ronki23
Well-Known Member
Won't I credit Hinduism for that. Credit Hinduism for what?
Is there a reason Baba Sri Chand, Baba Gurditaa chose Hinduism?
and SGGS mentions Hindu Gods as if they exist
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences
- Thread starter ronki23
- Start date
Won't I credit Hinduism for that. Credit Hinduism for what?
Is there a reason Baba Sri Chand, Baba Gurditaa chose Hinduism?
and SGGS mentions Hindu Gods as if they exist
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
For the first, individual choice. For the second, are you sure that any exist?
ronki23
Well-Known Member
For the first, individual choice. For the second, are you sure that any exist?
I can not be sure any Gods exist as we can not prove nor can we disprove (for religion is based on faith and belief and is not based on evidence)
However, I do believe in God even though I can not prove he exists. And I believe in Shiva,Vishnu, Rama and Krishna but am unsure about the other Hindu deities with animal characteristics; at least with the Gods I mentioned they could have been humans elevated to Godly status.
I even believe in Jesus and Buddha.
I see there's a being above these, but I find myself being more attuned to Sikhism now because I like that Sikhs help and protect those of other religions.
I like the above. It's an example more of how I think Hindu Gods exist in Sikhism and have a purpose.
To be honest, with the exception of the different texts (Granth Sahibs vs Geeta) I can not see difference in Hindu / Sikh beliefs. It seems up to interpretation as verses conflict
This is a bit rude- it's Sikh wiki view on Krishna/Rama
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Krishn_avtar
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Ram
http://www.sikhanswers.com/sacred-literature-sikh-studies/waheguru-mentioned-17-times-in-guru-granth-sahib-raam-mentioned-hundreds-of-times/
Strange how people seem to ignore my question as to why Khalistan was not awarded to the Sikhs in 1947; Hindus were a minority state in Punjab (i'm not considering the states that used to Punjab before partition) and Muslims a majority. Though I hear Kurukshetra is in Punjab. But i'm sure India wanted Punjab for the land as opposed to the religious significance. Was Khalistan never created because India and Pakistan wanted Punjab for themselves?
Even stranger how nobody wants to explain whether Khalistan movement is akin to Palestine (with Arafat) or Iran (with Khomeini) or even South Africa (with Mandela- though I don't think it's like this)
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Factually incorrect, Ronki. The population of pre-partitioned Punjab was "fifteen million Hindus, sixteen million Moslems [sic] and five million Sikhs" that "shared its 17,932 towns and villages".
Freedom at Midnight; 2012 reprint; page 165; Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins
The geo-political entity known as the Indian state of Punjab has never been the authoritative representation of the constitutional Punjab, as per historicity. Instead, what has historically constituted "the Punjab" has been the combined following: the Punjab province of Pakistan; the Indian state of Punjab; the Indian state of Haryana; the UT of Delhi; and [western] outskirts of Himachal Pradesh. The idea of a Khalistan was not a prevailing force back then. Plus, Punjabis were too busy killing each other during 1947: Sikhs and Hindus against Muslims. Lastly, the Punjab (the whole shebang) wasn't the epicenter of affairs when it came to 1947. Hyderabad and Kashmir---along with Bengal, Rajputana, and Travancore---had more going on socially, economically, and politically.
Treks
Well-Known Member
Ronki said:
I believe I've tried to address your first examples earlier in the thread, as well as the mentioning of Hindu deities in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
The thing is, for a Sikh, Hindu deities do not have a purpose. They do not come into their mind. If they exist or don't exist is completely and entirely irrelevant for the Sikh. The poetry in the Granth Sahib uses language of the time, to address people of the time, using imagery they would relate to, to communicate a more generic creative force concept and a different set of beliefs and practices. The Granth Sahib does include references to Hindu deities, to Allah, to reincarnation, karma, hell, rituals, but that does not mean it endorses those things.
As for your quote about Vishnu, I can't find it on panna 342. Do you want to try again?
Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib
ronki23
Well-Known Member
Can't seem to find it as I got it from Sikh Encyclopedia and Sikh Wiki (NOT wikipedia)
At the same time I can not seem to find the quotes on Muhammad (Muhammad - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.) and Islam except this one
Becoming a true Muslim, a disciple of the faith of Mohammed, let him put aside the delusion of death and life.
These quotes are of interest to me- they lead into other quotes though. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib is poetry so isn't something one can do quickly or understand straight away
[SIZE=+1]You are the Great Raam Chand, who has no form or feature.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Adorned with flowers, holding the chakra in Your hand, Your form is incomparably beautiful.[/SIZE]
...
[SIZE=+1]He assumed the beautiful form of the blue-skinned Krishna; hearing His flute, all are fascinated and enticed. ||9||[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]He is adorned with garlands of flowers, with lotus eyes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]His ear-rings, crown and flute are so beautiful.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]He carries the conch, the chakra and the war club; He is the Great Charioteer, who stays with His Saints. ||10||[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The Lord of yellow robes, the Master of the three worlds.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The Lord of the Universe, the Lord of the world; with my mouth, I chant His Name.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The Archer who draws the bow, the Beloved Lord God; I cannot count all His limbs. ||11||[/SIZE]
...
[SIZE=+1]Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are manifestations of the One God. He Himself is the Doer of deeds. ||12||
[/SIZE]
While you say Sri Guru Granth Sahib refers to these as metaphors, then why did Baba Sri Chand Ji, Baba Gurditta Ji, Bhai Mohan believe in the 5 deities?
Surya
Vishnu
Ganesh
Shiva
Durga
ronki23
Well-Known Member
I said that in the Punjab of today plus Pakistani Punjab they're a minority
You're basically saying that the Sikhs were busy fleeing to the Hindu India after hearing of the independence of Muslim Pakistan; but why wasn't Khalistan announced at the same time/ why didn't the British take it into account?
I was told Master Tara Singh and Gandhi agreed that the Sikhs would also get their own state. Was it simply a matter of 'not enough Punjab to go around' because (as you rightfully said), Indian Punjab used to be much bigger.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Any sane reason as to why you are not considering pre-partition Punjab? Wanting does not mean much. Muslims wanted Amritsar, Firozpur, Aliwal, Dharamkot, Faridkot, Sangroor, Gurdaspur, Mansa district, and Shariffpura for Pakistan.
"The Congress Party assured Tara Singh, Baldev Singh and other Sikh leaders that India would belong to all its religious communities, and the Constitution would be secular. Having established faith and obtained some assurances through dialogue with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Tara Singh and the SGPC decided to support partition. Tara Singh also began to encourage Sikhs to leave Pakistan, so they could avoid the violence and repression he believed was inevitable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master..._of_India.2C_in_the_aftermath_of_World_War_II
I think India has kept its bargain. "Until 1966, Punjab was a Hindu majority state (63.7%)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_Suba_movement#Result
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Many Hindus consider any creative force as a 'vikara'. That means Brahman wanted something and was not complete in itself. That is not 'Nirvikar'. With all apologies to my sikh brothers, Brahma Sutras say:
Vikarasabdanneti chet na prachuryat I.1.13 (13)
If (it be objected that the term Anandamaya consisting of bliss can) not (denote the supreme Self) because of its being a word denoting a modification or transformation or product (we say that the objection is) not (valid) on account of abundance, (which is denoted by the suffix 'maya').
Vikara sabdat: from the word 'Anandamaya' with the suffix 'mayat' denoting modification; Na: is not; Iti: this; thus; Chet: if; Na: not so; Prachuryat: because of abundance.
An objection against Sutra 12 is refuted in this Sutra.
If the objector says that 'maya' means modification, it cannot be. We cannot predicate such a modification with regard to Brahman which is changeless. We reply that 'maya' means fulness or abundance and Anandamaya means not a derivative from Ananda or Bliss but fulness or abundance of bliss.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0/Brahma.Sutra.1.1.html
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Ronki, you brought up pre-partitioned Punjab. And thus, I was forced to utilize "undivided Punjab"---the Punjab of historical importance. The Indian state of Punjab (where it is majority Sikh) is only a fraction of the whole shebang, so to speak. It must be looked at in context of its historical importance. And yes, I am "basically saying that the Sikhs were busy fleeing to the Hindu India after hearing of the independence of Muslim Pakistan" as you put it. Why ? Because standing at train-station platforms and seeing burning trains arrive one after the other with charred bodies can do that to people---they make people flee for their lives. And it wasn't just the Sikhs fleeing to "Hindu India"; Hindus also fled---and also Parsis and Christians and Jains. After partition, many of them came to "Hindu India"; and many of them weren't even fully welcomed by "local Punjabis" (the term, "Bhapa"---for example---is used by "local Sikhs" and "local Hindus" as an insult for Western-Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus that were not of "local", Eastern-Punjabi origin). 1947 was a horrible year. There were many issues---in Bengal/Bangladesh, Kashmir, Rajputana (heck, the Rajputs of Rajputana didn't even want to join "Hindu India"), Travancore, the Bombay Presidency, etc. In fact, Khalistan wasn't even among the top concerns of India at that time---let alone that of the Punjab and Punjabis. Back then, Punjabis were more concerned about keeping themselves safe from other Punjabis, understandably so. It was a very horrific time; what millions of them went through.
Last edited:
Treks
Well-Known Member
A Sikh is encouraged to focus on the here-and-now, their place in the world, and living an honest, productive, meaningful life. Presuming to know what 'Brahman' wanted is very low on the to-do list.
But it's still fascinating to read about, so thank you.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yes, Treks, Hindus could never stop theorizing about Brahman.
Whatever it may mean to Gujaratis, it means 'elder brother' (Bara bhai) or father to people in Delhi and North.
Yes, it was horrible. My father-in-law was from Lahore. His business partner's ten-year old son feigned to be dead among carcasses in a railway coach to escape the marauders. He was united with the family only later in Delhi. The gentleman is still alive.It was a very horrific time; what millions of them went through.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
p.s. - Wikipedia says the term is applied to Arora Sikhs.
Now, does 'Arora' means one who is from Aror?
Aror or Alor, is the medieval name of the city of Rohri (Sukkur, Sindh, modern Pakistan).
Does that mean that they are from Youdheya clan (Johiya Rajputs)?
Now, does 'Arora' means one who is from Aror?
Aror or Alor, is the medieval name of the city of Rohri (Sukkur, Sindh, modern Pakistan).
Does that mean that they are from Youdheya clan (Johiya Rajputs)?
Last edited:
ronki23
Well-Known Member
Ronki, you brought up pre-partitioned Punjab. And thus, I was forced to utilize "undivided Punjab"---the Punjab of historical importance. The Indian state of Punjab (where it is majority Sikh) is only a fraction of the whole shebang, so to speak. It must be looked at in context of its historical importance. And yes, I am "basically saying that the Sikhs were busy fleeing to the Hindu India after hearing of the independence of Muslim Pakistan" as you put it. Why ? Because standing at train-station platforms and seeing burning trains arrive one after the other with charred bodies can do that to people---they make people flee for their lives. And it wasn't just the Sikhs fleeing to "Hindu India"; Hindus also fled---and also Parsis and Christians and Jains. After partition, many of them came to "Hindu India"; and many of them weren't even fully welcomed by "local Punjabis" (the term, "Bhapa"---for example---is used by "local Sikhs" and "local Hindus" as an insult for Western-Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus that were not of "local", Eastern-Punjabi origin). 1947 was a horrible year. There were many issues---in Bengal/Bangladesh, Kashmir, Rajputana (heck, the Rajputs of Rajputana didn't even want to join "Hindu India"), Travancore, the Bombay Presidency, etc. In fact, Khalistan wasn't even among the top concerns of India at that time---let alone that of the Punjab and Punjabis. Back then, Punjabis were more concerned about keeping themselves safe from other Punjabis, understandably so. It was a very horrific time; what millions of them went through.
Ahh-ok. But (to you and Aupmanyav), I thought Gandhi agreed with Sikh leaders that there would be an independant Pakistan at the same time as Jinnah making the request for an independent Pakistan. I heard Nehru then said 'no' after India was made independant
and how did Tara Singh know there would be violence in Pakistan to make him tell Pakistani Sikhs to flee India.
ronki23
Well-Known Member
I've showed you quotes Treks- I used the search engine for 'Muhammad' (the right spelling), 'Krishna' and 'Shiva'. 'Rama' and 'Vishnu' came up with many results so haven't search through them.
and why do the Udasee panth (including Guru Nanak's own son) believe in these deities when SGGS says,
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I do not accept Ganesha as important. I do not meditate on Krishna, neither on Vishnu. I do not hear them and do not recognize them. My love is with the Lotus feet of God. He is my protector, the Supreme Lord. I am dust of his Lotus feet." (Guru Gobind Singh, Krishna Avatar)
[/FONT]
Treks
Well-Known Member
Treks
Well-Known Member
Just because a book has the words 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' in it doesn't mean the author actually believes in said monster.
Ronki said:
Not exactly mainstream Sikhi, hence "Udasee panth" to denote the difference.
Ronki said:
That quote is not from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. There is nothing of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji's own writing in it, at all.
Last edited:
ronki23
Well-Known Member
It's a bit insulting comparing Hindu Gods to 'Flying Spaghetti Monster', especially since Guru Granth Sahib and (moreso) Dasam Granth also talks about Hindu Gods (while Dasam Granth Sahib is not Guru Granth Sahib, Sikhs should hold it higher than any other piece of religious text they read).
I will show you conflicting verses regarding Hindu deities:
[SIZE=+1]ਸੁਅਸਤਿ ਆਥਿ ਬਾਣੀ ਬਰਮਾਉ ॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]सुअसति आथि बाणी बरमाउ ॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Su▫asaṯ āth baṇī barmā▫o.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]I bow to the Lord of the World, to His Word, to Brahma the Creator.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]ਆਪੇ ਸਿਵ ਸੰਕਰ ਮਹੇਸਾ ਆਪੇ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਕਥ ਕਹਾਣੀ ॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]आपे सिव संकर महेसा आपे गुरमुखि अकथ कहाणी ॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Āpe siv sankar mahesā āpe gurmukẖ akath kahāṇī.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]He Himself is Shiva, Shankara and Mahaysh; He Himself is the Gurmukh, who speaks the Unspoken Speech.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]ਈਸਰੁ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਸੇਵਦੇ ਅੰਤੁ ਤਿਨ੍ਹ੍ਹੀ ਨ ਲਹੀਆ ॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]ईसरु ब्रहमा सेवदे अंतु तिन्ही न लहीआ ॥[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Īsar barahmā sevḏe anṯ ṯinĥī na lahī▫ā.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Those who serve Shiva and Brahma do not find the limits of the Lord.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]You are the Great Raam Chand, who has no form or feature.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Adorned with flowers, holding the chakra in Your hand, Your form is incomparably beautiful.[/SIZE]
...
[SIZE=+1]He assumed the beautiful form of the blue-skinned Krishna; hearing His flute, all are fascinated and enticed. ||9||[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]He is adorned with garlands of flowers, with lotus eyes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]His ear-rings, crown and flute are so beautiful.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]He carries the conch, the chakra and the war club; He is the Great Charioteer, who stays with His Saints. ||10||[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The Lord of yellow robes, the Master of the three worlds.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The Lord of the Universe, the Lord of the world; with my mouth, I chant His Name.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The Archer who draws the bow, the Beloved Lord God; I cannot count all His limbs. ||11||[/SIZE]
...
[SIZE=+1]Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are manifestations of the One God. He Himself is the Doer of deeds. ||12||[/SIZE]
and my point about Udasim was that Guru Nanak's own son, Guru Hargobind's own son, and Guru Amar Das' son chose Hinduism. And the latter two were given to Baba Sri Chand to accompany him
and something like 20-33% of Gurudwara visitors are Hindus (generally Hindu Punjabis). Hence the talk of Khalistan when I read that Sikhs were promised their own state, just like the Muslims had received but then for some unknown reason Sikhs decided to stay with India when the same person (Master Tara Singh) who accepted this was the one who initially wanted a sovereign Sikh state. Sikhs hate Tara Singh and criticize him for joining VHP
Last edited:
Treks
Well-Known Member
I wasn't comparing Hindu deities to the FSG. It was a stand alone example.
What do you base this statement on? Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was the only book given Gurgaddi by Guru Gobind Singh himself. So why should the DG with it's multitude of pr0n stories be held higher?
Unless of course you're just **** stirring.
Ronki said:
What do you base this statement on? Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was the only book given Gurgaddi by Guru Gobind Singh himself. So why should the DG with it's multitude of pr0n stories be held higher?
Unless of course you're just **** stirring.