FreshMind13

It's a coping mechanism to the dumb <banned word filter activated> Bollywood imposes on them. I think that jkvlondon is talking about the stupid idiots who have faith in Bollywood, while Ranjeet is talking about the husband who is working his <banned word filter activated> off to support the house and family.

It's pretty known among learned elders that Deravaad and Babavaad start their following thru Bibian. I don't give a <banned word filter activated> about PC talk, its the truth.

Can we get numbers on how many Punabi Hindus there are compared to Sikhs. We have to stop these Hindus from screwing around with our <banned word filter activated>, they won't even put Punjabi down anyway just like their Indian counterparts. They have no right to speak on such matters.

Buddha was affectively an atheist.

Dude? Did you even read what I quoted from Choubees Avtaar written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji?

Go read Guru Sahib's Dasam Baani before calling someone a bigot.

ਅਥ ਬਊਧ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਤੇਈਸਵੌ ਕਥਨੰ ॥ Now begins the description of the twenty-third Buddha incarnation ਚੌਪਈ ॥ CHAUPAI ਅਬ ਮੈ ਗਨੋ ਬਊਧ ਅਵਤਾਰਾ ॥ ਜੈਸ ਰੂਪ ਕਹੁ ਧਰਾ ਮੁਰਾਰਾ ॥ Now I describe the Buddha incarnation as to how the Lord assumed this form ਬਊਧ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਇਹੀ ਕੋ ਨਾਊ ॥ ਜਾਕਰ ਨਾਵ ਨ ਥਾਵ ਨ ਗਾਊ ॥੧॥ Buddha incarnation is the name of that one, who has no name, no place and no villate.1. ਜਾਕਰ ਨਾਵ ਨ ਠਾਵ ਬਖਾਨਾ ॥ ਬਊਧ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਵਹੀ ਪਹਚਾਨਾ ॥ He, whose name and place are not described, he is only known as the Buddha incarnation ਸਿਲਾ ਸਰੂਪ ਰੂਪ ਤਿਹ ਜਾਨਾ ॥ ਕਥਾ ਨ ਜਾਹਿ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਮਾਨਾ ॥੨॥ No one has accepted his sayings in the Iron Age, who visualizes the beauty only in stone (idols).2. ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥ DOHRA ਰੂਪ ਰੇਖ ਜਾਕਰ ਨ ਕਛੁ ਅਰੁ ਕਛੁ ਨਹਿਨ ਆਕਾਰ ॥ Neither he is beautiful nor he does any work ਸਿਲਾ ਰੂਪ ਬਰਤਤ ਜਗਤ ਸੋ ਬਊਧ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥੩॥ He considers the whole world like stone and calls himself the Buddha incarnation.3. ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਬਊਧ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਤੇਈਸਵੋ ਸਮਾਪਤਮ ਸਤੁ ਸੁਭਮ ਸਤੁ ॥੨੩॥ Here ends the description of Buddha Incarnation in Bachittar Natak.23.

Most Punjabi Hindus identify as Indian anyway, as in India, they put Hindi instead of Punjabi as their language. Punjabi Muslims would rather put Pakistani. I've actually seen a trend with Pakistani Muslims and they want to be like Arabs (because they want to assimilate I guess). So 90-99% of people who identify as Punjabi will be Sikh.

By this logic, there should be no problem putting Punjabi as an option. This option is technically sound and rational. Putting Sikh has no basis Look at the last Census, where does it have for example, Jew? It doesn't. Arab makes sense as it is a certain people from a geographical location. Putting "Punjabi" under C is what we should be advocating for.

http://barficulture.tv/politics/280 I guess I'm RSS now for believing Punjabi is a race while Sikhi is a Dharam. SMH ?

Yea, I'm not too familiar with how things are across the pond. I do know a Gora Singh in the UK who recently took Amrit after a few years of learning about Sikhi, he said it would put him in a dilemma on what box should he tick. It's these type of situations, where a non-Punjabi Sikh has to do the census where it gets confusing.

I agree would should have a box to tick (I'm from the U.S., so its going to take a while here to get added) but I believe we should keep it correct. Sikh isn't a ethnicity/race. It is a Dharam/Religion/Way of Life/etc. Punjabi is the correct term to be used in the Census. But the thing is though, we can assume that pretty much everyone who put Punjabi on the Census will most likely be a Sikh, so it works both ways.

Exactly, I expect Hindu Punjabi's outside of India will do the same thing, as they more identify with being Indian than Punjabi. Your first point contradicts your second point of Sikhs being an ethnicity, because as you have stated, majority of people putting down Punjabi will be Sikh. You can guess that 90%+ of people will be "Sikh" as the Hindus wont put Punjabi down.

Just Punjabi should be added, a census should never ask for religion one follows (reminds me of what Hitler did). This would also leave non-Punjabi Sikhs in a odd position, do they chose their actual race or their religion?

Guru Ji was born on January 1st, 1667 (Poh Sudi 7, 1723 BK) (23 Poh, 1723 BK) The people, books, websites, etc. who still use December 22nd, 1666 as the birth date are stupid and need to realize that this date is in the Julian calendar, which hasn't been in use for 2-3 centuries now.

According to Giani Sher Singh, the first savaiya doesnt exist in Puratan Birhs. I don't know how that is grounds for removal, how do we know these birhs that don't have it are accurate? What time period are they from? If it didn't exist, then where did the first savaiya (ਜਾਗਤ ਜੋਤਿ ਜਪੈ ਨਿਸ ਬਾਸੁਰ) come from?

This, GurmatBibek.com is better for any Sarabloh / Bibek questions.

Sodhak Committee was pretty Sanatani man. The main guy, Mana Singh was barely there for have of the sessions they had and there were a few guys on there who showed up for every session but didn't know how to read. Sodhak Committee was just a publicity statement, guys didn't do any proper research.

Sodhak Committee wasn't Missionary btw.

Sorry if I'm being rude here, but can we stop using SGPC as a scapegoat. I mentioned this before, SGPC doesn't print Sri Dasam Granth whole or as Bhaag/Senchyia. The nearest thing they print is their Das Granthi Gutka Sahib which contains: Jaap, Shabad Hazare, Akal Ustat, Bachittar Natak, Chandi Charittar Ukat Bilas, Chandi Charittar, Chandi Di Vaar, and Gian Prabodh. All I can say its that I would never trust Chattar Singh Jeevan Singh. I personally consider SGPC as most authentic for SGGS Ji. SGPC didn't even exist when the Sodhak Committee was working on Sri Dasam Granth, how could they have done anything? I don't think they removed the 34th Savaiya, because if I read correctly, Giani Sher Singh said this last Savaiya was written at Hazur Sahib? So it wasn't part of the original then I'm assuming. I would like to have a copy of Mehron Wale Senchyia and compare them to Hazur Sahib ones. Next time I go to India will try to get them.

I think @TaksalDaSingh9771 also has Hazur Sahib senchis, maybe he can also check

I have no clue, I borrowed this from a local Singh. What is also interesting is that the second savaiya ends in a ||1||, not a ||2||. So this is not a simple printing mistake, but someone purposefully did not include it.

Nope, I said in the title, Hazur Sahib. SGPC doesn't print Sri Dasam Granth or Senchyia of it. Closest thing SGPC has is their Das Granthi Gutka I guess.

As said in the title, Hazur Sahib Senchi is missing the first Savaiya from 33 Savaiye? Why? This is big beadbi.

I heard they want to stay because of the Ithaasic Gurdware there.