlier so singha please find the post and see what he has written on the sharia vs tariqa issue.

I have read that discussion, and I really couldn't care less what Bahadur Ali believes.

I suggest you go and ask a member of these communities what they would do to someone who slept with their feet pointing towards the ka'aba and whether they would consider that person to be a Muslim.

K.

[amardeep]

Nope, a few of them may have considered Guru Nanak Dev Ji a Muslim, but if you feel Bhai Mardana considered Guru Nanak Dev Ji a Muslim, then you are mistaken or are here to spread some pro-Islamic agenda.

you are right sorry. Some muslims considered him to be a muslim, not all of course.

And yes i am here to spread pro-islamic agenda.

And you are still not getting that a Murshid had to be part of an Islamic (usually Sufi) order to be considered a Murshid, and Guru Nanak Dev Ji was clearly no member of any Muslim order, unless you buy into Bahadur Ali's persinal delusions.

You are challenging historical facts here. Its a fact that he was considered to be a pir by his muslim followers and a Guru by his hindu followers. With this in mind then your above post becomes invalid. You can interlectualise it as much as you want by saying he could'n have been a mursheed, ghazil peer etc because he had to be a this and that, but history says that this is how muslims back then percieved him.

I have read that discussion, and I really couldn't care less what Bahadur Ali believes.

Well if you are not willing to learn then i dont see any reason to continue this discussion.

[Guest]

Bhai Mardana Ji was a Sikh of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, he took naam amrit/charan amrit from guru ji..there is no question about that. He was not muslim but sikh of Guru Sahib but with that being said. Muslim Sikh is not oxymoron in the panth, it very much exist through gurbani and historical events.

For example- baba farid ji when baba farid ji gave up his shariat level of islam after 30 years of performing shariat rituals and realized higher spiritual levels of islam- tariqat, marfat and hakikat where he met his murshid and passed all the test laid down by his murshid and got bhramgyan (listen to sant isher singh ji rara sahib divan on baba farid ji for detailed sakhi).

Muslim Sikhs very much also existed through historical events in sikh panth when pir budda shah wanted to be murid of sri guru gobind singh ji and wanted to be sikh by advise of bikhan shah- shia muslim who had enough kirpa of allah to be first one to recognize sri guru gobind singh ji as vahiguroo/khuda roop when guru sahib in physical roop were just born. Anyway going back to the event when pir budda shah came to sri guru gobind singh ji to be sikh as in initiated. Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji said- Good gardener(mali) does not go to other gardens to get flower. You are great flower in garden of Islam. You are already blessed with love of allah, you should stay pakka in your dharam. You can read more about this sakhi in - paira padam singh book.

so yeah not everything is black and white in sikhi. People shouldn't follow one extreme or another extreme when doing analysis of Sikhism. This goes to both people who call themselves sanatanist so called broad minded undermining power of amrit and shariapanthis who are hell bent on limiting sikhi and sikhs behind sarbloh sachkhand doors only.

[tonyhp32]

Amardeep,

In the Bhai Bala Janamsakhi, the conversation runs where Bhai Mardana asks Guru Nanak, 'where is this place called Mecca/' to which Guru Nanak asks 'Mardana do you want to see it'. Mardana says that the Muslims praise it always and shall we go and see it as well'

Neo,

The problem with the Sharia to Tariqa progression is that the same can be argued about the Rehat. I can understand the need for islamic spiritual seekers not wanting to keep the Sharia and sunnah with all it's bukwas like how many number of stones to wipe ones backside after a visit to the loo but then is that the same for Sikhs as well. Obviously the answer is no because Guru Gobind Singh described the Khalsa in such glowing terms. If Khalsa is just a stage beyond which the spiritual seeker need not keep the Rehat as he progresses then that would not make sense.

How authentic is the Pir Budhu Shah sakhi? Kathakars have a tendency to invent more and more fantastic stories without checking what they are saying is actually in line with Gurbani. In the area of Dina-Kangar, after administering Amrit to a Muslim, Guru Gobind Singh made the announcement that the Khalsa was open to all.

In the var 1 of Bhai Gurdas some Muslim names are given as followers of Guru Nanak and yet none is described as a Muslim Sikh. You cannot remain a Muslim if you want to be a Sikh of the Guru. Now, it might be possible given that the punishment for apostasy from Islam is death, that some of the followers of Guru Nanak who were from a Muslim background may not have wanted to publically declare themselves to have apostasised and might have maintained their outward display of following Muslim rites but in private may have taken part in Sikh rites. For Hindus there would be no such problem. The reason why I do not accept the veracity of so-called Muslim Sikhs is that why is it that if it was an accepted that there were Muslim Sikhs then why did the Khalsa in the 18th century choose to convert Muslims by giving them Amrit when given the political situation of that time it would make all the more sense for the Muslims interested in Sikhism to hide their true beliefs and remain Muslim Sikhs if such a thing actually existed.

[Guest]

The problem with the Sharia to Tariqa progression is that the same can be argued about the Rehat. I can understand the need for islamic spiritual seekers not wanting to keep the Sharia and sunnah with all it's bukwas like how many number of stones to wipe ones backside after a visit to the loo but then is that the same for Sikhs as well. Obviously the answer is no because Guru Gobind Singh described the Khalsa in such glowing terms. If Khalsa is just a stage beyond which the spiritual seeker need not keep the Rehat as he progresses then that would not make sense.

Tony bro,

You are right same can be argued about the rehat of SIkhism. These four stages- shariat, tariqat, marfat, hakikat is not newly invented stages. I read first read about it in adhatamic books by sant waryam singh ji and then I later read it in - Sant Jagjit singh ji harkhowale excellent work on spirituality. In fact sant mandali of all the dharams divide stages of religious person into four stages above. Whilst, some of rehat in the panth like- keeping keshas, refrain from eating halal, refrain from smoking tobboco is integral part of sikhi at any stage , there are many janam sakhiyas of many mahapursh/bhramgyanis where they have rose above from all other rehats which are meant for sharia (first stage of an dharam). Hence, person with stage in hakikat personally don't feel need to follow rehat of shariat but most of them do it anyway so that their followers do not go astray but many mastanie mahapursh do not follow rehat of shariat.

Once we start understanding above and rise above from sharia, everything all of sudden should be in its place all nicely.

[tonyhp32]

Neo,

Relying on people you believe to be Brahmgyanis is all very well if you totally trust in their status. However, is this progression mentioned in Gurbani, Bhai Gurdas vars or even in Sakhi concerning the period directly after 1699 to 1708. Why would Guruji create the Khalsa and yet leave no guidance that this is just a stage and it is ok to drop the Rehat after one gets to the next more spiritual stage. How does this tie in with the 'Rehat Pyari Mujh ko Sikh Pyara Nahi'? 'Rehni Rahe Sohi Sikh Mera' etc.

I believe the wholesale transfer of the Sufi stages into Sikhism by so-called Sants is a recent development, especially the de-emphesising of Sharia/Rehat. My belief is, not being a Brahmgyani please feel free to ignore it, is that there are stages of spiritual growth but one can achieve the highest stage and yet still keep the Rehat. If some Brahmgyanis keep the Rehat only so that others do not get discouraged from keeping the Rehat then what of those Brahmgyanis who do not keep the Rehat, are they not worried about discouraging their followers? How about Guru Gobind Singh, he also kept the rehat and even allowed himself to be fined for a transgression of Rehat?

I think we need to be careful about sprouting views such as Rehat is just a stage and is not needed upon progression. This totally negates our history, did all those Shaheeds of the 18th century undergo martyrdom for the defence of just a 'temporary' stage in their spiritual progress.

[shaheediyan]

"You cannot give up sharia and claim to be a Muslim."

Well Baba Farid Ji and Pir Buddu Shah were Muslims and Gurmukhs, to name 2 examples. I take my belief of Bhai Mardana being both Muslim and Sikh based on his kul, thats my evidence and my opinion, everyone else is entitled to theirs. Anyone that thinks Guru Nanak Dev Ji didn't have Hindu and Muslim followers is highly mistaken - read the sakhi of Maharajs ascension. Also read up on Maharajs travels to Iraq and the famous Muslim Sheikh disciples he made there.

A translation of the tomb of Bahlol states:

"Murad saw the demolished building of Hazrat Rab-i-majid "Baba Nanak" Fakir Aulia; and Murad re-built it with his own hands, so that the historic memorial may continue, from generation to generation, and that Baba Nanak's murid-i-s'eed (the blessed disciple) may obtain heavenly bliss".

As you can see, in order for Guru Nanak to have Murids, he must have been seen as a Murshid - we need to stop these silly black and and white classification commentries - terminology, concepts and even religion takes a different meaning amongst true men of God, be them Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Sikh. Mystical groups exist within all - yet they still keep devotion to their core faith, they just interpret it at a higher level, why can we not seek out these interpretations rather than the dumbed down fanatic ones?

Modern day examples would be the many Darbaari/Hazuri Muslim Kirtani that performed Gurmat Kirtan right into the 20th century - i.e. the legendary rababis that were Bhai Taba Ji, Bhai Nasira Ji and Bhai Chand Ji - who kept the traditions of Guru Maharajs kirtan darbar alive which include the various kirtan chawkis which were always historically performed at Darbar Sahib.

Muslim groups, especially Subcontinental Sufis - treat Guru (always have) as their Pir, this is why they still sing Maharajs Shabds in qwaal. Even the present holder of Mian Mirs gaddi treat Guru Nanak as a Pir.

The medieval Ginans and the Chaitanya Bhagbat both recognise Guru Nanak as their own (Muslim and Hindu). Guru Nanak Dev Ji - the manifest Prabhu - was above the silly barriers that are being erected here - he was allowed in Jagganath Puri and Macca - places where only the aforementioned allowed - hence, from day 1 - he has been considered both Muslim and Hindu, not to mention Buddist.

If you people wish to continue to degrade other margs and their followers and put an electronic fence around Sikhi, thats your choice, history proves otherwise, always will. Picking and choosing sakhis like Tony does to suit his bias is not the way to learn or promote Gurumat. One can also look at sakhis like Bhai Mannis Singhs, where Muslims ask Pehlai Patshah whether Muhammed or Ali is greater, or look at the ode to Ali in Sri Sarbloh Granth Sahib, funny how these never seem to mentioned. The answer then of course will be, these Sakhis/Granths are not authentic etc.

There are so many instances of Muslims (who remained Muslims) who helped and sought our Gurus sangat -and were honored by our Gurus in history that debunks the fanatical and disrespectful attitude being shown here which insists that these Muslims were simply confused. We see so many examples of righteous Muslims in our ithihaas, its sickening to always see one biased take on this forum as of late - its childish to have an allergic reaction to anything 'Islamic' just because of one 'Bahadur Ali' unfortunate experience and understanding of Sikhi. An example of an 'enemy' who saw correct Islam was Bhai Sher Muhammed Khan who tried to help the Sahibzadey and refuced to accept the Qazis interpretation of the Koran. He actions were said to have greatly pleased Dasam Pita, even though Sher Muhammed sought to seek revenge for his brothers death from Dasmesh pita on the battlefield - like a mard.

Baba Farid was a Muslim, he has his own following/group in Pak Pattan and own ithihaas - we cannot seperate him from Islam as much as we try, only he could have done that and he chose not to - his writings were parvaan in Gurus Dargah.

As so eloquently potrayed by our veer Tirath Singh Nirmala in his excellent new work, even the early great mahapursh of the Panth i.e. Bhai Adhan Shah Ji - studied and used 'Islamic' based texts like Rumi Sahibs Musnuvi in his parchaar. Again, one cannot seperate Rumi and Islam, all you can do is differentiate between Rumi Sahibs understanding of Islam and that of the Taliban.

My last words on this topic are - Guru Nanak is Jaggath Guru - his teachings in my opinion appeal to mystical seekers of all faiths, hence why he has been claimed by true followers of all the faiths that he came into contact with.

Being Jagath Guru - the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jis teachings are for the betterment of all people - to say one cannot read, understand, accept and benefit from Gurbani whilt being a Hindu, Muslim or anything else for that matter is simply fanatical.

Gurus words improve ones condition, no matter what house he is from - one learns to see their own marg more clearly - the faults in how it is portrayed/promoted today, alongside in its inner universal beauty - as the Sufis and Bhagats have done.

Yes - we have teesra/niyara panth - as previous practice of dharma has been corrupted (in general terms not individual terms) - but nowhere have Guru Sahiban or Mahapursh after them to this day, had this allergic reaction to anything Islamic as we are seeing on this forum as of late. Guru Gobind Singh accepted the supposed sword of Ali from Bahadur Shah which to this day has a place of honor at Kesghar Sahib, why would Guru accept this symbol of the Imam if 'we' are so anti Islamic? Why would it be kept in Takht Sahib esp when it has an Islamic incantation on it. Chevin Patshahs Guru ki Masjid also stands as a testimony to Gurus kindness and acceptance of Muslims as they are. There are way too many examples in our ithihaas to list, way to many. Anyone really interested in knowing our Guru Sahibans interaction with Mughal Raj (good as well as bad) and the many Muslims that adored and helped the Gurus simply have to read ithihaas.

Peace.

[Kaljug]

but many mastanie mahapursh do not follow rehat of shariat.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!

My understanding of Mastanes (from Sant Jagjit Singh Harkhowale) is that such Mahapurush do not always follow rehat because they do not teach or usually take disciples. It's a blessing accorded to few and usually to unique personalities who simply haven't the ability (or the desire) to teach others to reach their state because it comes so naturally to them.

Their example does not mean that we get to ignore rehat unless we arrive at their avastha first and have hukam to drown ourselves in Akal Purakh without any care for anything else.

Regards,

K.