Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences

[Jaskaran Singh]

And thanks to MV ji I do have a better understanding of how Hindus use idols to worship their devas and devis. If that's what you want to do, by all means go for it, but don't call it Sikhism.

Odd, because he's probably the most strictly polytheist Hindu I know.

Muslms don't pray to a stone, they pray to Allah. The kaaba is an important historical monument for them and serves as a physical orientation for them during prayer. If you want to talk more about Islam move your comparisons and questions to the Islamic forum and give them a chance to refute your claims in their own DIR instead of making accusations about their beliefs here.

He's talking about the the kissing of hajar alaswad, which, along with earth divination/geomancy (al raml in Arabic), was done by Muhammad and probably originated from the pre-Islamic mushrikun; here is a hadith you might be interested in (from one of the six authentic Hadith collections, Jami at-Tirmidhi):

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ خَشْرَمٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم رَمَلَ مِنَ الْحَجَرِ إِلَى الْحَجَرِ ثَلاَثًا وَمَشَى أَرْبَعًا ‏.‏

حَدَّثَنَا - narrated; عَلِيُّ - Ali; بْنُ- Ibn; خَشْرَمٍ، - Khashram; أَخْبَرَنَا - told us that; عَبْدُ - Abdu; اللَّهِ - Allah; بْنُ - Ibn; وَهْبٍ - Wahaab; عَنْ - from; مَالِكِ -Malik; بْنِ - ibn; أَنَسٍ، - Anas; عَنْ - from; جَعْفَرِ - Ja'far; بْنِ - Ibn; مُحَمَّدٍ، - Muhammad; عَنْ - from; أَبِيهِ، - his father; عَنْ - from; جَابِرٍ، - Jabir; أَنَّ - that; النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم- annabi sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam (Muhammad, may Allah pray peace upon him); رَمَلَ -al' raml (earth divination); مِنَ - of; الْحَجَرِ - the stone (referring to the black stone); إِلَى -for;الْحَجَرِ - the stone; ثَلاَثًا - three times; وَمَشَى - and walked about (circumambulated); أَرْبَعًا ‏‏- four times

"Ali Ibn Khashram narrated that Abdullah ibn Wahaab was told from Malik ibn Anas from Ja'far ibn Muhammad, from his father, from Jabir that Muhammad (may Allah pray peace upon him) performed earth divination (al raml) of the [black] stone three times and circumambulated four times." (Jami at-Tirmidhi Volume 2, Book 4, Hadith 857)

 

[GURSIKH]

What makes a book or a Temple better than idols?

this can be discussed ,ronki ji

 

[Treks]

Jaskaran: he posted some text in a thread which, unbeknownst to him, helped me to understand the use of idols. It was not a comment about his beliefs.

 

[GURSIKH]

Jaskaran Singh

Originally Posted by Treks
Is treating a book with respect the same as idol worship? We don't believe God resides in Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

So? Many Hindu-s don't believe that bhagavAn actually resides in the mUrti, but that doesn't change the fact that it is considered idol worship.

Jaskaran ji , so you mean respect of Guru Granth Sahib ji is idol worship ?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Jaskaran ji , so you mean respect of Guru Granth Sahib ji is idol worship ?

From the perspective of a non-Sikh, yes. Placing the guru granth sAhib on a pAlkI/manjI sAhib and covering it with a rumAlla after vAk isn't really any less "idolatrous" than performing an AratI or abhiShekam of an archAvigraha. I'm not saying that's bad though.

Jaskaran: he posted some text in a thread which, unbeknownst to him, helped me to understand the use of idols. It was not a comment about his beliefs.

Admit it, you like hotA-s more than udgAtA-s. Just kidding, .

 

[Treks]

Covering it with a rumalla after use is keeping it clean and safe. It contains 1400+ pages of painstakingly arranged text, and is a very valuable document rendered useless by damage to it's pages. That's how I look at it anyway.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Covering it with a rumalla after use is keeping it clean and safe. It contains 1400+ pages of painstakingly arranged text, and is a very valuable document rendered useless by damage to it's pages. That's how I look at it anyway.

Would you mind informing me how exactly the rumAlla (cloth) protects it from damage? If wear and tear were the main focus, then why not place something more sturdy on top rather than dressing it up, so to speak?

 

[Treks]

I know what a rumalla is, thanks for the definition though. It keeps dusts and bugs and stuff off it. Last time I checked, covering something with 'a cloth' to protect it didn't make the act idol-worship. In that case, I must also worship my sofa, and anything else valuable which I keep wrapped up or in containers when not in use. Since when did a rumalla become clothing? It's a square piece of cloth.

I think the confusion is in the fact that Guru Granth Sahib Ji contains text to be read, understood and lived. It's a textbook. It's a Guru. It's not a statue representing a god or goddess, that when you do puja for the statue you are therefore doing puja of the god or goddess the statue represents.

The information contained in Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the important part for Sikhs. Therefore, we treasure it. It is the sum total of wisdom written and gathered by our Guru Sahiban, it's precious to us. Some of the traditions from when a physical human Guru Sahib sat on the manji are still seen today with regard to Guru Granth Sahib Ji because for Sikhs it is our Guru, just as they were. Sikh Gurus weren't worshipped as idols, so why does Guru Granth Sahib Ji get turned into an idol now?

It's about holding the knowledge in highest regard, because without that you can't discover the spiritual wisdom that reveals to you your connection with Ik Onkar.

This is all in stark contrast to worshipping a murti with puja. Perhaps a Hindu doing that gets the same results - if so good for them.

But it is Sanatan Dharma, and this is Sikhi. Can you see the difference?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I know what a rumalla is, thanks for the definition though. It keeps dusts and bugs and stuff off it. Last time I checked, covering something with 'a cloth' to protect it didn't make the act idol-worship. In that case, I must also worship my sofa, and anything else valuable which I keep wrapped up or in containers when not in use. Since when did a rumalla become clothing? It's a square piece of cloth.

If you make it a ritualistic process in which while you put the cloth on your sofa you recited verses along the line of "Agya bhai akAl ki tabhi chalAyo panth sabh sikhan ko hukam hai guru mAnyo granth, guru granth ji mAnyo pragaT gurAN ki deh, jo prabh ko milbo chAhe khoj shabad meiN leh waheguru nAM jahAz hai chare sotre pAr, jo shardA kar sevade gur pAr utAran hAr; rAj karega khAlsa Akhi rahe nA koi, khwAr hoe sab milenge bache sharan jo hoye; khanda jake hAth hai, kalgi soe sIs, so hamari rachiyA kare gur kalgidhar jagdIsh," then I would say it would definitely be idolatry in view of Abrahamics.

I think the confusion is in the fact that Guru Granth Sahib Ji contains text to be read, understood and lived. It's a textbook. It's a Guru. It's not a statue representing a god or goddess, that when you do puja for the statue you are therefore doing puja of the god or goddess the statue represents. The information contained in Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the important part for Sikhs. Therefore, we treasure it. It is the sum total of wisdom written and gathered by our Guru Sahiban, it's precious to us. Some of the traditions from when a physical human Guru Sahib sat on the manji are still seen today with regard to Guru Granth Sahib Ji because for Sikhs it is our Guru, just as they were. Sikh Gurus weren't worshipped as idols, so why does Guru Granth Sahib Ji get turned into an idol now?

guru nAnak and the consequent guru-s [including the granth sAhib, which is just a text] are considered to have the jyot of wAheguru, no? Likening the "creation" to the "creator" in any aspect is what Abrahamics (mainly Muslims and Jews) call shirk or avodah zarah, both which are often translated as idolatry. Anyway, this honestly sounds ridiculous, almost like a rehash of the controversy between mAdhva-s/tattvavAdI-s and shrIvaiShNava-s over whether the mUrti contains the svarUpa of nArAyaNa (in an archAvatAra form, as rAmAnuja followers believe) or whether it is merely an object of focus (as mAdhva-s believe). Either way you look at it philosophically, it's still the same in terms of action.

It's about holding the knowledge in highest regard, because without that you can't discover the spiritual wisdom that reveals to you your connection with Ik Onkar.
This is all in stark contrast to worshipping a murti with puja. Perhaps a Hindu doing that gets the same results - if so good for them.
But it is Sanatan Dharma, and this is Sikhi. Can you see the difference?

No, I can't. From an objective standpoint, venerating an object during prayer is not different whether it's a statue or a text; I'm sorry if that offends you. If you think mUrti pUjA is idolatrous, but ritualistically covering a book after prayer and placing it on a throne is not, then show me a tangible, objective way to measure the difference. Your statement that the text of the granth sAhib connects you with "ek Onkar" is no different from a Hindu saying that a vigraha of sadAshiva or mahAviShNu helps them focus on bhagavAn. I never said the religions are the same, but the view that one is idolatrous, yet the other is not is blatant hypocrisy. Ronki seems to have made a very good point, because all of your counterarguments seem to be emotionally based.

 

[Treks]

No, they are not emotionally based, and I'm sorry you can't see the difference. We have reached an impasse. Good luck to you, I'm tired of trying to explain how Sikhi is not Sanatan Dharma to you both.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

No, they are not emotionally based, and I'm sorry you can't see the difference. We have reached an impasse. Good luck to you, I'm tired of trying to explain how Sikhi is not Sanatan Dharma to you both.

Did you even read what I wrote?:
"I never said the religions are the same, but the view that one is idolatrous, yet the other is not is blatant hypocrisy. Ronki seems to have made a very good point, because all of your counterarguments seem to be emotionally based."

 

[Treks]

I read what you wrote, but you're failing to understand the subtle differences in this matter. On this I can't help you any more.

Also, bld red font conveys your own emotion more than it does mine.

Good bye.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Also, bld red font conveys your own emotion more than it does mine.

I color, bold, and italicize my post for aesthetic reasons, not because I'm angry silly, .

 

[ronki23]

this can be discussed ,ronki ji

Hello my friend,

Firstly, your profile picture always makes me think you're a Sikh Baba

Anyway, here is a video I thought I'd share with you, @Treks and @MV.

It is very high level in that the person hasn't researched enough and is making vague conclusions

BUT

it also looks at that line in Sri Guru Granth Sahib which refers to Waheguru as Krishna. No answer for that yet (using a quote from Guru Granth Sahib against idolatry and God with form isn't your best bet as it means Sri Guru Granth Sahib has contradictions like Bible,Torah,Qu'ran and Geeta)

As for the 'keeping the Sri Guru Granth Sahib safe', waving a fan around (as I assume it represents fanning a King) and keeping it on a floor above the worship peers means the book is of utmost importance and is not merely for safekeeping (after all, we cover our heads near it)

I'm assuming Vedas makes Hindus Hindus;why do we have Geeta as preference over Mahabharat, Ramayan or the Vedas? Is it for convenience?



[youtube]_jg0_FNaFV8[/youtube]
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_jg0_FNaFV8

@Jaskaran Singh I recall you said Guru Gobind Singh gave Hindus a hard time and defeated the hill Hindus. Assuming 'Hindus started it'

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm assuming Vedas makes Hindus Hindus; why do we have Geeta as preference over Mahabharat, Ramayan or the Vedas? Is it for convenience?

This question should have gone to the Hindu Dir. But I will reply briefly. Mahabharata as such stands rejected in Hinduism, a story of intrigue and war. No Hindu is expected to keep the book in his home. Instead, it is SrimadBhagawat Purana, of which Gita is a part. The Rama and Krishna stories are indigenous. Vedas, though accepted in Aryan/Hindu assimilation, are not indigenous, so get a lip service. No more questions on this topic here. If you so desire, have a topic in Hindu Dir.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Mahabharata as such stands rejected in Hinduism, a story of intrigue and war. No Hindu is expected to keep the book in his home. Instead, it is SrimadBhagawat Purana, of which Gita is a part. The Rama and Krishna stories are indigenous.

The uddhavagItA is part of the bhAgavatam, the bhagavadgItA is part of the mahAbhAratam.

Vedas, though accepted in Aryan/Hindu assimilation, are not indigenous, so get a lip service.

Hahahaha! Very funny. If the texts weren't first passed down in bhArat, then I'd like to know why the R^igveda mentions the ga~NgA and multiple other rivers then:
imám me ga~Nge yamune sarasvati shútudri stómaM sachatA páruShNyÁ|
asiknyÁ marudvrR^idhe vitástayÁrjIkIye shR^iNuhyÁ suShómayA||10.75.5||

 

[GURSIKH]

Hello my friend,

Firstly, your profile picture always makes me think you're a Sikh Baba

haha thats funny

it also looks at that line in Sri Guru Granth Sahib which refers to Waheguru as Krishna.

Ronki very first verse of Guru Granth Sahib ji ,Mool Mantra defines Waheguru .


Krishna clearly contradict "Ajooni/Beyond Birth " postulate .

 

[Aupmanyav]

Imám me ga~Nge yamune sarasvati shútudri stómaM sachatA páruShNyÁ|
asiknyÁ marudvrR^idhe vitástayÁrjIkIye shR^iNuhyÁ suShómayA||10.75.5||

I think you would know my answer. Book 10 is among the latest in RigVeda. That was done after their coming and settling down in India. All the rivers are from from the region between Delhi and NWFP. No Tapti, Narmada, Godavari, Bhima, Krishna, Kaveri, Mahanadi, Teesta, Brahmaputra, etc.

 

[ronki23]

haha thats funny



Ronki very first verse of Guru Granth Sahib ji ,Mool Mantra defines Waheguru .


Krishna clearly contradict "Ajooni/Beyond Birth " postulate .

But every religious book has contradictions. Perhaps a Sikh (not that you aren't) could answer those specific verses in the video?

Also, I though Vedas is the common denominator between all Hindus? Geeta too I assume?

 

[ronki23]

haha thats funny



Ronki very first verse of Guru Granth Sahib ji ,Mool Mantra defines Waheguru .


Krishna clearly contradict "Ajooni/Beyond Birth " postulate .

Whoops,double post! I'll add more questions:


I just find it odd how Hindus claim Sikhism when Sikhs deny it, and how Sikhs don't answer the Hindu verses! Sibling rivalry?!!

I also find it strange how Hindus and Sikhs get along because of the British e.g. first born Hindus becoming Sikh soldiers for the benefits during the Raj, but today it has vanished and all I can see are anti-India pages by Sikhs (who don't like any Congress members, even Mahatma Gandhi or Vallahbhai Patel and [from haters online] call today's Sikh Congress members frauds yet they hate BJP too/didn't vote out Congress in the first place [Singh was a good finance minister but Sikhs could have voted for BJP 1984-1991 or after Singh's resignation as finance minister])

And Hindus visit Sikh Gurudwaras and marry in them, but not the other way around (though some say Sikhs do so but like pro-Indians they have 'no time' to do this online compared to the Khalistanis)

Surprised no answer to the Hindu deaths from 1983 on an earlier post, BEFORE the 1984 riots.