BhForce

No, brother, I did not. You can't just throw up a video without a few sentences of its import, and expect people to view the whole thing. Anyways, thanks for now doing so. Finally, I would advise this babaji to contact the Buddha Dal with hard info in order to make changes in the Gutka at the source instead of trying to tell random people on the Internet which then means they will possibly tangle with those who read the "incomplete" Brahm Kavach.

Well, the only difference between the Damdami saroop and the original (Aad) granth was the addition of Guru Tegh Bahadur ji's bani, meaning a difference of only 1.95%. We're not talking about the difference between a originally it was a granth praising Jehovah and stories of the prophets and now we've got a granth (Guru Granth Sahib) praising the all-pervading God and having hymns, not stories. The fact is Guru Tegh Bahadur ji's bani is basically giving the same message as the Aad Granth, with some differences in style and focus. It is not a radically different message. So, what's the worry? Well, isn't it just cute that the Muslims are talking about us not having the Damdami saroop, since its because the jihadis that we lost it in the first place! It's like killing somebody's dad and then taunting him for being an orphan. Also, it is thought that the saroop given Gurgaddi is a different one from the one created at Damdama. So there's that.

How would you know, bro? I would imagine that the Budha Dal, of all groups, would know what belongs in Brahm Kavach and what doesn't. Anyway, what's the line, and what's your source for the original?

I think if you want to solicit "the truth" about various topics, you should slow down your pace of posting topics to allow discussion on all sides in-depth.

1. Well there are people who, in their mind, accept the "peaceful" Guru Nanak ji, but not the "warlike" Guru Gobind Singh ji. They would mostly describe themselves as Hindus. A lot of them go to gurdwaras in Delhi and Amritsar, and elsewhere. Some don't go to gurdwaras, but simply sometimes turn on the Gurbani channel on TV, and turn on Hindu devotional channels other times. But there are also other Hindus who respect Guru Gobind Singh ji but don't desire to be "full-time" Sikhs. 2. There are an exceedingly small number of "Sikhs" who think that Guru Nanak Dev ji didn't pass on the Guruship so the other 9 Gurus are illegitimate (and by extension so is Guru Granth Sahib ji). These people are out of their minds. 3. There are the Sindhis, who were Hindus from the Sindh region now in Pakistan who were taught love of Guru Nanak ji and Gurbani by Sikh saints and preachers. They install and read Guru Granth Sahib ji but don't take Khanda Amrit or keep hair. Interestingly, LK Advani, former Indian BJP party #2, is a Sindhi. 4. Then there are "Sikh" splinter groups who depart from the Guru line when their own particular guru went off in a huff and a puff from the main Guru line. For example, the Meenas accepted the Guru line up to the 4th Guru Ramdas ji, but accepted their own Pirthi Chand in place of Guru Arjan Dev ji. Similarly, the Ram Raiyas (followers of Ram Rai) accepted the Guru line upto the 7th Guru, but don't accept from the 8th forward. Also, the followers of Sural Mal, who mounted an attack on Guru Teg Bahadur ji (9th Guru). And the Naamdharis don't accept Guru Granth Sahib as Guru. Sikhs believe that the jot (spirit) of all the 10 Gurus (and Guru Granth Sahib ji) is one. About the unity of the Gurus, Guru Gobind Singh ji wrote that the saints know the Gurus are one, and the fools do not: ਅਮਰ ਦਾਸ ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਕਹਾਯੋ ॥ Amar Daasa Raamdaasa Kahaayo ॥ ਸਾਧਨ ਲਖਾ ਮੂੜ ਨਹਿ ਪਾਯੋ ॥੯॥ Saadhan Lakhaa Moorha Nahi Paayo ॥9॥ Amar Das was called Ram Das, only the saints know it and the fools did not.9. ਭਿੰਨ ਭਿੰਨ ਸਭਹੂੰ ਕਰਿ ਜਾਨਾ ॥ Bhiaann Bhiaann Sabhahooaan Kari Jaanaa ॥ ਏਕ ਰੂਪ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਾ ॥ Eeka Roop Kinhooaan Pahichaanaa ॥ The people on the whole considered them as separate ones, but there were few who recognized them as one and the same. ਜਿਨ ਜਾਨਾ ਤਿਨ ਹੀ ਸਿਧਿ ਪਾਈ ॥ Jin Jaanaa Tin Hee Sidhi Paaeee ॥ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਮਝੇ ਸਿਧਿ ਹਾਥਿ ਨ ਆਈ ॥੧੦॥ Binu Samajhe Sidhi Haathi Na Aaeee ॥10॥ Those who recognized them as One, they were successful on the spiritual plane. Without recognition there was no spiritual success.10. ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਅ. ੫ - ੧੦/(੪) - ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ

I believe that this would be a more fruitful discussion if not steered towards Raag Mala. Most of the Panth accepts Raag Mala, a few don't. What's more interesting for me, and a discussion we should have internally to ward off potential enemies of the Panth, is differences in the 1429 pages before Raag Mala. Are there differences in saroops in the 1429 pages (referring to pre-Raag Mala bani according to printed saroop page numbering). And if there are differences, are they major or minor? So far as a analysis of textual differences of many different saroops conducted by an advisor to Jathedar Joginder Singh Vedanti found, there are minor vowel differences in a few places. There are no major differences (word differences).

Hmm, Chahal is a Jat surname. Extremely strange to see a Jat as a Buddhist. They are usually Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh. Or maybe it was an Ambedkar follower who worked for a Chahal family and adopted the name when they had to get a passport.

Yeah, according to which calendar, SGPC, Purewal, Bikrami?

Ever heard of making money while on holiday. Plenty of work opportunities to make some extra income. Yes, I have, in fact. But I had totally forgotten about it until you mentioned it, thanks. Unfortunately, the US does not have such a program for British citizens. You have to have a job already lined up. Plus demonstrate your exceptional ability and college education. Plus there are usually more applicants than visa slots, so there's a lottery every year, and the quota is already filled up for this year, next chance Apr 2019. And you have to actually work, it's doubtful your employer will give you a month off after you just started. If your intention is to work a day or two, tour a day or two, and repeat, no employer will sponsor your visa (which is expensive). Canada, on the other hand, has the International Experience program for people 18 to 35. But, as you noted, there's less stuff to see.

You're right. Except that the OP has belatedly stated that it'll be too expensive for him to stay in hotels. So he's down to just staying with his relatives in Toronto.

I noted that you'll not be killed just as you step off the plane. The point is that Canada is safer than the US. Granted, 99.9% of the time, you'll be OK. It's just that people should not be complacent. On the matter, of California, that's where: A young Sikh gas station attendant was gunned down Two elderly Sikh men, 65 and 78, were killed walking 68 yr old Sikh found dead Sikh man beaten up and hair cut Another 68 yr old Sikh beaten up severely, and Gurdwara defaced And an 82 yr old attacked in Fresno in 2013, outside a Gurdwara So please don't make Sikhs think they're absolutely safe in California. They're not.

What, really? Do you have any links or are you just surmising?

Have you never had the pleasure of listening to Asa di Vaar, bro? Read the article referenced by @jkvlondon here.

Probably, though the Gurus didn't object or discriminate against Sehajdhari Sikhs, You mean other than calling hair-cutters dried roots? Would that count as objecting? ਬਚਨ ਹੈ ਸ੍ਰ੍ਰ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਕਿ ਜੋ ਕੋਈ ਸਿਖ ਦਾ ਬੇਟਾ ਹੋਏੇ ਔੌਰ ਮੋਨਾ ਹੋਇ ਜਾਵੈ Bachan hai srrrī gurū jī kā ki jō kōī sikh dā bēṭā hōē aaur mōnā hōi jāvai This is the directive of Guru, that if the son of a Sikh shaves the head, ਤਸਿ ਕੀ ਜੜ੍ਹ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਸ ਕੀ, ਔੌਰ ਜੋ ਮੋਨਾ ਸਿਖ ਹੋਇ ਜਾਵੈ ਤਸਿ ਕੀ ਜੜ੍ਹ੍ਹ੍ਹ ਹਰੀ ॥ Tasi kī jaṛhhh sa kī, aaur jō mōnā sikh hōi jāvai tasi kī jaṛhhh harī ॥ His root will dry up, and if a shaven one becomes Sikh, his root will become green. ਭਾਈ ਨੰਦ ਲਾਲ ਜੀ : ਤਨਖ਼ਾਹ ਨਾਮਾ ਪੰ. ੧੪੯

No it is not. It is extremely constructive. This is the culture that Guru Sahib lived in, and changed some bad parts. Punjabi culture is much more conducive to human happiness than modern mainstream British/American culture. You sound like a Jacobin from the French Revolution. Most of the customs are destructive? Is there a percentagewise list? You've set up a strawman, then are attempting to alight it. Punjabi culture does not advocate drowning yourself in drink, or of drinking in public. If you want to say that's Punjabi culture, then you might as well also saying that drinking is part of the Sikh rehit. Authentic Punjabi culture only allows for a bit of drink behind closed doors when guests visit. Also, so-called "bhangra" is not a part of Punjabi culture. Rather, it's simply a dance to celebrate farmers' harvests. It's for men only. Male-female dancing (whether "bhangra" or otherwise) is not a part of Punjabi culture. Finally, girls dancing (whether giddha or otherwise) with men watching is also not a part of authentic Punjabi culture. (I realize that there was prostitution, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the "mainstream".) So if you were just to follow authentic Punjabi culture, you'd be in a pretty good place (better than mainstream British/American culture or fake Punjabi culture). Of course Sikhism goes a step further, and nasha is outright banned in the rehit.

Possibly. By the way, is the 45-yr old looking man with a long black beard supposed to be Bhai Mardana ji? Thank God Sikka didn't depict Bhai Mardana with his mustache shaved off like Muslims like to do. I don't think I could stomach that. That, btw, is the problem with representations. When you just say "Bhai Mardana" the audience of a kathakaar can imagine him like they want. Once you fix an image as a representation, you necessarily have to come down on once side or another. Sabat surat or jihadi beard? Etc.

I was a bit skeptical when you said a review by a "gursikh", but I read a few articles on the site skeptical of Dhunda, Harjinder Dilgeer, and Nanakshahi calendar, so it seems OK. The article says the movie reduces Guru Sahib to the status of a mere man, and not God himself. Also, Guru Sahib speaks out in Gurbani against Ras Leelas and the like. There was always a tradition of sakhis, but never of actually playing out the role of the Guru like the HIndus do. Also, anything remotely likely to offend Hindus or Muslims was self-censored, like Mecca turning, watering fields from Haridwar, refusing Hindu marriage ceremony. Also, he doesn't show the deer Guru Sahib boiled at Kurkshetra turning into rice pudding. Why not? What is Sikka's agenda?

The speaker states that the movie is essentially a lie because the actor playing Guru Nanak is not in fact Guru Nanak ji. Which is true. Then he also states that the actor speaking the words of Guru Nanak is also unacceptable. I want to quibble with this a bit: When kathakaar says "And then Guru Nanak said such and such", he's also mouthing what he purports to be the actual words of Guru Sahib, which is also a "lie". And Suraj Prakash is also a lie, by the same standard. And when the kathakar mouths the words, he's basically speaking in the voice of Guru ji. So, why is that OK, but it's not OK when accompanied by an animation of Guru Sahib? Also, the vast majority of Sikhs don't have a problem with still-life paintings of Guru ji, so why an objection to animation? I do agree with not having actors playing Guru Sahib. Do note that I'm not saying we should have this movie, or these types of movies. Just asking questions. Also, I don't think that these types of movies should be made by random Sikhs. First, the whole panth should agree that it wants to make such a movie. If there is not agreement, then don't make it. If there is agreement, the SGPC should make the movie, and release it for free after it recoups its costs. The movie should not be a money-making vehicle for private entities.

It's not clear what "script changes" he supposedly made, but the VFX he's talking about is merely putting a big white halo over the character of Guru Nanak ji, obscuring the face and body. You're right that in order to have an informed opinion about this, we need to know who "Harinder Sikka" is, where he got his financing, who all is involved in the project. The Sikh sangat rejected his film the first time, and theaters were basically empty. He should have learned his lesson the first time. No harm, no foul. But this guy is a dheeth (stubborn).

I have relatives in Toronto, Canada. So might be visiting them. Otherwise it’s too expensive staying in a hotel. Well, then, there's your answer. Stay with your relatives. Visit tourist areas of Toronto, visit the CN Tower. Then do some smaller trips, if you want, just 1-night stays in hotels, or Gurdwaras, if you can arrange a room in advance. Visit the capital of Canada. Then visit BC (a longer trip), and its capital and landscape. Possibly historic gurdwaras of BC. And a visit to Niagra Falls, and New York City, which is relatively close to Toronto.

Namdharis are belongs to 10 gurus satguru Nanak dev ji and satguru gobind singh ji. And ... you failed to answer the question. Again, I ask are you a Namdhari, and if so to which group do you belong? Your statement to Namdharis belonging to 10 gurus is immaterial to the question. And if you are a Namdhari, why are you afraid to say so?

You're not visiting relatives? You're just visting "North America" generically? In that case, there's definitely more stuff to see in America, simply because America is 10X bigger in the parts of the country worth seeing. Yes, Canada has more area, but do you really want to see swathes of tundra? I would agree with @KhoonKaBadlaKhoon that Canada is safer (especially for kesadhari Sikhs), but it's not like you'll be killed just stepping off the plane in the US, either. If you're a single male keshadhari, I'd be cautious.

It's not just people on this forum. Indians generally are scared of blacks. When Indians get to America, they don't go to the library and do a deep dive into Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers, analyzing crime rates for different groups, causes thereof, etc., and then come to the conclusion that they should by wary of black people. No, they just straight up when they see a man with black skin, go "Oh, no, a Habshi! Run!!" OK. But highly misleading. In a country which is majority white, you would expect that most of the welfare recipients would be white, too. But, in fact, a minority of welfare recipients are white. Less whites are taking welfare then their percentage of the population: Whites are 76.9% of the population, according the US Census. Yet they only make up 40% of welfare recipients. So they are taking welfare at a very low rate. By contrast, blacks are 13.3% of the US population, but are 25.7% of the welfare-takers. This all from a US Agriculture Dept report, cited by a Newsweek article meaning to dispel the notion that blacks take a disproportionate share of welfare, but failing miserably. The numbers are indisputable. FYI, Asians make up 5.7% of the general population, but only 2.1% of welfare recipients. Maybe. But school shootings make up a minuscule amount (a few tens) of the 17793 murders each year. Additionally, blacks make up a huge percentage of murderers in the US: A TV channel did a fact-check on this: A lot of people suspect this. Yes, fatherlessness is a big factor in young males being out of control.

In order to have a conversation, can you state whether you are a Namdhari, and if so, to which group do you belong?