Conspiracy to separate Sikhism from Hinduism

[asingh10]

No topic can be discussed in India without people indulging in base emotionalism and showing complete lack of common sense, logic, and reason.

Emotionalism+PC is killing this country because it's held over the value of truth.

The Kamlesh Tiwari episode is a good e.g.

 

[Mad Indian]

Rich coming from a guy who have never seen a sikh in his life ...... but plz tell your logic to a Sikh and have a free face restructure surgery and this debate has nothing to do with khalistan.

how do you know that I have not seen Sikhs ? Stop posting like a moron. And this is not an argument- I will break the guy who claims Sikhism is not a different from Hinduism. It just shows insecurity. You must be so insecure about your identity that you can't even properly defend your points without these ad hominem attackts .

Khalistan movement is a direct consequence of delinking Sikhism from Hinduism and so it is very relevant in the context I described. why else would it even exist?

Same with the Dravidian separatist movement during indepence which was because of the separate Dravidian identity which was carved out of Indian/Hindu mainstream thought which was made to be Aryan.

Khalistan was started and ended by Sikhs alone those Sikhs who crushed khalistan were Sikhs,they never claimed to be Hindus.

Doesn't contradict my point one bit. Sikhs putting a stop to khalistan movement doesn't change the fact that the very reason for its existence is due to seperatikn of Sikh identity from hindu identity

Analogy with Dravidian morons - Dravidian separate land during independence was also stopped by south indians who thought they were 200% Dravidians. Does that change the fact that it happened due to this artificial faultline?

.

But i am sure this kind of pan India Hindumentality is enough for khalistan 2.0.

that's just your insecurity talking. We can't hide the truth or stop debates on it to protect you from your insecurities..


BTW, khalistan 2.0 won't happen if the Sikhs are made to realise how stupid this artificial construct of separate identity is. And if it does happen, it will meet the same fate as khalistan 1.0.


And stop posting like a muzzie. Only they will claim - stop insulting their pedo and threaten with violence. Post objective points as to why Sikhs are different entirely from Hindus like xtians or muzzies. You are not a child. Post like a grown up

 

[Bornubus]

how do you know that I have not seen Sikhs ? Stop posting like a moron. And this is not an argument- I will break the guy who claims Sikhism is not a different from Hinduism. It just shows insecurity. You must be so insecure about your identity that you can't even properly defend your points without these ad hominem attackts .

Khalistan movement is a direct consequence of delinking Sikhism from Hinduism and so it is very relevant in the context I described. why else would it even exist?

Same with the Dravidian separatist movement during indepence which was because of the separate Dravidian identity which was carved out of Indian/Hindu mainstream thought which was made to be Aryan.


Doesn't contradict my point one bit. Sikhs putting a stop to khalistan movement doesn't change the fact that the very reason for its existence is due to seperatikn of Sikh identity from hindu identity

Analogy with Dravidian morons - Dravidian separate land during independence was also stopped by south indians who thought they were 200% Dravidians. Does that change the fact that it happened due to this artificial faultline?

.

that's just your insecurity talking. We can't hide the truth or stop debates on it to protect you from your insecurities..


BTW, khalistan 2.0 won't happen if the Sikhs are made to realise how stupid this artificial construct of separate identity is. And if it does happen, it will meet the same fate as khalistan 1.0.


And stop posting like a muzzie. Only they will claim - stop insulting their pedo and threaten with violence. Post objective points as to why Sikhs are different entirely from Hindus like xtians or muzzies. You are not a child. Post like a grown up

Haha my identity is Hinduism but i never tried to impose it on Sikhs whom i know and there is entire literature on this issue why Sikhs consider themselves separate from Hindus,so i suggest you visit their sites and meet any Sikh scholar.

Also please don't bother us with dravid nationalists/separatist,what they think about rest of India and their world view,they can do whatever the fuck they want or create a separate nation for all i care.

 

[Mad Indian]

Haha my identity is Hinduism but i never tried to impose it on Sikhs whom i know and there is entire literature on this issue why Sikhs consider themselves separate from Hindus,so i suggest you visit their sites and meet any Sikh scholar.

OF course it is. Brtishits were very good at creating the ideological and intellectual base for their divide. Just like how there are dedicated intellectuals supporting Dravidian Aryan crap and who still defend it even though it has been proven to be a bunch of horse shit beyond doubt.

And even if they exist, they should substantiate what their position is objectively

Also please don't bother us with dravid nationalists/separatist,what they think about rest of India and their world view,they can do whatever the fuck they want or create a separate nation for all i care.

Why because you are an eruopean?. And this is exactly the problem- people like you identifying more with Invaders and europeans than with your fellow countrymen. And you must think you are a proud/ great nationalist.

That said, thats just me trying to prove a point on why both of these assholes are similiar. both are artificial constructs and are the same wrt India- both are very dangerous to India and Hindus. You are just proving my point

 

[Bornubus]

OF course it is. Brtishits were very good at creating the ideological and intellectual base for their divide. Just like how there are dedicated intellectuals supporting Dravidian Aryan crap and who still defend it even though it has been proven to be a bunch of horse shit beyond doubt.

And even if they exist, they should substantiate what their position is objectively



Why because you are an eruopean?. And this is exactly the problem- people like you identifying more with Invaders and europeans than with your fellow countrymen. And you must think you are a proud/ great nationalist.

That said, thats just me trying to prove a point on why both of these assholes are similiar. both are artificial constructs and are the same wrt India- both are very dangerous to India and Hindus. You are just proving my point

Yes yes i get it, Sikhs must proclaim to be a sect of Hinduism and all northeners should love Tamils as their distant brothers from same ancestors in order to be a proud nationalists otherwise they are commies and liberals.

No wonder, some Hindu scriptures consider Gautam Buddha as 11 th Avatar or Vishnu

Also, there are Upanishads which strongly contradicts Vedas and Hindu beliefs make fun of rituals,yajna while equating the Brahmans who are chanting hyms with Toads in monsoon.

Do you also believe the above ?

 

[asingh10]

Yes yes i get it, Sikhs must proclaim to be a sect of Hinduism and all northeners should love Tamils as their distant brothers from same ancestors in order to be a proud nationalists otherwise they are commies and liberals.

No wonder, some Hindu scriptures consider Gautam Buddha as 11 th Avatar or Vishnu

Also, there are Upanishads which strongly contradicts Vedas and Hindu beliefs make fun of rituals,yajna while equating the Brahmans who are chanting hyms with Toads in monsoon.

Do you also believe the above ?

It was Buddha who first claimed that he was Ram (an avatar of Vishnu) in past life in Dasratha Jataka, Jatakas are accepted as part of the Pali canon and accepted by all even Theravada sect of Buddhism.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4025.htm

And in Ghata Pandita Jataka, he claimed to be the brother of Vasudeva Krishna & Balarama. So Hindus didn't just "cook it up", there was some basis for the Vishnu Avatara claim. And BTW, Buddha was considered to be an avatara of Vishnu by Guru Gobind Singh Ji as well, it's chaubisavatar of Dasam Granth : -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaubis_Avtar#List_of_24_Avatars

See #23

And about Upanishads, they don't make fun of rituals but re-interpret Yajnas or Vedic rituals as symbolic and internal because they were came about at a time when society started to move away from ritualism to spirituality. Even Buddha gives similar interpretations to Vedic rituals in Sundarika Sutta.

Don't talk about subjects you have no knowledge about.

 

[Bornubus]

It was Buddha who first claimed that he was Ram (an avatar of Vishnu) in past life in Dasratha Jataka, Jatakas are accepted as part of the Pali canon and accepted by all even Theravada sect of Buddhism.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4025.htm

And in Ghata Pandita Jataka, he claimed to be the brother of Vasudeva Krishna & Balarama. So Hindus didn't just "cook it up", there was some basis for the Vishnu Avatara claim. And BTW, Buddha was considered to be an avatara of Vishnu by Guru Gobind Singh Ji as well, it's chaubisavatar of Dasam Granth : -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaubis_Avtar#List_of_24_Avatars

See #23

And about Upanishads, they don't make fun of rituals but re-interpret Yajnas or Vedic rituals as symbolic and internal because they were came about at a time when society started to move away from ritualism to spirituality. Even Buddha gives similar interpretations to Vedic rituals in Sundarika Sutta.

Don't talk about subjects you have no knowledge about.

And we should silently hear the sermons from a guy who quote some random lines from scriptures to suit his narrative.

Everybody knows about the concept of incarnation in Buddhism but Boddhisatva it's completely different from Hindu avatarvad so when Buddha said that he was Ram it doesn't mean Ram whom hindus understand as Vishnu's avatar

Perhaps the most important reason for the decline of Buddhism as a separate religion was the absorption of its founder in the Hindu pantheon of gods - indeed an irony for one who denied their existence! There are many incarnations of Vishnu of which the Dasavatar or the ten incarnations are the most well known. In the Southern tradition they are: matsya (fish), koorma (tortoise), varaha (boar), Narasimha (the man-lion), Vamana (the dwarf) Parasurama (the angry prince), Rama (the perfect human), Balarama, his younger brother Krishna (the divine statesman) and Kalki (the redeemer of righteousness in the kali yuga, who is yet to appear). In the Northern tradition Balarama is replaced by Buddha who appears as the ninth avatar after Krishna, his mission being to purify Hinduism. Srimad Bhagavatam (circa 900 AD, according to Farquhar) takes the stand that Krishna is the original form of Vishnu and the incarnations were all his. In its list of Dasavatar, which many consider as the most authentic, both Baladeva (or Balarama) and Buddha appear. Krishna is not mentioned because he is the original god. The Dasavatara Stotra of Jayadev (12th century), parts of which are included in Adi Guru Granth compiled by Guru Arjun Singh, follows the list of Bhagavatam. In this scheme, Buddhism was like the reformation movement of Martin Luther in Christianity. Once Buddha himself became an incarnation of Vishnu there was no need for the religion to exist separately in this country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

Congrats now you have pissed Buddhists along with sikhs .... next logical step is jesus as the avatar of Vishnu

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa disregarded the connection of Buddha with Hinduism, he regarded Buddha as the one who "transgressed dharma laid down for ksatriyas and he took himself to the profession of a religious teacher, one who 'deceives himself' and acts contrary to the Vedas".[24]

B. R. Ambedkar, denied that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Among the 22 vows he gave to the Dalit Buddhist movement, the 5th vow is "I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda."[25]

In 1999, at the Maha Bodhi Society in Sarnath, Jayendra Saraswathi of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham and S. N. Goenka, after having a mutual discussion, gave a joint communiqué agreeing on the following three points.[26]

1. Due to whatever reason some literature was written in India in the past in which the Buddha was declared to be a re-incarnation of Vishnu and other various things were written about him, this was very unpleasant to the neighbouring countries. In order to foster friendlier ties between Hindus and Buddhists we decide that whatever has happened in the past should be forgotten and such belief should not be propagated.
2. A misconception has spread in the neighbouring countries that the Hindu society of India is organising such conferences to prove its dominance over the followers of the Buddha. To forever remove this misconception we declare that both Vedic and Samana are ancient traditions of India (Vishnu belongs to the Vedic tradition and Buddha belongs to the Samana tradition). Any attempt by one tradition to show it higher than the other will only generate hatred and ill will between the two. Hence such a thing should not be done in future and both traditions should be accorded equal respect and esteem.
3. Any body can attain high position in the society by doing good deeds. One becomes a low person in society if one does evil deeds. Hence anybody by doing good deeds and removing the defilement’s such as passion, anger, arrogance, ignorance, greed, jealousy and ego can attain a high position in society and enjoy peace and happiness.

We agree on all the three things mentioned above and wish that all the people of India from all the traditions should have cordial relations and the neighbouring countries should also have friendly relations with India.

 

[Bornubus]

Vishnu as a Sub-Ordinate deity
The Dharani requested by Narayana

There is an interesting Dharani Sutra with the title “nārāyaṇaparipṛcchā āryamahāmāyāvijayavāhinī nāma dhāraṇī” – The āryamahāmāyāvijayavāhinī named Dharani requested by Narayana”. As explicitly indicated by the title, in this Dharani sutra Narayana is seen as requesting a Dharani from the Buddha.

The Buddha is residing at the city of Kubera, expounding the Dharma named “Dharma-Aloka-Mukha” [The Bright Faced Dharma]. There Narayana appears, after being defeated by the Asuras. He then circumambulates the Buddha and pays homage to him by placing his head at the Bhagavan’s feet and then requests the Dharani that grants victory in war.

tadevaṁ deśayatu bhagavān sarvajñaḥ sarvadarśī sarvasattvānukampakastaṁ dharmaparyāyaṁ yamete devanāgayakṣarākṣasādayo manuṣyā vā dhārayamāṇāḥ saṁgrāme mahāśūlapātebhyo vā sarvopadravebhyo vā sarvavitarkavicārebhyo vā vijayino bhaviṣyanti

Therefore instruct, Oh Bhagavan Knower-of-all, Observer-of-all and Sympathizer-of-all beings – that dharma-paryaya (Dharma teaching) by which the Devas, Nagas, Yakshas, Rakshas or Men on bearing will become victorious at war from the attack of great-tridents, all calamities and all-doubtful-thoughts.

On the request from Narayana, the Lord Buddha expounds the Dharani.

 

[Bornubus]

the fact that Buddha being referred to as an Avatar of Vishnu is posited to be one of the reasons for Buddhism’s decline – by causing the ultimate merger of Buddhism with Hinduism – One would probably expect a more visible backlash with greater references to Vishnu as a sub-ordinated deity in the Buddhist pantheon. Syncretism was too common and rampant across the Indic religions and possibly it wasn’t a serious enough a claim for the Buddhists to aggressively retort back. All of the above seems to be more like an organic assimilation of Vishnu into Buddhism (perhaps except for Hari-Hari-Hari-Vahana Lokeshvara).

 

[asingh10]

And we should silently hear the sermons from a guy who quote some random lines from scriptures to suit his narrative.

As opposed to a guy who uses blogs and resorts to emotionalism like a little child instead of hard facts.

Everybody knows about the concept of incarnation in Buddhism but it's completely different from Hindu avatarvad so when Buddha said that he was Ram it doesn't mean Ram whom hindus understand as Vishnu's avatar

This is by far the stupidest thing I've read on this forum. But knowing Khali-stanis, this is the best they can do.

Yes in that Jataka, Rama is not Rama, Lakshmana is not Lakshmana is not Lakshmana, Sita is not Sita, Dasratha is not Dasratha that Hindus know from Ramayan. Just a coincidence right ?

Also a coincidence that Ramayana is celebrated and known in many Buddhist countries due to knowledge of that Jataka ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phra_Lak_Phra_Lam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakien

You actually use typical Khalistani logic, they also claim that Ram and Krishna in SGGS are not really the Ram and Krishna but some philogibberish neo-sikh nonsense they created.

I can bet this guy didn't even know that such a Jataka existed before this thread.

Leave everything aside and just answer me why Guru Gobind Singh Ji added in chaubis avatar. You are accusing Hindus of falsely absorbing Buddha into Hindu pantheon here.

Perhaps the most important reason for the decline of Buddhism as a separate religion was the absorption of its founder in the Hindu pantheon of gods - indeed an irony for one who denied their existence!

Again displaying your ignorance. Buddhism actually acknowledges the existence of Devaloka and the Vedic pantheon of gods. There are temples dedicated to Indra, Kubera, Brahma etc in Buddhist countries. Many have even appropriated post Vedic gods and godesses from Hinduism. Here go read about it :-

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-away-from-hinduism.74065/page-2#post-1105530

There are many incarnations of Vishnu of which the Dasavatar or the ten incarnations are the most well known. In the Southern tradition they are: matsya (fish), koorma (tortoise), varaha (boar), Narasimha (the man-lion), Vamana (the dwarf) Parasurama (the angry prince), Rama (the perfect human), Balarama, his younger brother Krishna (the divine statesman) and Kalki (the redeemer of righteousness in the kali yuga, who is yet to appear). In the Northern tradition Balarama is replaced by Buddha who appears as the ninth avatar after Krishna, his mission being to purify Hinduism. Srimad Bhagavatam (circa 900 AD, according to Farquhar) takes the stand that Krishna is the original form of Vishnu and the incarnations were all his. In its list of Dasavatar, which many consider as the most authentic, both Baladeva (or Balarama) and Buddha appear. Krishna is not mentioned because he is the original god. The Dasavatara Stotra of Jayadev (12th century), parts of which are included in Adi Guru Granth compiled by Guru Arjun Singh, follows the list of Bhagavatam. In this scheme, Buddhism was like the reformation movement of Martin Luther in Christianity. Once Buddha himself became an incarnation of Vishnu there was no need for the religion to exist separately in this country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

Copy pasted anti hindu gibberish but then again I don't expect much a guy who said Buddha is 11th incarnation of Vishnu.

Congrats now you have pissed Buddhists along with sikhs .... next logical step is jesus as the avatar of Vishnu

Umm...no, Jesus is an Abrahamic prophet. I don't really care about them. Infact, it is Christians who appropriate our beliefs.

Kumārila Bhaṭṭa disregarded the connection of Buddha with Hinduism, he regarded Buddha as the one who "transgressed dharma laid down for ksatriyas and he took himself to the profession of a religious teacher, one who 'deceives himself' and acts contrary to the Vedas".[24]

B. R. Ambedkar, denied that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Among the 22 vows he gave to the Dalit Buddhist movement, the 5th vow is "I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda."[25]

In 1999, at the Maha Bodhi Society in Sarnath, Jayendra Saraswathi of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham and S. N. Goenka, after having a mutual discussion, gave a joint communiqué agreeing on the following three points.[26]

1. Due to whatever reason some literature was written in India in the past in which the Buddha was declared to be a re-incarnation of Vishnu and other various things were written about him, this was very unpleasant to the neighbouring countries. In order to foster friendlier ties between Hindus and Buddhists we decide that whatever has happened in the past should be forgotten and such belief should not be propagated.
2. A misconception has spread in the neighbouring countries that the Hindu society of India is organising such conferences to prove its dominance over the followers of the Buddha. To forever remove this misconception we declare that both Vedic and Samana are ancient traditions of India (Vishnu belongs to the Vedic tradition and Buddha belongs to the Samana tradition). Any attempt by one tradition to show it higher than the other will only generate hatred and ill will between the two. Hence such a thing should not be done in future and both traditions should be accorded equal respect and esteem.
3. Any body can attain high position in the society by doing good deeds. One becomes a low person in society if one does evil deeds. Hence anybody by doing good deeds and removing the defilement’s such as passion, anger, arrogance, ignorance, greed, jealousy and ego can attain a high position in society and enjoy peace and happiness.

We agree on all the three things mentioned above and wish that all the people of India from all the traditions should have cordial relations and the neighbouring countries should also have friendly relations with India.

"When I say that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism, certain people criticize me. But if I were to say that Hinduism and Buddhism are totally different, it would not be in conformity with truth." - Dalai Lama

BTW Dalai Lama also happens to be a regular at VHP conferences.

Interesting that you cite Dr. Ambedkar, as a law minister defended the inclusion of Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains in the category of citizens to whom the Hindu Code Bill would apply. Some of his other opinions I respectfully disagree with.

 

[asingh10]

the fact that Buddha being referred to as an Avatar of Vishnu is posited to be one of the reasons for Buddhism’s decline – by causing the ultimate merger of Buddhism with Hinduism – One would probably expect a more visible backlash with greater references to Vishnu as a sub-ordinated deity in the Buddhist pantheon. Syncretism was too common and rampant across the Indic religions and possibly it wasn’t a serious enough a claim for the Buddhists to aggressively retort back. All of the above seems to be more like an organic assimilation of Vishnu into Buddhism (perhaps except for Hari-Hari-Hari-Vahana Lokeshvara).

Wrong again.

Vishnu was already present in Buddhist pantheon during the life of Buddha. In the Maha-samya Sutta there was an occasion when the devas from almost all the planes came to see the Buddha. Buddha introduced their names to the monks, Vishnu was one of those present. The Buddha mentioned him by the name Venhu.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.20.0.than.html

There is even a sutta dedicated to Vishnu where he comes and meets Buddha as a young deva

https://books.google.com/books?id=MEA6AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147

And can you please make up your mind ? One post your saying Buddhism acknowledges Vedic deities and gives them a subordinate position, another place you claimed Buddha denied existence of all deities.

Perhaps the most important reason for the decline of Buddhism as a separate religion was the absorption of its founder in the Hindu pantheon of gods - indeed an irony for one who denied their existence!

 

[Bornubus]

Leave everything aside and just answer me why Guru Gobind Singh Ji added in chaubis avatar.




"When I say that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism, certain people criticize me. But if I were to say that Hinduism and Buddhism are totally different, it would not be in conformity with truth." - Dalai Lama

More snake oil from you

Basically you are asking a thrashing from a sikh for distorting facts.

What 24 avatar has to do with hindu Vishnu whom we consider God,none of these 24 avatar are regarded as god but human beings also none of these 24 are incarnation of vishnu but One God.

Below is the context of 24 avatar nowhere it it gave supermacy to the avatars whom we hindus worships as idols.

Guru Gobind Singh does not believes in supremacy of any of twenty four incarnations.

The aim of writer was not to worship any of incarnations but to enlighten the world about these incarnations.

1. Thinking these men of yester years to be some Gods or demi-Gods, people started worshipping them as some boon-givers or destroyers. Guru Sahib removed all such misconceptions and told the common public that these were indeed human figures only. He has used wit in his explanations to explain these concepts.
   
   1. 
      
      The description of 24 Avtars given in Sri Dasam Granth are the incarnations of god Vishnu which is acc. to Hindus. The most important of all the Avtars are Rama and Krishna; It is mistaken belief of Hindus to call them as the Supreme God. It was to clarify the Mistaken Beliefs of people that the Avtars were God, Sri Guru Gobind Singh Jee took pains to write about these 24 Avtars, giving their limitations and pitfalls. It was never the intention to teach to worship them, but to enlighten people to Worship One Creator God Alone, Who is Infinite and is the Ultimate.

 

[Bornubus]

Sikhism instructs to worship the One true God, the Creator of all that exists. Sikhs do not worship the Gods of the Hindu Pantheon, idols of stone or any other material.

Though the Guru Granth Sahib and the Dasam Granth refer to the words Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Allah and other names familiar to the Hindus and Muslims, it uses these names in a different context.


God is the creator of all. “He created air, water, fire, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva” (Guru Granth Sahib, 504).

“He created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, who act according to His Will” (Guru Granth Sahib, 948).


Also the below saying should end this debate once n for all

Guru Nanak Sahib had proclaimed in unequivocal words that the Sikhs are "neither Hindus nor Muslims" (na ham Hindu na Musalman).

 

[Bornubus]

The same applies with Buddhism which never believed that Rama was the incarnation of vishnu or he was a God,rama is a ordinary human in Buddhism.

 

[punjab47]

Bornubus I'm a sardar, my nanake gotra comes from Arjuna son of Indra. Guru Sahib says he is avatar of Vishnu.

Guru Sahib himself did yajna at naina devi. Himself praises all devis in Uggardanti:
http://www.rajkaregakhalsa.net/downloads/Gurbani/Uggardanti.pdf

Now, back on topic: This is what girls are sharing on facebook so I don't think any khalistan risk.

ਸ= sasa pehla akhar sardar jo Liya sees thali te dhar dhar ke
ਰ= rara ranna noo jitna souk sadda vairee bhaj gei maidan shad shad ke
ਦਾ= dada dassa guruaa ne sanoo mann ditta assee pakkay ha degga vich rarr rarr ke
ਰ= rara RAKHAY BHARAT DESH DE HA TAHIOU CHARDAY HAA SOOLEE TE HASS HASS KE

ਸ sasa first letter Sardar who takes his head in his hands.
ਰ rara it's our hobby to win women, enemies left the battlefield running
ਦ dada ten Gurus gave us pride we're hard being baked in cauldrons.
ਰ rara rakhay bharat desh de ha
We're protectors of Bharat Desh that's why we climb the noose laughing

 

[punjab47]

@Bornubus I'm sardar & I'm Hindu. Average Jatt Rajput Dogra Khatri agrees with this.

From ੧੦੦ varsh to ੧੦ shankay.

Every pall we breath for this Hindu desh.

ਜਾਕਿਅਪਣੀਭੈਣਚੋਦਾਸਾਲਾਦੁਗਰਾਗਦਾਰ।।

 

[Bornubus]

Bornubus I'm a sardar, my nanake gotra comes from Arjuna son of Indra. Guru Sahib says he is avatar of Vishnu.

Guru Sahib himself did yajna at naina devi. Himself praises all devis in Uggardanti:
http://www.rajkaregakhalsa.net/downloads/Gurbani/Uggardanti.pdf

Now, back on topic: This is what girls are sharing on facebook so I don't think any khalistan risk.
View attachment 6919

ਸ= sasa pehla akhar sardar jo Liya sees thali te dhar dhar ke
ਰ= rara ranna noo jitna souk sadda vairee bhaj gei maidan shad shad ke
ਦਾ= dada dassa guruaa ne sanoo mann ditta assee pakkay ha degga vich rarr rarr ke
ਰ= rara RAKHAY BHARAT DESH DE HA TAHIOU CHARDAY HAA SOOLEE TE HASS HASS KE

ਸ sasa first letter Sardar who takes his head in his hands.
ਰ rara it's our hobby to win women, enemies left the battlefield running
ਦ dada ten Gurus gave us pride we're hard being baked in cauldrons.
ਰ rara rakhay bharat desh de ha
We're protectors of Bharat Desh that's why we climb the noose laughing

I am glad you are but do you agree Rama was a God and a avatar or Vishnu ?

 

[spikey360]

Who cares about Buddha if he worshipped Vishnu or not. He is not the original part of Dashavatar.
We are interested in the political ramifications and implications of Sanatan Dharma, not scholastic arguments about if and when Buddha did accept the Hindu gods. That is irrelevant.
If Buddhists wish to say they have a political design separate from Sanatan Dharma, so be it.
As for Sikhs, Most Sikhs are more Hindu than most 'Hindus'. 'Hindus' should feel ashamed at what they have come to, from the days of Gurjara-Pratihara.

 

[punjab47]

I am glad you are but do you agree Rama was a God and a avatar or Vishnu ?

Guru Gobind Singh Ji says so & he is my commander. If you disagree with him, I am required to kill you.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹਿ।।

 

[punjab47]

Who cares about Buddha if he worshipped Vishnu or not. He is not the original part of Dashavatar.
We are interested in the political ramifications and implications of Sanatan Dharma, not scholastic arguments about if and when Buddha did accept the Hindu gods. That is irrelevant.
If Buddhists wish to say they have a political design separate from Sanatan Dharma, so be it.
As for Sikhs, Most Sikhs are more Hindu than most 'Hindus'. 'Hindus' should feel ashamed at what they have come to, from the days of Gurjara-Pratihara.

Das avtar are the main 10 ones, 24 are the total. See Guru Dasam Granth Sahib Ji