Gurus, prophets, religious leaders who led exemplary lives?

[arthra]

Sat naam:

If Krishna was not exemplary why is He cited in the Guru Granth Sahib?

He alone unites with Him, whom He unites with Himself. No one can attain the Lord by himself. ||14||
He Himself is the milk-maid, and He Himself is Krishna.

(Shri Guru Granth Sahib, Section 25 - Raag Maaroo)


He assumed the beautiful form of the blue-skinned Krishna; hearing His flute, all are fascinated and enticed.

(Shri Guru Granth Sahib, Section 25 - Raag Maaroo)

Ascribing "lust and other vices" to Prophet Muhammad is offensive.

 

[Satnaam]

Krishna nor Raam are of any importance to Sikhs. You can also find many verses which have word Raam in it but they're all wrongly translated because Gurbani is clear when it says the following:

ਪਾਂਡੇ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਰਾਮਚੰਦੁ ਸੋ ਭੀ ਆਵਤੁ ਦੇਖਿਆ ਥਾ ॥ ਰਾਵਨ ਸੇਤੀ ਸਰਬਰ ਹੋਈ ਘਰ ਕੀ ਜੋਇ ਗਵਾਈ ਥੀ ॥੩॥ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਅੰਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਤੁਰਕੂ ਕਾਣਾ ॥
O Pandit, I saw your Raam Chand coming too; he lost his wife, fighting a war against Raawan. ||3|| The Hindu is sightless; the Muslim has only one eye.
Bhagat Naamdev, 875, Guru Granth Sahib

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਰਾਮਚੰਦ ਜਿਸੁ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਰੇਖਿਆ ॥
You are the Great Raam Chand, who has no form or feature.
Guru Arjan Dev Ji, 1082, Guru Granth Sahib

ਸੋਈ ਰਾਮੁ ਸਭੈ ਕਹਹਿ ਸੋਈ ਕਉਤਕਹਾਰ ॥੧੯੦॥ ਕਬੀਰ ਰਾਮੈ ਰਾਮ ਕਹੁ ਕਹਿਬੇ ਮਾਹਿ ਬਿਬੇਕ ॥ ਏਕੁ ਅਨੇਕਹਿ ਮਿਲਿ ਗਇਆ ਏਕ ਸਮਾਨਾ ਏਕ ॥੧੯੧॥
Everyone uses the same word for the son of Dasrath and the Wondrous Lord. ||190|| Kabeer, use the word 'Raam', only to speak of the All-pervading Lord. You must make that distinction. One 'Raam' is pervading everywhere, while the other is contained only in himself.

Bhagat Kabeer, 1374, Guru Granth Sahib

The Hindu convert to Sikhi, Prof Sahib Singh wrote the explanation of the quote given by you in his Teeka and he says that 'the LORD created MANY blue skinned Krishnas' "ਹੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ! (ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨ ਵਰਗੇ) ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਸਾਂਵਲੇ ਸੋਹਣੇ ਰੂਪ ਤੂੰ ਬਣਾਂਦਾ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈਂ। "
If you read the whole Stanza (Shabad) you will see that it is saying that Guru is above all your avtars (it even says Raam has no form for us, go read it, its on the same page as you are quoting)
The translations on internet are unreliable, if you want to get some knowledge about Sikhi I can help you with that but don't form wrong opinions by reading of 1 single translation online... Knowledge doesn't come that easily

 

[Satnaam]

You are a Bahai. You believing in Hadith or not doesn't matter, you or your religion is no authority on Muhammad. In fact you are persecuted as heretics in Islamic regimes (most if not all, your base is in Israel if I'm not mistaken and not in birth place Iran). Anyways, majority of Muslims (Sunnis) accept the Sahih Bukhari and I quoted that. You nit pick what you believe in then thats your problem not mine. You believe Muhammad was good, then what are YOUR historical sources? You surely can't have visions telling you Muhammad was good. You also base yourself on history, and so do I. Its not one author but many authors claiming it and the point is re-iterated by many scholars. My Main point was just that Muhammads wives where not fully satisfied and heck isn't that even understandable? 10+ wives and you prefer the younger to others, ofcourse there will be problems.

Your Bahai prophet comes in the 18th century. There are no valid sources about Muhammads life according to you, its all hearsay. Then why does he include Muhammad in the list of recognised messengers? Where did he get proof of Muhammads holiness 12 centuries later ?

You can't disprove my claim that both the verse in Quran and the Hadith refer to the same incident, I haven't given you only one source but several sources (!!!!4 sources!!!!). You can deny everything you want, you can even deny that the earth rotates around the sun but that won't change facts mate.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are many verses in the Guru granth Sahib against caste based discrimination.

Well, there are many such verses in Hinduism also. But caste is a fact of life for all religions in India, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and others as well.

 

[arthra]

You are a Bahai. You believing in Hadith or not doesn't matter, you or your religion is no authority on Muhammad. In fact you are persecuted as heretics in Islamic regimes (most if not all, your base is in Israel if I'm not mistaken and not in birth place Iran). Anyways, majority of Muslims (Sunnis) accept the Sahih Bukhari and I quoted that. You nit pick what you believe in then thats your problem not mine. You believe Muhammad was good, then what are YOUR historical sources? You surely can't have visions telling you Muhammad was good. You also base yourself on history, and so do I. Its not one author but many authors claiming it and the point is re-iterated by many scholars. My Main point was just that Muhammads wives where not fully satisfied and heck isn't that even understandable? 10+ wives and you prefer the younger to others, ofcourse there will be problems.

Your Bahai prophet comes in the 18th century. There are no valid sources about Muhammads life according to you, its all hearsay. Then why does he include Muhammad in the list of recognised messengers? Where did he get proof of Muhammads holiness 12 centuries later ?

You can't disprove my claim that both the verse in Quran and the Hadith refer to the same incident, I haven't given you only one source but several sources (!!!!4 sources!!!!). You can deny everything you want, you can even deny that the earth rotates around the sun but that won't change facts mate.

Sat Naam...

Yes.. I am Baha'i and we respect previous revelations of God including the Qur'an............You began this thread with the words "no offence" then proceeded with your allegation of "lust" and so on.. this is a comparative religion board..not a debate board. Hadith were collected well over a century after the revelation of Prophet Muhammad and are of varying authenticity.. but making allegations as you do is hardly appropriate here.

As to the Bab and Baha'u'llah they appeared in the nineteenth century.

 

[Salek Atesh]

You are a Bahai. You believing in Hadith or not doesn't matter, you or your religion is no authority on Muhammad. In fact you are persecuted as heretics in Islamic regimes (most if not all, your base is in Israel if I'm not mistaken and not in birth place Iran). Anyways, majority of Muslims (Sunnis) accept the Sahih Bukhari and I quoted that. You nit pick what you believe in then thats your problem not mine. You believe Muhammad was good, then what are YOUR historical sources? You surely can't have visions telling you Muhammad was good. You also base yourself on history, and so do I. Its not one author but many authors claiming it and the point is re-iterated by many scholars. My Main point was just that Muhammads wives where not fully satisfied and heck isn't that even understandable? 10+ wives and you prefer the younger to others, ofcourse there will be problems.

Your Bahai prophet comes in the 18th century. There are no valid sources about Muhammads life according to you, its all hearsay. Then why does he include Muhammad in the list of recognised messengers? Where did he get proof of Muhammads holiness 12 centuries later ?


The reason that I, as a Baha'i, don't trust Hadith is because it is a compilation of often contradictory historical sources.

The common Baha'i parable about Hadith is about a blacksmith and a Mullah. The blacksmith has heard two Hadith verses, and asks the Mullah if they are authentic, to which the Mullah confirms that they are.

One Hadith claims that angels carry raindrops from the sky all the way to the earth.
The other Hadith claims that angels will not even enter a house with a dog in it.

The blacksmith states, if these are both true, then logically it should never rain on a house with a dog in it.

Hadiths, even the collections of Hadiths that certain Muslims agree to be true, often have weird contradictions like this. Which is why we as Baha'is, find these compilations of secondhand accounts to be largely unreliable.

You can't disprove my claim that both the verse in Quran and the Hadith refer to the same incident, I haven't given you only one source but several sources (!!!!4 sources!!!!). You can deny everything you want, you can even deny that the earth rotates around the sun but that won't change facts mate.

The burden of proof is on you as far as I'm concerned.

You place blind faith in a volume of secondhand accounts about the life of a man in medieval Arabia. You claim that many Muslims believe this volume to be true, but even if the majority of people think the earth revolves around the sun, this does not mean it becomes true.

So as far as I'm concerned it's up to you to prove that Hadiths, a collection of secondhand accounts of events that happened 1,400 years in the past back at a time when most people in the region where these events happened were illiterate, are historically valid and reliable.

Personally, I don't have such blind faith in these dubious sources. If some Muslims wish to believe these are valid, fine by me. But what makes you, a Sikh, place so much faith in these secondhand accounts??

If I personally told you that I had perfect knowledge of an event that happened two hundred years ago, say an dialog exchange between US President Woodrow Wilson and his wife, which I had knowledge of based solely on word-of-mouth between different people over the past 200 years, would you believe me?? And, if so, why?? If not, why trust Hadith??

 

[Satnaam]

Salek + Arthra, the same way you can believe in the Quran which was compiled after Muhammad to be authentic, I do believe Hadiths do contain authentic information (yes its not fully authentic but you can't disprove it all). Then prove that the Quran was compiled within Muhammads lifetime or wasn't tampered? If you can't then stop making claims that the Quran is the revelation of God.

And I am labelling these allegations as a 'human being' not as a Sikh so stop bringing that in.

 

[Satnaam]

Well, there are many such verses in Hinduism also. But caste is a fact of life for all religions in India, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and others as well.

Manu Smritee is a Hindu book held in importance by some Hindu sects. It has Hindu origins. It promotes treatment of untouchables worse than animals and divides society based on caste. Its such an intolerant book.

Thus caste does have somethign to do with Hindu origins or Hindu religious books sanctioning the use of it.

And you have rightly observed that it has become a cultural phenomena that has even hit the Indian Christians, Muslims and Indian Sikhs.

 

[SomeRandom]

Manu Smritee is a Hindu book held in importance by some Hindu sects. It has Hindu origins. It promotes treatment of untouchables worse than animals and divides society based on caste. Its such an intolerant book.

Thus caste does have somethign to do with Hindu origins or Hindu religious books sanctioning the use of it.

And you have rightly observed that it has become a cultural phenomena that has even hit the Indian Christians, Muslims and Indian Sikhs.

The caste system is greatly rejected by many Hindus as incompatible with the Hindu philosophy. And hindus generally do not have any one holy book or scripture which they must abide by. Claiming anything as intrinsically Hindu (apart from Dharma) is sort of like claiming every single Christian are only Catholic since that is thought to be the first organised Christians.

 

[Chakra]

1) Manu Smriti has been interpolated over the ages.

2) Caste was derived from varna. They are not the same thing.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

1) Manu Smriti has been interpolated over the ages.

2) Caste was derived from varna. They are not the same thing.

Namaste,

May i agree and add, that Manu Smriti is "Smriti", not "Shruti", and even in Manu Smriti, Manu himself suggest it is time and context bound and new smriti needs to be constructed for every Yuga, so we have Many Smriti of which (as far as I know) the Parshahara Smriti is for Kali Yuga.

Secondly i would add from my opinion that caste is a European word, used to homogenize two flexible and different systems such as Varna (Choice) and Jati (community).

As for the OP, I can add Swami Vivekananda as living a exemplary life in modern times, and many Rishi/Muni/Guru ect whose names appear in the many Hindu texts and in History have had exemplary lives.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Manu Smritee is a Hindu book held in importance by some Hindu sects. It has Hindu origins. It promotes treatment of untouchables worse than animals and divides society based on caste. Its such an intolerant book.
Thus caste does have something to do with Hindu origins or Hindu religious books sanctioning the use of it.
And you have rightly observed that it has become a cultural phenomena that has even hit the Indian Christians, Muslims and Indian Sikhs.

Satnaam, you have castes in Sikhs and there have been hundreds of killings in the name of Sikh castes, and you want to put all the blame on Hindus? Read about the Jat Sikh atrocities against the Dalits Sikhs here: title There is an adage that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at houses of others.

Yes, Manu Smriti is sure an old book but has been heavily interpolated. And it is not any God's word. It is the opinion of a person. There are hundreds of Smritis in Hinduism. Even my grandfather wrote a smriti in 1947 (Vishweshwara Smriti - 8000 verses). And how many Hindus do you think have read Manusmriti or even know about it? Manusmriti has become a beating bag for all those who in their ignorance hate Hinduism, whether they be Christians, Muslims, Sikhs or Buddhists. But is that fair?

Manu Smriti 10/65 says: “Shudro brahmanatameti brahmanashchaiti shudratam; kshatriyanjalamevamtu vidyadvaishyattathaiva cha.”
(A shudra can become a brahmin by acquiring learning, merit, virtuous life, etc.; and a brahmin lacking in above traits becomes a Shudra.)

Manusmriti 2.28 says: "Swadhyayenvratairhomaistra vidyenejyaya sutaih; mahayagyaisheha yagyaishcha brahmiyam kriyate tanuh."
(This human body is transformed into the the body of the Brahman through studies and dissemination of all knowledge, practice of celibacy, by following the rules of the truthful speech, performing yajnas and agni hotras, adoption of truthful action, renunciation of untruth, worship and acquisition of learning of crafts and science, etc., having good progeny and its upbringing as directed in the Vedas.)

Manusmriti 4.244 says: “uttaoniruttamairmityam sambandha nacharestsah; ninishuh kule mutkarshamadhamanadhamanstyajel.”
(A person desirous of entering the Brahman varna should attain more excellence through eschewing the company of the debased, characterless, narrow minds and the low, and by developing more contacts with the best of persons. Whereas by conducting himself just opposite to this, even a Brahman will be reduced to shudra-hood.)
(Quotes from Maharishi Manu in right prespective | Agniveer Fan

 

[ShivaFan]

So ... who are some of your thoughts on Gurus, prophets, religious leaders who led exemplary lives? Can you name?

As I stated in my offering in my earlier post of some of my choices, "I may check back later" with more.

I have more.

Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. He led one of the most largest civil disobedience campaigns in history, in Bengal and Orissa, against the ban on public expression of Spiritual Devotion when Islamic Pilates forbid it. And His love for the Lord and His love for devotees was truly the Hallmark of His life.

Now I would also like to mention another. Makhdoom Ali Mahimi of Mahim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are thousands in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, it is impossible to name all. The limit of my interest extends up to them only. I do not know much about Chinese sages barring Laozi and Kongzi.

 

[Salek Atesh]

I do believe Hadiths do contain authentic information (yes its not fully authentic but you can't disprove it all).

See, this is what I don't get about your logic. I don't believe something unless there is proof of that thing. I don't believe something just because it is impossible to disprove it.

I don't accept Hadith because it is impossible to prove it. You accept it because it is impossible to disprove it. Why do you think this way, and accept Hadith as truth without any proof whatsoever??

Here's an analogy:
Gravity is a lie. There is no force pulling different masses together. This is false.
There is, however, a force called Anti-Grav, which repels masses away at the exact same rate that Gravity supposedly does.
There's also a force called Super-Force that attracts masses together at twice the rate Gravity supposedly does.
The net effect between these two is falsely assumed to be its own force, called "gravity" which, in truth, is not real.

This theory I have just proposed, that gravity is not a force that exists but is the net effect of two different forces that truly exist, cannot be disproven. Any experiment you show to show the effects of gravity conforms to what we'd expect under my Anti-Grav/Super-Force theory. There is no proof of this theory I just made up, but it is also impossible to disprove.

So tell me. Do you believe this theory I have just proposed simply because there is no way to disprove me??

Or do you, like a rational person, demand proof before believing in Anti-Grav and Super-Force??

And if you demand proof rather than a lack of disproof, why don't you apply the same thing to Hadith??

 

[Satnaam]

@ the Hindu brothers; I agree about varna and caste but you guys are just trying to imply that caste based discrimination the ones where dalits tongues were cut off and melted metals were poured in their ears does NOT have origins in Hindu scriptures? I know Hinduism is a vast religion, with many books, some believe in Vedas others Puranas so its not one organised religion but the way you guys are not admitting facts is just unbelievable.

The Manu smṛti (or "Laws of Manu", SanskritManusmṛti मनुस्मृति; also known as Mānava-Dharmaśāstra मानवधर्मशास्त्र), is the most important and earliest metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of Hinduism.[1]
..... According to Hindu tradition, the Manu smruti records the words of Brahma.[3]
Manusmṛti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is your Manusmriti online, lets only take a look at Chapter 8

The Laws of Manu VIII
267. A Kshatriya, having defamed a Brahmana, shall be fined one hundred (panas); a Vaisya one hundred and fifty or two hundred; a Sudra shall suffer corporal punishment.
413. But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the slave of a Brahmana.
414. A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from it?

And all of you Hindus will STILL unite and gang up on me and point towards non Hindu people of the sub continent also discriminating on caste. The fact is that it is in your scriptures, your culture or religion gave birth to it & it has become so important/ethced in the culture that people haven't been able to get out of it despite converting to Christianity, Islam or Sikhi in India.
I have no doubts that caste was profession based but slowly turned into a birth thing by ignorant ancestors of yours or some saints who sanctified the discrimination based on caste in their scriptures (of the broader Hindu religion) - because Manusmriti one of the important books in Hinduism sanctifies this and even stipulates punishments for shuras and what not.

@ Salek, there is no point arguing with you because you pick and choose what you believe, Quran is holy (as you or your fellow Bahai said) without any historical basis that Muhammad wrote it /compiled it but another text written about Muhammad life after him is not believable because it included stuff you cannot fathom.

You proudly say: " I don't believe something unless there is proof of that thing. "

Prove the Qurans holy origins within Muhammads life time and that it is unadultered in the present form. Don't beat around the bush.

 

[SomeRandom]

@ the Hindu brothers; I agree about varna and caste but you guys are just trying to imply that caste based discrimination the ones where dalits tongues were cut off and melted metals were poured in their ears does NOT have origins in Hindu scriptures? I know Hinduism is a vast religion, with many books, some believe in Vedas others Puranas so its not one organised religion but the way you guys are not admitting facts is just unbelievable.



Here is your Manusmriti online, lets only take a look at Chapter 8


And all of you Hindus will STILL unite and gang up on me and point towards non Hindu people of the sub continent also discriminating on caste. The fact is that it is in your scriptures, your culture or religion gave birth to it & it has become so important/ethced in the culture that people haven't been able to get out of it despite converting to Christianity, Islam or Sikhi in India.
I have no doubts that caste was profession based but slowly turned into a birth thing by ignorant ancestors of yours or some saints who sanctified the discrimination based on caste in their scriptures (of the broader Hindu religion) - because Manusmriti one of the important books in Hinduism sanctifies this and even stipulates punishments for shuras and what not.

@ Salek, there is no point arguing with you because you pick and choose what you believe, Quran is holy (as you or your fellow Bahai said) without any historical basis that Muhammad wrote it /compiled it but another text written about Muhammad life after him is not believable because it included stuff you cannot fathom.

You proudly say: " I don't believe something unless there is proof of that thing. "

Prove the Qurans holy origins within Muhammads life time and that it is unadultered in the present form. Don't beat around the bush.

The 7 years type of slavery has it's origins in Judaism and by extension Chritianity. Does this mean it is a purely Jewish/Christian affair?

Many Hindus reject or even don't know about the scriptures you're pointing to. This is probably down to the general approach Hindus have towards scripture. That is to say, If a scripture is deemed incompatible or outdated or without some beneficial truth it is just flatly rejected and we move on. Culture had a large part in keeping alive the caste system. That culture includes people of other faiths. In other words it's not just Hindus who accept or even praise the caste system (though many Hindus today might say to you that the caste system is outdated and from an unenlightened time therefore it should be totally rejected.)
No one is perfect, how can they be? Even in Hindu "scriptures/folklore" there are tales of imperfection on the part of Deities, so what makes you think that a human mortal can achieve total perfection when even the Deities cannot escape such imperfections totally? Even leaders, spiritual or otherwise, are a product of their time.

 

[Treks]

Ah, the quintessential problem with religion! Pic'n'mix.

 

[SomeRandom]

Ah, the quintessential problem with religion! Pic'n'mix.

I don't know. The pic'n'mix approach can be used to weed out outdated and barbaric things once claimed in religion in the past.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"Satnaam, post: 4251198, member: 43358"]@ the Hindu brothers; I agree about varna and caste but you guys are just trying to imply that caste based discrimination the ones where dalits tongues were cut off and melted metals were poured in their ears does NOT have origins in Hindu scriptures? I know Hinduism is a vast religion, with many books, some believe in Vedas others Puranas so its not one organised religion but the way you guys are not admitting facts is just unbelievable.

Well, I am not saying the caste problem does not exist in India, nor is anyone saying its not a problem, My reply was simply to point out that unlike other religions where Smriti and Shruti are condensed into one un-changeable book and the laws last forever, the Hindu Smriti such as Manu is open for revision for the different time and place. And many prominent Hindu Leaders and also Avatars have already given us the definition of Varna, if people of India and Hindus at this moment in time don't even read the Manu Smriti or care for it, nor have the capability to write a new smriti, caste is our problem which Hindus themselves need to solve, anyone can still choose to follow what the Manu (or any other Smriti) says word for word or pick and choose whatever is relevant for now because it is Smriti not Shruti.

And all of you Hindus will STILL unite and gang up on me and point towards non Hindu people of the sub continent also discriminating on caste. The fact is that it is in your scriptures, your culture or religion gave birth to it & it has become so important/ethced in the culture that people haven't been able to get out of it despite converting to Christianity, Islam or Sikhi in India.

So are you suggesting those who have converted out of Hinduism, cant get rid of caste because they are still "Hindu" or still "Indian"?, or are they not good Sikhi/Islam because they still follow Hindu smriti? I don't understand.

If its Hinduism that caused the caste system, why cant one get rid of it by converting, makes converting to other religions pointless does it not?

If Hinduism has Caste then why aren't the Non Indian Hindus practicing Caste? or are they? can you give examples

I have no doubts that caste was profession based but slowly turned into a birth thing by ignorant ancestors of yours or some saints who sanctified the discrimination based on caste in their scriptures (of the broader Hindu religion) - because Manusmriti one of the important books in Hinduism sanctifies this and even stipulates punishments for shuras and what not.

Look, i agree with you and understand what you mean, Caste is the worst thing ever thought up, either by Indian or non Indian, it is a thorn in our heel whenever we try to tread the path of Dharmah. But many Hindus are against the caste system, Many Indian Hindus don't discriminate based on Caste, Many great Hindu thinkers have tried to remove the caste mentality for many centuries, but many have also tried to justify it and protect it.

I think if we Indian Hindus were more educated in our concepts of Varna and Jati, the caste discrimination would not have been as prevalent as it is today.

But here we are and it exists, What good would it bring to you to point out caste discrimination in Manu smriti to Hindus? Do you want us to feel ashamed, inferior, are we lessor people, is Hinduism bad and evil and wrong, we our rishi and munis ignorant racists. What are we meant to take away from your point, that Indian culture is backward, prejudice filled with violence, discrimination of people, un ethical, not moral?

Will all this help the horrid caste problem in India, we all Hindus convert tomorrow to Sikhi, will caste disappear?, you and i both know it wont, because it has not happen even by being converted.

What is the point to say Hindus have caste system because it is in their religion? What will this achieve?