Are Sikhs Hindus?
an43...@anon.penet.fi
>
> There has always been a great deal of angst in the Hindu mind over
> expressions of "spiritual independence" by Sikhs.
> Why, I'm not sure, but will give my thoughts. Hinduism, as
> pointed out by someone else, does not claim spiritual superiority or
> exclusivity, and neither does Sikhism. Hinduism is a strong, vibrant
> religion and culture with a millenia-old tradition. It is in no danger of
> disappearing. Why Hindus should be so threatened or hesitant to let
> Sikhism break from its fold, especially when the number of Sikhs is
> miniscule in comparison to the number of Hindus, is incomprehensible.
> One reason I'd like to suggest
> is that Sikhism has very strongly influenced the Hindu culture of
> Northwest India, and especially Punjabi Hindus. I find there is a great
> deal of love for the message of the Sikh Gurus among my Punjabi Hindu
> brothers, but since they have not broken ties with the Sanatan Dharam,
> acceptance of Sikhism as a non-Hindu faith is imppossible for many of them.
>
> Before we discuss this issue further, and suggest solutions to the Hindu
> dilemma, lets examine the scriptural basis that Sikhism is indeed an
> independent religious tradition, and not a Hindu, or Islamic, sect. This
> does not imply dissrespect of Hindu or Islamic tradition, and nor does it
> imply that Sikhism somehow appeared in a vacuum without contact with
> other religious traditions. What is important to understand is how the
> Sikh Gurus envisioned Sikhism. Having established that Sikhism was meant,
> by the Gurus themselves, to be a wholly independent path, it is necessary
> to compare and contrast Sikh ideological and methodological teachings
> with Sant, Bhakti, and other Indian traditions to fully grasp its
> theological significance.
>
> I will not write full transliterations of the original Gurmukhi, but will
> recommend anyone who is intersted in reading the poetry in its original
> form to fully grasp its meanings:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Rag Bhairo, Mahala 5. Adi Sri Guru Granth Sahib, P. 1136:
>
> I practise not fasting, nor observe I the month of Ramadan.
> I serve Him alone, who will save me in the end. 1.
>
> The One Lord of the world is my God.
> He ministers justice to both the Hindus and Muslims. Rahao.
>
> I go not on pilgramage to Mecca, nor worship I at the holies [tirathas].
> I serve only the One Lord and not any other. 2.
>
> I perform not Hindu worship, nor offer I muslim prayer.
> Taking the One Formless Lord into my mind, I make obeisance unto Him
> there. 3.
>
> I am neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim. [Na Hum Hindu na Mussalman]
> My body and soul belong to Him, who is called God of Muslims and the Lord
> of Hindus. 4. [Allah-Ram ke pind-praan]
>
> Saith Kabir, verily meeting with the Guru-Prophet, I have realised my
> Lord. 5.3. [Gur-Pir mil khud khasam pachhana].
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> This slok, written by Bhagat Kabir and explicitly included in Guru Sahib
> by Guru Arjan Dev Ji, since it was commensurate with his beliefs,
leaves no room for alternate interpretation.
It is now the manifest teaching of Adi Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
>
> Guru Gobind Singh Ji expands on these concepts further in Sri Dasam Granth:
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Savaiya, P.254, Sri Dasam Granth:
>
> Ever since I grasped God's feet, I have not thought of any other.
> I do not believe in Ram, Rahim, Puranas, or Quran. [Ram Rahim Puran Quran
> anek kahay mut ek na maanyo.]
> I do not believe in Smritis, Shastra or Vedas. [Simrit Sastr Bed sabai
> bahu bhed kahai num ed no jaanyo.]
> O God, Sword-bearer of Justice, with your grace, all that has been said
> by me has been done under Your command.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Raag Kalyan, Shabad Hazare, P. 710, Sri Dasam Granth:
>
> Do not worship any other than the Creator.
> Regard God, who was from the beginning unborn, invincible, and
> indestructible as the supreme being. 1. Rahao.
>
> What does it matter if Vishnu came into the world and killed the demons?
> By showing his wiles to people, he exhorted them to call him God.
> How can he (Vishnu) be called God, the Destroyer, the Creator, the
> Omnipotent, the Eternal?
> He (Vishnu) could not save himself from the blow of the sword of death.2.
>
> O stupid person, listen, how can he, who himself is sunk in the ocean of
> the world, save you?
> you can escape from the noose of Death only if you seek the refuge of the
> One who existed before the world came into being.3. 1.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Tilang Kafi, Shabad Hazare, Sri Dasam Granth, p. 711.
>
> God is the only creator.
> God is the beginning and the end of everything.
> He is the designer and the creator. 1. Rahao.
>
> For God, praise or criticism is equal; he has no friend or foe.
> What need had he to be the driver of (Arjan's) the charriot? 1.
>
> God, bestower of salvation, has neither father nor mother, nor caste nor
> son nor grandson.
> Why should he have to come into the world to be known as Son of Devki
> (i.e. Krishna)? 2.
>
> He created gods, demons, and spread them in all directions.
> What glory do we offer Him when we call him Murar? (i.e. Krishna - killer
> of Mur).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Comment: these writings exclude the concepts of avtar (like those of
> Vishnu) and son of God (like Jesus) from Sikh thought.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Raag Bilaaval, Shabad Hazare, Sri Dasam Granth, p. 711.
>
> Why should God appear in human form?
> Sidds have failed to see him anywhere, in spite of their meditations.
> Rahao.1.
>
> Narad, Bias, Prasur and Dhru have sincerely meditated on God. (ancient
> Indian sages)
> The Vedas and Puranas have failed and given up their effort for realizing
> him.1. [Bed Puran haar hath chhadiyo tadap dhian na aay].
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Raag Devagandhari, Shabad Hazare, Sri Dasam Granth, p.711:
>
> Except the One, do not accept any other.
> God is the destroyer, the designer, the omipotent, eternal and is known
> as the creator [kartar].1. Rahao.
>
> Of what value is the worship of stones in different ways, done with great
> zeal?
> A life may be spent in worshipping stones but no achievement is gained.1.
>
> Rice, incense, and oil-torches are offered to stones, but to no avail.
> O, Fool, what spiritual potential is there in stones? What can they give
> you? 2.
>
> If these stones had any life, they could have given you something. Rely
> on your thoughts, words, and deeds.
> There is no spiritual fulfillment, except in the refuge of the One God. 3.1.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Comment: A clearer denunciation of use of idols in worship could not hav
> been written.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Savaiye, Sri Dasam Granth, P. 713:
>
> If you say Rama is not born and invincible, why did he come from the womb
> of Kaushalya?
> How is it that Krishna, whom you say is the Master of Death, was helpless
> at the hands of death?
> How is it that Krishna who is called all-goodness and devoid of enmity
> drove the chariot of Arjuna?
> Regard Him only as God whose mysteries none has been, or will be, able to
> unravel.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comment: Guru Gobind Singh furhter elucidates, and explicitly explains
> the implications, of the original doctrine of ajuni saibang Guru Nanak
> stated. To say that Guru Gobind Singh somehow changed
> Sikhism or
> Sikh theology, in comparison to Guru Nanak is false, and belies only a
> superficial understanding.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Savaiye, Sri Dasam Granth, P. 714:
>
> How can you say Krishna was God, the all-merciful?
> How could he be shot dead with the arrow of a hunter?
> When he is said to be the saviour of other families, why could he not
> save his own from destruction?
> Krishan is primal and unborn, then how can his coming into the womb of
> Devaki be explained?
> God is without father and mother, but Krishna had a father named Vasudev.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Tav-Prasaad Savaiye, Sri Dasam Granth, p.35:
>
> Those who go on pilgrimages, bathing, and giving alms, and keep fasts,
> Those who wearing penitant's robes, keeping matted hair, have wandered in
> different countries but not found God.
> Those who practice millions of postures of Ashtang Yog, make offerings of
> limbs, and darken their faces.
> Without remembering the Name of the Compassionate and Immortal God, all
> of them will have to proveed to the place of the God of Death.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Comment: Guru Gobind Singh clearly explains the spiritual futility of
> ritualistic acts. I think there is a message here for modern Sikhs as well.
> There are numerous other examples, these will suffice. We
> have established what Sikhism is NOT, but we cannot simply define Sikhism
> in negative terms, as is so often done (Sikhs don't cut their
> hair, Sikhs don't worship idols, etc, etc). We need to understand what
> Sikhism IS. The entire Guru Granth Sahib Ji is devoted to explaining
> the importance of remembering the name of the formless God. Naam simran
> (and I don't mean simply repetitive recitation, which has been condemed)
> is the only path to spritual liberation according to Sikhism. It is a
> direct path from person t God, and that path is shown by Guru
> Granth Sahib Ji.
>
> For devout Sikhs, there is no meaning to the question, are Sikhs Hindus?
> The dilemma is largely a Hindu one. To my Hindu brothers I say forget
> about overbearing and aggressive Sardars pushing their views on you.
> Read Guru Granth Sahib for yourselves. If read in a spirit of humility
> and seeking, it will speak to your heart. Its message is
> timeless, placeless, and not meant for all mankind. It speaks to the human
> condition in all its forms.
>
> It will then become apparent why Hindus can't let go of Sikhism - it has
> a powerful tug on your hearts, minds, and souls. Give your head to Guru
> Nanak on your palms and take the amrit of Guru Gobind Singh, as did the 5
> from India's every corner in 1699. Let the spiritual shakti of amrit
> flow into your every cell to enhance the spirit of humility, and let the
> sword of justice destroy duality (dubidha). If blessed by Waheguru's grace,
> you will attain liberation while yet alive.
>
>>A friend.
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
Jassa
they are neither Hindu or Muslim. The Singh Sahba movement of the late
19th century was founded expressly for this purpose. Namely, to ensure
that Sikhs were not misled by the cunning and treacherous Arya Smajist
who were bent on absorbing Sikhism into the fold of Hinduism as had been
done with the Jains and Budhists centuries earlier. Those trying to
convince Sikhs that they are really really long-haired Hindus are seeing
their efforts frustrated but no doubt will continue creating trouble for
our community.
an43...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
: >
: > There has always been a great deal of angst in the Hindu mind over
Satya Hari
If you are born in Hindustan you are of hindu nationality.The problem
here is that guru nanak said There are no hindus [ as in the religion]
there are no muslims. Those sikhs who understand gurmat know that we are
spirit-souls jiva-atman.We are not punjabis,jats men ,women muslim hindu
white brown black.The rest of you can argue about this stuff and use
sikhism as a stalking horse for your historically evolved identity where
you turned sikhdharm into an expression of punjabi nationalism.The gurus
warned you against this stuff and now you want to partition punjab again.
Tenth guru's army had as many muslims as sikhs and hindus,why,he spoke
non-sectarian truth.When sikhs evoke broad bi-partisan support they win
when they get caught up in their own trivialities people die,without
their murderers ever being brought to task. Because its not a truth,
justice freedom issue rather it becomes a ''sikh'' issue.Hindu is a
muslim term for anyone born on the other side of the Sindhu river.
Hinduism is properly called Sanatan-Dharma the eternal way.Modern day
hinduism is a corruption of Sanantan-dharma just as pseudo political
sikhism is a corruptiomn og the guru's program. What is the guru's
program Deg-Tegh-Fateh
Satharisinghnyc
-
SATYA HARI PYE...@prodigy.com
-Y
with two different meanings.
1. Narrow sense: This is perhaps the more common usage today. In this
sense, it implies popular, Brahmanical Hinduism based on Puranas etc.
In this sense the Sikhs are not Hindu, and neither are Jains, Buddhists
etc.
2. Wide sense: This is the historical meaning of the term. As far as I
know, until 19th century, the word Hindu was always used in this sense.
With this meaning Sikhs as well as Jains and Sikh are also Hindu.
The Lingayats reject the vedas, but accept most Puranic gods. Arya
Samajis accept vedas, but reject the Puranic gods. Still, both are
regarded to be Hindus. The Hare Krishnas, when not of Indian descent,
do not call themselves Hindu. In these cases, I guess, the word Hindu
is being used in the older sense.
Y
*
* *r* *
* *a* ^Y^ *i* *
*m*^Y^*^\^*^Y^*s*
^Y^*\*e*/*l*/*^Y^
*\*t*|Y^\^Y|*l*/*
*s*|Y^\\^/^//^Y|*a*
^Y^\\_^\\\//^_//^Y^
^\_^\_\_\//_/_/^_/^
^^\_^\_\\/_/^_/^^
^^\_ \// _/^^
\_\_/
/|\
/\\/\
Y. Mansukhani
Pardee95
Sikhs have no oppresive caste system - end of story.
Sandeep S Bajwa
culturally Sikhs are Hindus, just as Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims
are not Arabian Muslims but Indian or 'Hindu' Muslims. Hindu word is
derived from Sindhu and river Sind or river Indus, it is for all the
people living in its vicinity. Sikhs are very much part of this
culture.
In article <4lkt92$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Pardee95 <pard...@aol.com> wrote:
>Are Sikhs Hindus. In response one van only say "Are Hindus idiots?"
>
>Sikhs have no oppresive caste system - end of story.
--
Sandeep Singh Bajwa
http://www.pitt.edu/~ssbst3
Pardee95
Gurupdesh Singh
says...
>
>Dear Hindus,
>If you are born in Hindustan you are of hindu nationality.The problem
You have to first define what you mean by a "Hindu nationality" before
you start labelling others according to your desires for political
hegemony over the multitude of nationalities, communities, and religions
of the Indian subcontinent.
The real problem is that there is no such thing as a historical
"Hindu identity". Since the late 19th century the intellegensia from
the caste orthodoxy (the traditionally non-landowning and non-martial
segments of Indian society such as Brahmins, Kayasth, Banias, etc.
claiming to be the "upper castes") has been grapling with this
question. The desire to define a "Hindu" identity is really a
desire for hegemony by the caste orthodoxy over the other communities of
India such as Dalits and Harijans and also other religious communities
such as Sikhs, Muslims, and Cristians who make up the majority
(over 92% according to the Mandal Commission) of Indians.
The caste orthodoxy is ideologically married to its elitist
caste agenda modelled on Manu's VarnaAshramDharma although
for public relations reasons they deny it. In 1947,
control over the state apparatus fell into the hands of the caste
orthodoxy for the first time in history after the British Govt's the
"Transfer of Power" to the Congress.
None of the Brahmanical manuscripts even mention that the followers
of the Brahmins are "Hindus". The term "Hindu" originally had
a completely non-religious meaning. On the contrary, its meaning was
entirely geographical: in ancient times, the Persians described the
Punjabis living close to the river Indus (now in Pakistan) as "Hindus" or
"the people of the Indus". Later on, as trade links from this region
expanded to central asia and Europe, this term began also to be used by
others living much farther away from the Indus.
It was only after the 10th century A.D., after contact with Islam that
this term began to have any religious connotation at all - and that too
in a reflexive as opposed to proactive way. It became a term for
refering to the natives "who were not Muslims" as opposed to defining
Hinduism as a religion or a system of belief. For example, Jews,
Cristians, Sikhs, etc have a proactive identity in the sense that one can
say "Christians are people who believe in the teachings of Christ as laid
down in the Bible". The same holds true for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
and Christians.
However, given the historical evolution of the term "Hindu" from a merely
geographical one to one carrying a reflexive religious connotation, the
term "Hindu" as an "identity" is the one which is most ambigous and
problematic to define. Yet, as a result of repetition and control of the
education system and media by the caste orthodoxy in India, people have
been conditioned to take it as an "identity" at face value without
critical thought. So we have the result that people who did not think of
themselves as "Hindus" in any religious or nationalistic sense are now
labelled as "Hindus".
Another problem with the "Hindu Identity" is that the traditionally
martial and land-owning segments of Indian society who are known todays
as Rajputs, Jats, Gujars, etc. entered the northern reaches of the
subcontinent relatively recently. For example, the pioneering works of
19th century scholars such as Todd, Elliot, and Cunningham have traced
the origins of Rajput clans to the White Huns (or Epthalites) from
central asia who overan tracts of the northern subcontinent between
500-700 A.D. The Jats, Gujars, Ghakkars, Ahirs (and other many
traditionally agrarian groups) of the north have been traced to the
Sakas/Kushans who invaded and settled the northern subcontinent in
periodic waves between 300 B.C.-400 A.D. These groups, who formed the
ruling class of this region till the 7-10th century A.D., patronized
Buddhism and are referred to disparigingly in Brahmin writings as
"shudra" or "melechha kings".
Many nembers of these groups are classified as "Hindus", however, they
have maintained to a large extent their traditional kinship system and
cultural traditions which they brought with them. A good example of such
cultural artifacts is the dance (e.g. Bhangra), ceremony, and social
customs of Jats, Rajputs, and others. Also through marraige within their
own groups or closely allied groups, these ethnic castes have maintained
their blood-line. Is this cultural and ethic heritage, which was at one
time historically foreign to the subcontinent to be also defined as
"Hindu" by the champions of the newly empowered caste orthodoxy?
During the 19th century, the intellegentia from the caste orthodoxy
attempted to create a new positive and nationalistic identity for
themselves using the "Aryan Theory" as their political and educational
position improved during the time of the British Raj. Therefore, if any
identity needs further consolidation and greater clearification, it is
the more recently defined "Hindu nationalism" whose roots lie in the late
19th century political ambitions of the caste orthodoxy.
Lastly, your illusions of a "Hindu nationality" will completely unravel
if you answer the following question honestly:
"How nationalistic would you feel about Bharat Varsh, if tomorrow the
Prime Minister of India was an Untouchable, the President of India
was a Dalit and most of the top decision-making centeres of power
in the Indian political and bureaucratic system were dominated
by the Dalits and Untouchables who form over 92% of Hindus ?".
Goodals
hinduism and islam- a sort of third space. Guru Nanak created this
synthesis between the two factions. Then the tenth guru-govind singh
proclaimed that the members of this new community should be distinguished
from among all others, so he generated the system of the 5 k's,
khalsa-brotherhood, kach, kangi-comb, kada-bracelet , kirpan-sword.
Turbans- so a sikh individual will be recognised by all.
NASHA THE POST MODERNIST THEORIST
..............................................
Sandeep Singh Brar
>culturally Sikhs are Hindus, just as Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims
>are not Arabian Muslims but Indian or 'Hindu' Muslims. Hindu word is
>derived from Sindhu and river Sind or river Indus, it is for all the
>people living in its vicinity. Sikhs are very much part of this
>culture.
Sat Sri Akal
The word 'Hindu' may have meant people living in the area thousands of years
ago, but by the time of the Gurus even before Guru Nanak the word Hindu had
come to clearly define a religion and no longer referred to a geographic
people. That is the context in which the word "Hindu" is used throughout Sri
Guru Granth Sahib, to denote a religious group and it's followers, not a
people living in one area of the Indian sub-continent.
Eg. Written by Bhagat Namdev (1270 to 1350) and appearing in Sri Guru Granth
Sahib:
"The Hindu is blind and the Muslim is one-eyed. The Lord divine is the wiser
of the two. The Hindu worships at the temple and the Muslim at the mosque.
Namdev serves that Lord, who has neither a temple nor a mosque."
(Bhagat Namdev, Gond, pg. 875)
Although Hindus today may be trying to redefine the meaning of the word, but
since Sikhs are followers of their Gurus and Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we will
continue to follow the definition laid out by our religion and Sri Guru Granth
Sahib, our living Guru - that the word "Hindus" refers to followers of the
Hindu religion and it's separate scriptures and religious practices.
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
Sandeep Singh Brar
The Sikhism Home Page
www.io.org/~sandeep/sikhism.htm
Sikh Memories: Photographs From Another Era
www.io.org/~sandeep/photos.htm
NATIONALIST
>
>Are Sikhs Hindus. In response one van only say "Are Hindus idiots?"
>
>Sikhs have no oppresive caste system - end of story.
Pradeep:
you question is rhetorical and as such does not deserve a reply. But
let us assume that hindus are idiots does that then make sikhs hindus?
Now even you will admit that most of the sikhs came from hindu stock,
so by insinuating idiocy for hindus you are also insinuating that you
have idiocy in your heritage. I have a brother with the same name as
yourself. If sikhs and hindus are so different then how come they have
similar names and also despite the likes of you continue to intermarry
and attend each other's religious functios. Admit it- I know it hurts
you terribly to do so- sikhism is an offshoot of hinduism.
Regards
Jassa
YES, SIKHS are HINDUS to the same extent Hindus are Muslim.
CCSO Sites Services client
4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Jassa) wrote:
>YES, SIKHS are HINDUS to the same extent Hindus are Muslim.
Jassa,
We know you fucked your mother you don't have to tell us.
Sikhs are hindus one way but they are both the other.
There was Muslim Tavayaf whom Hindu fucked and sikhs
are from his generation.
Mr. India
Jassa
CCSO Sites Services client (us...@dev.nul.edu) wrote:
: 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Jassa) wrote:
: Jassa,
: Mr. India
Bahmanonomous you must make all hindoosatanis proud - such grasp of the
english language, truly impressive.
an43...@anon.penet.fi
On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, -Y wrote:
> Let me again mention my views on this subject. The word "Hindu" is used
> with two different meanings.
>
> 1. Narrow sense: This is perhaps the more common usage today. In this
> sense, it implies popular, Brahmanical Hinduism based on Puranas etc.
> In this sense the Sikhs are not Hindu, and neither are Jains, Buddhists
> etc.
>
> 2. Wide sense: This is the historical meaning of the term. As far as I
> know, until 19th century, the word Hindu was always used in this sense.
> With this meaning Sikhs as well as Jains and Sikh are also Hindu.
>
> The Lingayats reject the vedas, but accept most Puranic gods. Arya
> Samajis accept vedas, but reject the Puranic gods. Still, both are
> regarded to be Hindus. The Hare Krishnas, when not of Indian descent,
> do not call themselves Hindu. In these cases, I guess, the word Hindu
> is being used in the older sense.
I agree. In my original post on this thread, clearly I was using the
term in reference to religious doctrine (coterminous with your 1.)
Anyone from the Indian subcontinent was indeed termed
"hindoo" by the British. In modern usage this term has largely been
superceded by "Indian". Perhaps the best solution is to be accepting of
how individuals/groups with to refer to themselves. At least this would
be the view based on mutual respect.
A friend.
Bikramjit
I think that the outburst by the so called nationalist proves Pradeep's point.
it seems that it is not only the Cows that have got BSE but even those who worship them
have contracted the same madness !!.
So what if some Sikhs choose to intermarry, that is their lookout. To say that because of
this Sikhs are hindus proves your insanity !!. Do not the hindu actresses in bollywood
marry muslims. Therfore according to your bovine spongiform logic hindus are an offshoot
of muslims !!
So you have a brother by the same name as Pradeep . CONGRATULATIONS !!
SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT PROVE !!
i've heard of hindus having names like Iqbal etc. so hindus are an offshoot of muslims !!
Nationalist JI, people of all religions attend each other's religious functions, it called being
neighbourly. As long as Sikhs don't start buying milk cartons to give to some elephant god i
don't mind them showing their civility by attending some religious function of their
neighbours !!
Yes it does hurt when ignorant idiots like you start to sprout your mad cow logic.
but Sikhism is greater than any of your arya samajis, bjps, and vhps.
it'll be here and still growing when your bjp raths are buta distant memory
Navdeep Singh
No.
NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
UNDERSTOOD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO
MAKE EVERY SINGLE DREAM COME TRUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.R.
On 2 May 1996, Navdeep Singh wrote:
> No.
Excuse me, but I thought- from what I have heard, that Sikhism was created
to PROTECT HINDUS !! That in every Punjabi family, one son became a Sikh,
to protect Hindus from the Muslims...because Hinduism does not espouse
violence like Islam does....so Sikhs were Hindus who resorted to being
violent like the Muslims to protect the Hindus.....
Also, maybe this is SO NAIVE, but I can understand why Muslims hate
Hindus- or for that matter, any non-muslims.....(it's kinda expected)
But why do Sikhs hate Hindus so much ?? Sikhs and Muslims too actually,
are all "ex-hindus".......Why do they hate so much ?
Aren't we all the same GOD DAMN PEOPLE ??!!!!
Any educated response would be
appreciated,
S.R.
Sandeep S Bajwa
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960506...@mason2.gmu.edu>,
Sikhs don't hate Hindus or Sikhs but Government of India has
failed to give protection to Sikhs, has failed to upheld their basic human
rights. Sikhs don't blame Hindus for that but the Government of India.
Sikhs believe that they have right to self determinatation which current
Government of India opposes., many of our Hindu/Sikh/Muslim friends think
Hindus and GOI is synanamous thus we have this problem.
Also, Sikhs came from all castes of Hindus, Muslims, etc.
It wasn't created to "PROTECT HINDUS FROM MUSLIMS" but Oppressors from
Tyranny. Understand the difference.
So there were also many Muslims who converted from Hinduism, in your book
does it mean that they wanted to harm Hindus and that's why converted?
Even today when we do Ardaas in Gurudwara we wish for a boon by Waheguru
which includes "Gau Greeb di Rakhiya karni"
means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
Navdeep Singh
> > No.
> Excuse me, but I thought- from what I have heard, that Sikhism was created
> to PROTECT HINDUS !! That in every Punjabi family, one son became a Sikh,
> to protect Hindus from the Muslims...because Hinduism does not espouse
> violence like Islam does....so Sikhs were Hindus who resorted to being
> violent like the Muslims to protect the Hindus.....
If that's what you thought then you were probably raised in a Hindu
family. Sikh Religion was created by Guru Nanak Dev Ji, not to better
Hinduism, but to better this entire Universe. I think your philosophy is
that if someone is born in a Hindu family, he/she automatically becomes a
Hindu, too. THAT'S WRONG. It's all bull, being spread by people like you
who are basically illetrate.
> Also, maybe this is SO NAIVE, but I can understand why Muslims hate
> Hindus- or for that matter, any non-muslims.....(it's kinda expected)
> But why do Sikhs hate Hindus so much
There is an answer in your own question. By publicly declaring Sikhs and
Muslims as "Violent" people, and by saying that Sikhs are Hindus, are you
spreading love or hate between Sikhs and Hindus?
> Sikhs and Muslims too actually,
> are all "ex-hindus".......Why do they hate so much ?
I can very well imagine why would people hate a shit-head like you
> Aren't we all the same GOD DAMN PEOPLE ??!!!!
NO. Sikhs and Hindus are EXTREMELY different. You can see the difference
in almost EVERY field: Religion, Culture, Attitude, Goals, bloody
everything...
PankajGupta
Sandeep S Bajwa wrote:
>
> Even today when we do Ardaas in Gurudwara we wish for a boon by Waheguru
> which includes "Gau Greeb di Rakhiya karni"
>
> means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
>
I like that. Give strength to protect the *oppressors* !! In Hinduism,
we ask for strength to protect the *oppressed*. And we do get it.
- Pankaj Gupta
Jassa
PankajGupta (pgup...@mirage.skypoint.com) wrote:
: I like that. Give strength to protect the *oppressors* !! In Hinduism,
: we ask for strength to protect the *oppressed*. And we do get it.
: - Pankaj Gupta
Then why did the Khalsa have to rescue your women from the Mughals??
Harpreet Singh Anand
PankajGupta wrote:
>
> Sandeep S Bajwa wrote:
> >
> > Even today when we do Ardaas in Gurudwara we wish for a boon by Waheguru
> > which includes "Gau Greeb di Rakhiya karni"
> >
> > means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
> >
>
> we ask for strength to protect the *oppressed*. And we do get it.
We know all about Hinduism and you need not introduce us to your ignorant
views. Read the Hindu history during the time of Aurangzeb and you will
understand how much you received the strength to protect the oppressed.
Pathetic.
--Harpreet Singh
>
> - Pankaj Gupta
S.R.
On 6 May 1996, Sandeep S Bajwa wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960506...@mason2.gmu.edu>,
> S.R. <sra...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
> >On 2 May 1996, Navdeep Singh wrote:
> >
> >> No.
> >
> >Excuse me, but I thought- from what I have heard, that Sikhism was created
> >to PROTECT HINDUS !! That in every Punjabi family, one son became a Sikh,
> >to protect Hindus from the Muslims...because Hinduism does not espouse
> >violence like Islam does....so Sikhs were Hindus who resorted to being
> >violent like the Muslims to protect the Hindus.....
> >
> >Also, maybe this is SO NAIVE, but I can understand why Muslims hate
> >Hindus- or for that matter, any non-muslims.....(it's kinda expected)
> >But why do Sikhs hate Hindus so much ?? Sikhs and Muslims too actually,
> >are all "ex-hindus".......Why do they hate so much ?
> >Aren't we all the same GOD DAMN PEOPLE ??!!!!
> >
> > Any educated response would be
> > appreciated,
> >
> >
> > S.R.
>
> Sikhs don't hate Hindus or Sikhs but Government of India has
> failed to give protection to Sikhs, has failed to upheld their basic human
> rights. Sikhs don't blame Hindus for that but the Government of India.
> Sikhs believe that they have right to self determinatation which current
> Government of India opposes., many of our Hindu/Sikh/Muslim friends think
> Hindus and GOI is synanamous thus we have this problem.
>
> Also, Sikhs came from all castes of Hindus, Muslims, etc.
>
> It wasn't created to "PROTECT HINDUS FROM MUSLIMS" but Oppressors from
> Tyranny. Understand the difference.
>
>
> So there were also many Muslims who converted from Hinduism, in your book
> does it mean that they wanted to harm Hindus and that's why converted?
>
>
> Even today when we do Ardaas in Gurudwara we wish for a boon by Waheguru
> which includes "Gau Greeb di Rakhiya karni"
>
> means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sandeep Singh Bajwa
> http://www.pitt.edu/~ssbst3
>
>
>
Before Islam and Sikhism, the people were all Hindus....when the Invaders
from, I guess Central Asia, came, many converted to Islam....however they
were very brutal and cruel, so Sikhism stared to protect the native
population- which was the remaining Hindus, from the invaders..because
Hinduism does not espouse violence like, ISLAM does. No matter what
anyone says, you have made up your mind. People always look at the same
thing with sometimes the most contrasting view points..it's amazing that
they are talking about the same damn thing sometimes ! So no matter what
I or anyone who does not have the same view as you will say, you mind is
concrete....nothing can change the way you think....so i'm not gonna
argue with you because I am frankly, wasting my time...Bye !
N. Tiwari
Harpreet Singh Anand (si...@isis.com) wrote:
: PankajGupta wrote:
: > > means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
: > >
: >
: > I like that. Give strength to protect the *oppressors* !! In Hinduism,
: > we ask for strength to protect the *oppressed*. And we do get it.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: We know all about Hinduism and you need not introduce us to your ignorant
: views. Read the Hindu history during the time of Aurangzeb and you will
: understand how much you received the strength to protect the oppressed.
: Pathetic.
: --Harpreet Singh
The 'protection' of the Hindu Dharma has never been an exclusively
Sikh affair. It is this sense of 'exclusiveness' that was nurtured
by the British for the 'right' reasons, is that we see so many
Sikhs in an angry state. It is this notion of a select breed, a
superior quom, a genetically altered variety, which infuses a
false sense of superiority among the some of the net-Sikhs. The
more you read Indian history as written by our British ex-masters,
the more you get sucked into this mess.
One very interesting word, that has been repeatedly used by several
netters is 'puny' when labelling Hindus. If a Punjabi Sikh is tall
(than other desis in general) how could a Punjabi Hindu differ from
him. Yet, this word puny. Also, look at those folks in Rajasthan,
and you will not see a lot of difference in the height. But the
insistence on 'puny' continues, in an almost blind manner.
Getting back to the 'sole protectors' of the Dharma, I will re
iterate that this has not been exclusively Sikh in character.
The Sikh contribution has been noteworthy, but not overwhelming.
The early Sikhs were themselves killed in large numbers, before
the decision to use arms was taken. Then, we have very very
significant resistance from people like Rana Pratap, Chatrasaal,
Shivaji, Ahilyabai, and so on and so forth. We also have the
jats, figthing tooth and nail during the plunderings of Ahmed
Shah Abdali. Each of these resistance were pretty local. The
Sikh contribution was of the same order of magnitude. Very much
similar to Sikhs, we also see Naga sadhus fighting it out.
Further, if you visit the temples of UP, you will see big
canons mounted on their tops. The factors which forced the
priests of these temples to load their temples with canons,
were precisely the same factors, that drove the Sikhs to
take arms against the Islamic plunderers. No wonder the
temples of Hanuman are referred as Hanuman_gadhi (the fortress
of Hanuman) in esp. the eastern parts of UP.
I am not aware of
the resistance in the Southern part of India. But that is
my ignorance. It could be very well possible that similar
resistance might have been there too.
The struggle against Islamic looters, in India has never been
a centralized one. It has always been disperse, continual and
low intensity. Major flashes also occured, (like Rana Pratap
or Shivaji), but the general character was low key, subversive
and continual.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
=====================================================
750 Tall Oaks Drive 118 Patton Hall
Apt. # 3600 I Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060. Blacksburg, VA 24061.
(540)-951-3979 (540)-231-4611
=====================================================
Jassa
19A1...@isis.com> <4mocag$g...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
:Organization: Home Base
Distribution:
N. Tiwari (nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu) wrote:
: : --Harpreet Singh
: The 'protection' of the Hindu Dharma has never been an exclusively
: Sikh affair. It is this sense of 'exclusiveness' that was nurtured
: by the British for the 'right' reasons, is that we see so many
: Sikhs in an angry state. It is this notion of a select breed, a
: superior quom, a genetically altered variety, which infuses a
: false sense of superiority among the some of the net-Sikhs. The
: more you read Indian history as written by our British ex-masters,
: the more you get sucked into this mess.
I was not aware that the british played a role in founding the Khalsa.
Were the british giving lessons to Guru Gobind Singh on how to awaken the
oppressed indian masses to rise up against Mughal tyranny??
: One very interesting word, that has been repeatedly used by several
: netters is 'puny' when labelling Hindus. If a Punjabi Sikh is tall
: (than other desis in general) how could a Punjabi Hindu differ from
: him. Yet, this word puny. Also, look at those folks in Rajasthan,
: and you will not see a lot of difference in the height. But the
: insistence on 'puny' continues, in an almost blind manner.
ACTUALLY, it was one of your co-religionists, a Mr. Rathee, who referred to
himself as a "5'2" bahman weakling" so go and whine to him.
Jassa.
Harpreet Singh
N. Tiwari wrote:
>
> Harpreet Singh Anand (si...@isis.com) wrote:
> : PankajGupta wrote:
> : > > means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
> : > >
> : >
> : > I like that. Give strength to protect the *oppressors* !! In Hinduism,
> : > we ask for strength to protect the *oppressed*. And we do get it.
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> : We know all about Hinduism and you need not introduce us to your ignorant
> : views. Read the Hindu history during the time of Aurangzeb and you will
> : understand how much you received the strength to protect the oppressed.
> : Pathetic.
>
>
> The 'protection' of the Hindu Dharma has never been an exclusively
> Sikh affair. It is this sense of 'exclusiveness' that was nurtured
> by the British for the 'right' reasons, is that we see so many
> Sikhs in an angry state. It is this notion of a select breed, a
> superior quom, a genetically altered variety, which infuses a
> false sense of superiority among the some of the net-Sikhs. The
> more you read Indian history as written by our British ex-masters,
> the more you get sucked into this mess.
Nachiketa, too nachna bund kar. Your claim that the history Sikhs read is
biased can be dispelled by a simple fact. Who paid taxes to the Mughals and
who did not? We are aware of the fact that Rajputs, and other "mighty" Hindu
rulers remained in power because they paid taxes and their gave women to
Mughals. But never did Sikhs pay any taxes, instead they fought and even died.
The above proves who's superior and who is inferior in deeds. I don't know from
where you get your historical nonesense.
Sincerely,
Harpreet Singh
>
> One very interesting word, that has been repeatedly used by several
> netters is 'puny' when labelling Hindus. If a Punjabi Sikh is tall
> (than other desis in general) how could a Punjabi Hindu differ from
> him. Yet, this word puny. Also, look at those folks in Rajasthan,
> and you will not see a lot of difference in the height. But the
> insistence on 'puny' continues, in an almost blind manner.
>
Sandeep Singh Brar
>Excuse me, but I thought- from what I have heard, that Sikhism was created
>to PROTECT HINDUS !! That in every Punjabi family, one son became a Sikh,
Sat Sri Akal
I think the above quotes from the Sikh Gurus should clear up your
misconceptions about Sikhism:
About the Hindu rajas, (Guru Gobind Singh, Zafarnama, Dasam Granth)
"I warred with the idol-worshipping hill chiefs,
For, I am the breaker of idols and they their worshippers."
"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)
"The blind ignorant ones stray in doubt and so deluded, deluded they pluck
flowers for worship. They worship the lifeless stones and adore tombs. Their
service all goes in vain." (Guru Ram Das, Malar, pg. 1264)
"The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord and are going the wrong way. As
Narad instructed so they worship the idols.They are blind, dumb and the
blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools take stones and worship them. Those
stones when they themselves sink, how shall they ferry thee across?"
(Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 556)
"They who say the stone is a god; in vain is their service. He who falls at
the feet of the stone; vain goes his labour. My Lord ever speaks. The Lord
gives gifts to all the living beings. The Lord is within, but the blind one
knows not. Deluded by doubt, he is caught in a noose. The stone speaks not,
nor gives anything. In vain are the ceremonies of the idolater, and fruitless
his service." (Guru Arjan Dev, Bhairo, pg. 1160)
"The greatly voluminous Simirtis and Shastras stretch out the extension of
worldly love. The fools read them, but know not their Lord. Some rare one
knows Him by the Guru's grace. Of Himself the Creator does and makes others
do. By means of the True Bani, He implants truth within the mortal." (Guru
Amar Das, Maru, pg. 1053)
"The Vedas know not God's greatness. Brahmas can realize not His secrets. The
incarnations know not His limit. Infinite is God, the Transcendent Lord. His
state, He Himself knows. Others speak of Him from mere hearsay. Shiva knows
not the Lord's way. The gods have grown weary searching for Him. The goddesses
know not His mystery. Over all is the Unseen Supreme Lord."
(Guru Arjan Dev, Ramkali, pg. 894)
(Guru Gobind Singh, 33 Swaiyyas)
Some cherish, faithfully the images of Vishnu; others call Shiva their God.
Some proclaim His Presence in the temple, others in the mosque.
Some declare Rama to be His incarnation, others that He is no other than
Krishna.
I have forsaken these fruitless ways, and the Creator-Lord alone I have called
my God.
The All-pervading God, Unconquerable and Unconceived, how could He as Rama be
born from the womb of Kaushalya?
If one calls Krishna the Immortal God, then why did he surrender himself to
the power of Death?
All loving is He and All Holy too then why did He drive Arjuna to battle?
Yea, recognize Him alone to be thy All-powerful God, whose Mystery no one has
unraveled, nor will.
If Krishna be God, the Treasure of Mercy, why the huntsman pierced him with an
arrow?
He who saves the families of others, why did he get his own annihilated?
He who's called the Primeval God, unconceived, how did He enter into the womb
of Devaki?
Yea, He who has neither father nor mother, how could He call Vasudeva His
sire?
Why call Shiva thy God, why Brahma thy Lord?
He (God) belongs not to the Raghu clan (of Rama), nor to the family of yadvas
(like Krishna), nor is He Rama's spouse;
not one of these is the God of the universe.
You forsake the One and cling to many; but thiswise even Sukhdeva, Prasara and
Vyasa (famous Hindu sages) fell in error.
Hark O man, these ways avail not:
So, I have recognized the One alone in every form.
Some look upon Shiva, others on Brahma, as God.
Still others declare Vishnu as the Lord of the universe dwelling upon whom end
ones sins and sorrows.
Give this thy deepest thought, O ignorant wretch, that all these forsake thee
in the end.
Contemplate Him (God) therefore, who was, and is, and will also be, and whose
proof is in thy very heart.
Millions of Indras and Upindras He made and then brought them to an end.
And the gods and the demons too and birds and beasts and mountains and
Seshnagas.
For His sake have Brahma and Shiva done penance to this day, but found not His
limits.
Yea, He whose Mystery is fathomed not by the Vedas or the Semitic texts, Him
alone my Teacher instructed me to accept as the Guru.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that the point has been clearly made, don't you?
Navdeep Singh
If Sikhism was created to protect Hinduism only, then Sikhs would have a
DIFFERENT ending to their prayer. Instead of
"NANAK NAM CHARDI KALA
TERE BHANE SARBAT DA BHALA"
^^^^^^
Sikhs would have
"NANAK NAM CHARDI KALA
TERE BHANE HINDUAN BA BHALA"
^^^^^^^
Sarbat means the entire universe, not just Hindus
Kunal Singh
In article <318F7DB1...@isis.com> Harpreet Singh Anand <si...@isis.com> writes:
PankajGupta wrote:
>
> Sandeep S Bajwa wrote:
> >
> > Even today when we do Ardaas in Gurudwara we wish for a boon by Waheguru
> > which includes "Gau Greeb di Rakhiya karni"
> >
> > means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
> >
>
> I like that. Give strength to protect the *oppressors* !! In Hinduism,
> we ask for strength to protect the *oppressed*. And we do get it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We know all about Hinduism and you need not introduce us to your ignorant
views. Read the Hindu history during the time of Aurangzeb and you will
understand how much you received the strength to protect the oppressed.
Pathetic.
--Harpreet Singh
Ever hear of the Marathas ?
Kunal Singh
In article <Edda1996May8...@news3.idirect.com.compulink.com> san...@io.org (Sandeep Singh Brar) writes:
I think the above quotes from the Sikh Gurus should clear up your
misconceptions about Sikhism:
About the Hindu rajas, (Guru Gobind Singh, Zafarnama, Dasam Granth)
"I warred with the idol-worshipping hill chiefs,
For, I am the breaker of idols and they their worshippers."
This obsessive compulsive behaviour is probably just middle-eastern
influence.
"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)
This seems to show that Guru Gobind Singh did not know Shaivite
philosophy well, otherwise he would have understood why Ganesha is
important. He probably never understood Hinduism from any other
perspective than its rituals.
"The blind ignorant ones stray in doubt and so deluded, deluded they pluck
flowers for worship. They worship the lifeless stones and adore tombs.
Their service all goes in vain." (Guru Ram Das, Malar, pg. 1264)
This seems to only apply to the blind ignorant ones. It does not say
that they are blind and ignorant BECAUSE THEY PLUCK FLOWERS FOR
WORSHIP.
"The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord and are going the wrong way. As
Narad instructed so they worship the idols.They are blind, dumb and the
blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools take stones and worship them.
Those stones when they themselves sink, how shall they ferry thee across?"
(Guru Nanak, Slok, pg. 556)
Most likely true during Guru Nanak's days.
"They who say the stone is a god; in vain is their service. He who falls at
the feet of the stone; vain goes his labour. My Lord ever speaks. The Lord
gives gifts to all the living beings. The Lord is within, but the blind one
knows not. Deluded by doubt, he is caught in a noose. The stone speaks not,
nor gives anything. In vain are the ceremonies of the idolater, and
fruitless his service." (Guru Arjan Dev, Bhairo, pg. 1160)
Absolutely wrong by my experience, as the lingam stone has given me
many realizations. This Arjan Dev does not seem to be very good in
philosophy. If the lord is all pervading then why cannot one see him
in stone ?
"The greatly voluminous Simirtis and Shastras stretch out the extension of
worldly love. The fools read them, but know not their Lord. Some rare one
knows Him by the Guru's grace. Of Himself the Creator does and makes others
do. By means of the True Bani, He implants truth within the mortal." (Guru
Amar Das, Maru, pg. 1053)
If only a rare one knows them by the Guru's grace, then why cannot a
rare one learn them from the Shastras. Can there be such a thing as a
True Bani ? Is not the bani perceived by the man within his own
mental context ? How does having a Guru prevent one from
misinterpreting the Bani ? What is to ensure that the Guru has not
himself misinterpreted the Bani ?
"The Vedas know not God's greatness. Brahmas can realize not His secrets.
The incarnations know not His limit. Infinite is God, the Transcendent Lord.
His state, He Himself knows. Others speak of Him from mere hearsay. Shiva
knows not the Lord's way. The gods have grown weary searching for Him.
The goddesses know not His mystery. Over all is the Unseen Supreme Lord."
(Guru Arjan Dev, Ramkali, pg. 894)
Shiva does indeed know the Lord's way. Actually the above is a
ridiculous statement if you look at it objectively. According to
Arjan Dev, no deity is able to find God, and yet he is everywhere. He
is not able to make the distinction between a partial understanding of
God and a complete understanding of God.
(Guru Gobind Singh, 33 Swaiyyas)
Some cherish, faithfully the images of Vishnu; others call Shiva their God.
Some proclaim His Presence in the temple, others in the mosque.
Some declare Rama to be His incarnation, others that He is no other than
Krishna. I have forsaken these fruitless ways, and the Creator-Lord alone
I have called my God. The All-pervading God, Unconquerable and Unconceived,
how could He as Rama be born from the womb of Kaushalya?
If one calls Krishna the Immortal God, then why did he surrender himself to
the power of Death?
All loving is He and All Holy too then why did He drive Arjuna to battle?
Yea, recognize Him alone to be thy All-powerful God, whose Mystery no one
has unraveled, nor will.
If Krishna be God, the Treasure of Mercy, why the huntsman pierced him with
an arrow?
Guru Gobind Singh was born during the middle ages of Hinduism and so
was Guru Nanak. It is indeed conceivable that most Hindus did not
understand Hindu philosophy at the time, as this was not the brightest
period in the history of Hindu philosophy. As I have stated before,
Krishna was not considered Shiva, neither was Rama etc.
He who saves the families of others, why did he get his own annihilated?
He who's called the Primeval God, unconceived, how did He enter into the
womb of Devaki?
Yea, He who has neither father nor mother, how could He call Vasudeva His
sire?
Why call Shiva thy God, why Brahma thy Lord?
The reason for calling any particular deity a God, or the entirety of
the Brahman, is that you believe that the philosophy associated with
the particular deity can explain the entirety of the universe, that
the associated philosophy captures the essence of the universe. By
essence, what is meant is that it explains the universe by using the
least number of components.
He (God) belongs not to the Raghu clan (of Rama), nor to the family of
yadvas (like Krishna), nor is He Rama's spouse;
not one of these is the God of the universe.
You forsake the One and cling to many; but thiswise even Sukhdeva, Prasara
and
Vyasa (famous Hindu sages) fell in error.
Hark O man, these ways avail not:
So, I have recognized the One alone in every form.
Some look upon Shiva, others on Brahma, as God.
Still others declare Vishnu as the Lord of the universe dwelling upon whom
end ones sins and sorrows.
Give this thy deepest thought, O ignorant wretch, that all these forsake
thee in the end. Contemplate Him (God) therefore, who was, and is,
and will also be, and whose proof is in thy very heart.
Millions of Indras and Upindras He made and then brought them to an end.
And the gods and the demons too and birds and beasts and mountains and
Seshnagas.
Yes, and they were all important. Only through continuous evolution,
Hinduism has come to the attainment of Shiva.
For His sake have Brahma and Shiva done penance to this day, but found not
His limits.
Yea, He whose Mystery is fathomed not by the Vedas or the Semitic texts,
Him alone my Teacher instructed me to accept as the Guru.
Let the Guru or anyone of his followers explain the limits of Shiva.
I hereby claim that Shiva is the supreme understanding of the
universe, in its entirety. Let all those who consider the Guru's Bani
the Supreme Truth, in which the Gurus themselves wave their hands and
admit to not understanding God, prove me wrong.
Kunal Singh
In article <Edda1996May8...@news3.idirect.com.compulink.com> san...@io.org (Sandeep Singh Brar) writes:
Actually, I found the quotes provided by Sandeep Singh Brar extremely
tragic. I didn't find the quotes tragic because Sikhism did not
believe in any Hindu gods. I had no idea that Sikhism had this much
philosophical hand-waving. It is tragic that an entire people should
live by such hand-waving. It is tragic that an entire people should,
even if having determined all existing Gods to be false, to simply
wave their hands helplessly and say that we know that there is a God
and we know that we cannot know him, so why bother trying.
All Sikhism seems to say is that there is some God, which is
unknowable. But then why even believe in the existence of such a God
? How can one be sure that he exists without knowing him ?
I know that in the present context of religious debate this may be
seen as merely an attack, but I really do mean what I say in this
post. It really does seem that the Gurus were not trying to define a
new religion, or a new philosophy, but were simply attempting to
isolate themselves from the prevailing superstitions that Hinduism had
been reduced to. They essentially wanted independence from the
superstition and the social restrictions of Hinduism, but could not
develop an alternative theological philosophy to any great extent.
N. Tiwari
Harpreet Singh (si...@isis.com) wrote:
: N. Tiwari wrote:
: >
: > by the British for the 'right' reasons, is that we see so many
: > Sikhs in an angry state. It is this notion of a select breed, a
: > superior quom, a genetically altered variety, which infuses a
: > false sense of superiority among the some of the net-Sikhs. The
: > more you read Indian history as written by our British ex-masters,
: > the more you get sucked into this mess.
: Nachiketa, too nachna bund kar. Your claim that the history Sikhs read is
: biased can be dispelled by a simple fact. Who paid taxes to the Mughals and
: who did not? We are aware of the fact that Rajputs, and other "mighty" Hindu
: rulers remained in power because they paid taxes and their gave women to
: Mughals. But never did Sikhs pay any taxes, instead they fought and even died.
: The above proves who's superior and who is inferior in deeds. I don't know from
: where you get your historical nonesense.
My point has never been to establish: X > Y. Rather, what I
am saying is that Sikhs as well as Rajput (for instance) have
had their 'brave' as well as 'coward' guys. The line of Mewar
(which had Pratap, Sanga, Kumbha, and even Shivaji) DID NOT
succumb to the pressures of the Mughals. The other group
(Man Singh et al) did. Similarly, there was resistance by
Sikhs in some part of the history. In other parts, there
was a collusion between Sikhs and the oppressive regimes
(the British for instance). So, any attempts to prove that
Sikhs (whatever that may mean) have historically been some-
thing so a superior character than their other Indian
counterparts, is not right. That is what all this 'naach'
is all about.
Nachiketa Tiwari
=====================================================
750 Tall Oaks Drive 118 Patton Hall
Apt. # 3600 I Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060. Blacksburg, VA 24061.
(540)-951-3979 (540)-231-4611
=====================================================
Sandeep S Bajwa
In article <NNYXSI.96May8145851@swap31-220>,
Kunal Singh <nnyxsi@swap31-220> wrote:
>
>In article <Edda1996May8...@news3.idirect.com.compulink.com> san...@io.org (Sandeep Singh Brar) writes:
>
>Actually, I found the quotes provided by Sandeep Singh Brar extremely
>tragic. I didn't find the quotes tragic because Sikhism did not
>believe in any Hindu gods. I had no idea that Sikhism had this much
>philosophical hand-waving. It is tragic that an entire people should
>live by such hand-waving. It is tragic that an entire people should,
>even if having determined all existing Gods to be false, to simply
>wave their hands helplessly and say that we know that there is a God
>and we know that we cannot know him, so why bother trying.
so? why do you belive in God. if you do.
Do you believe in God because there is one or many.
or
Do you believe in God What if there is one or many.
>
>All Sikhism seems to say is that there is some God, which is
>unknowable. But then why even believe in the existence of such a God
>? How can one be sure that he exists without knowing him ?
>
Read Guru Granth for your answers.
What God do you belive in?
What is your explanation (Hinduism) that God exists or not?
>I know that in the present context of religious debate this may be
>seen as merely an attack, but I really do mean what I say in this
>post. It really does seem that the Gurus were not trying to define a
>new religion, or a new philosophy, but were simply attempting to
>isolate themselves from the prevailing superstitions that Hinduism had
>been reduced to. They essentially wanted independence from the
>superstition and the social restrictions of Hinduism, but could not
>develop an alternative theological philosophy to any great extent.
There is an alternative theological philosophy which
probably you cannot understand. Please read Sikhism home page or other
resources to find out about Sikhism.
Gary Stevason
Sandeep Singh Brar (san...@io.org) wrote:
[...]
: I think the above quotes from the Sikh Gurus should clear up your
: misconceptions about Sikhism:
[...]
Sandeep, you should not reveal your gurus' writings about Hinudism ...
their understanding is very juvenile. They may have become more sincere
about God after they encountered the Vedas, but clearly their view of
Vedanta is most immature and quite laughable, tiny kids know more!
One indeed wonders what words they used in their writings to refer to the
great mystery God. Elsewhere here, someone said that Guru Nanak himself
uses the words Ram and Krsna for his God. If this is the case, you should
definitely forget these foolish quotes you have posted here. Forever.
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
CCSO Sites Services client
Sardarji Hai, Hindu Hota to sochta.
isi liye to mathe pe tomater bandhte hai
Sardarji jara socho.
Kaise sochega sardarji hai.
Sandeep Singh Brar
>Sandeep, you should not reveal your gurus' writings about Hinudism ...
>their understanding is very juvenile. They may have become more sincere
>about God after they encountered the Vedas, but clearly their view of
>Vedanta is most immature and quite laughable, tiny kids know more!
Sat Sri Akal
My objective in providing quotes from our Gurus was to clearly show that the
Sikh Gurus never considered themselves to be Hindus but separate and distinct.
My objective was not to provide an essay on Hinduism.
By your rudeness and disrispect you have shown who is the immature and
juvenile one. You could have written "I don't agree with what the Sikh Gurus
wrote about Hinduism", and that would have been fine. But instead you resorted
to slandering, insulting remarks about the Gurus. Sikhs will not tolerate any
such comments directed at their Gurus from anyone! Grow up.
The Sikh Gurus sir had a deeper understanding of eastern religions such as
Hinduism and Islam then what you could ever hope to accomplish in a lifetime.
>One indeed wonders what words they used in their writings to refer to the
>great mystery God. Elsewhere here, someone said that Guru Nanak himself
>uses the words Ram and Krsna for his God. If this is the case, you should
>definitely forget these foolish quotes you have posted here. Forever.
The Gurus used hundreds of different names for God in Sri Guru Granth Sahib,
everything from Hari to Allah. The Sikh religion believes that God is above
any specific label or name.
Sunil R. Kayiti
>If that's what you thought then you were probably raised in a Hindu
>family. Sikh Religion was created by Guru Nanak Dev Ji, not to better
>Hinduism, but to better this entire Universe. I think your philosophy is
>that if someone is born in a Hindu family, he/she automatically becomes a
>Hindu, too. THAT'S WRONG. It's all bull, being spread by people like you
>who are basically illetrate.
>
Sikhism is not a religion, its a cult created by guru nanak dev ji.
He was a militant leader who wanted to establish a militia
like the freemen and khoresh. Basically a radical thinking
which got acceptance by peasents. He preached that all sikh militia
men should carry weapons and protect themselves from the
rulers at that time. Its basically bullshit.
--
Sunil R. Kayiti (H) 617-932-9962 | You can't direct the wind, but
kay...@contex.com (O) 617-245-4100x5193 | you can adjust your sails.
x5526 (LAB)
Sunil R. Kayiti
>> Aren't we all the same GOD DAMN PEOPLE ??!!!!
>
>in almost EVERY field: Religion, Culture, Attitude, Goals, bloody
>everything...
Me thinks.... sikhs are stupids. Bara bajhe 12 o'clock. No
comparision to hindus in any way.
Religion: Militia movement
Culture: No Culture... adaptation of hinduism'
Attitude: Arrogant, stupid, non thinking idiots
Goals: Grow hair and behave like hippies.
One more time.... Guru Nanak Dev ji was a Militia Leader. He should
have been crushed before he could spread his stupid wisdom.
Rajwinder Singh
On Fri, 10 May 1996, Gary Stevason wrote:
For someone who believes Guru Nanak danced with Chaitanya, this was quite
a number of words, Gary.
> Sandeep Singh Brar (san...@io.org) wrote:
> [...]
> : I think the above quotes from the Sikh Gurus should clear up your
> : misconceptions about Sikhism:
> [...]
>
> Sandeep, you should not reveal your gurus' writings about Hinudism ...
> their understanding is very juvenile.
And this coming from a bigoted fool who believes only in his
make-believe notions of God! Too bad the Gurus called false rituals just
that -- false rituals. I am sorry Gurbani does not soothe your
ritualistic mind, but that is the way it is.
> They may have become more sincere
> about God after they encountered the Vedas,
They were enlightened souls who did not need to follow the Vedas' ideas,
and Vedas are not the only source of enlightenment. So much for your own
understanding of Hinduism.
> but clearly their view of
> Vedanta is most immature and quite laughable, tiny kids know more!
Yeah, and your comments are so mature. It is precisely the kind of
complacent fools like you who gives Hindus a bad name. Did Gurbani hurt
your favorite notions? Will it remind you next time you are dancing in
front of a stone that you are behaving like a monkey, dancing uselessly?
I am sure it will, else you wouldn't have spewed the bile against the
Gurus that you did. Forget not that you would nothave access to Vedas if
it was not in part due to the Gurus. YES, the vedas would be extinct by
now, thanks to Aurangzeb and his zealot death squads. Try to see beyond
your backyard.
> One indeed wonders what words they used in their writings to refer to the
> great mystery God.
You should read Gurbani and check them out firsthand. And make sure you
purge that Vedacentric crap outr of your head. There is a whole lot of
revelations about God in Guru Granth Sahib.
> Elsewhere here, someone said that Guru Nanak himself
> uses the words Ram and Krsna for his God. If this is the case, you should
> definitely forget these foolish quotes you have posted here. Forever.
You can't realize the meaning of these names beyond your own favorite
notions and your stones. these are not foolish quotes. They are divine
Words and ignorant ignoramuses like you think they are baaaaddddddddddd
just because they make you realize the idiocy in dancing in front of
stones, worhsipping trees and monkesy and rats, and so on.
You do have a style, give the arrogance & ignorance that you have. Then
again, your high school teachers taught you more than you could learn out
of the more profound vedas. The high school teachewrs atleast taught you
how to express your bigotry and complacent idiocy well.
Face it, we are not Hindus. Fact it, you dance uselessly in front of
stones if you think the stone represents some gods. Face it, Krishna was
either a human being or nothing. Face it, ram was a human being, even
though the word "ram" is used for God. The ability to see beyond names is
what distinguishes Sikhs and ignorant, shortsighted and prejudiced fools
like you.
Boy, Manu must be happy there are people like Gary in twentieth century.
Gary, I think you should go to some peak in Himalayas and dance you butt
off. That should make you one with Krsna. Don't worry too much about
Sikhs and their "foolish quotes."
Boy oh boy! This post was a masterpiece. I am storing it. This is the
most extraordinary one I have seen on the net in two years. Brainwashing
can make strange specimens out of humans. Especially if it is
self-inflicted.
rs
Harpreet Singh Anand
Yes, even though Shivaji spend most of his life as a warrior hiding in the
hills and accomplished much by deceit, he was not like the average Hindu.
Marathas are to be respected because they were 0.00001% of the Hindus who
fought with the Mughals and Afghans, unlike the majority who became complete
slaves and paid taxes to survive.
--Harpreet Singh
ind...@iastate.edu
In article <4mloiv$8...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Sandeep S Bajwa <ssb...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960506...@mason2.gmu.edu>,
>S.R. <sra...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> No.
>>
>>to PROTECT HINDUS !! That in every Punjabi family, one son became a Sikh,
>>violence like Islam does....so Sikhs were Hindus who resorted to being
>>violent like the Muslims to protect the Hindus.....
>>
>>Also, maybe this is SO NAIVE, but I can understand why Muslims hate
>>Hindus- or for that matter, any non-muslims.....(it's kinda expected)
>>But why do Sikhs hate Hindus so much ?? Sikhs and Muslims too actually,
>>are all "ex-hindus".......Why do they hate so much ?
>>
>> appreciated,
>>
>>
>> S.R.
>
> Sikhs don't hate Hindus or Sikhs but Government of India has
>failed to give protection to Sikhs, has failed to upheld their basic human
>rights. Sikhs don't blame Hindus for that but the Government of India.
>Sikhs believe that they have right to self determinatation which current
>Government of India opposes., many of our Hindu/Sikh/Muslim friends think
>Hindus and GOI is synanamous thus we have this problem.
>
>Also, Sikhs came from all castes of Hindus, Muslims, etc.
>
>It wasn't created to "PROTECT HINDUS FROM MUSLIMS" but Oppressors from
>Tyranny. Understand the difference.
>
>
>So there were also many Muslims who converted from Hinduism, in your book
>does it mean that they wanted to harm Hindus and that's why converted?
>
>
>which includes "Gau Greeb di Rakhiya karni"
>
>means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
I don't think sikhism was created to protect the opressors.
It was created by punjabi hindus, to protect hindus from muslims, and
that is a fact.
--
zzzzz
Sandeep S Bajwa
>>
>>means, God give us strength to protect the oppressors.
> -----------------------
>
>
>I don't think sikhism was created to protect the opressors.
>It was created by punjabi hindus, to protect hindus from muslims, and
>that is a fact.
>--
>zzzzz
It was created to protect the oppressed, not
Hindus from Muslims. Sikhism is a seperate religion from Hinduism, it is
a seperate set of beliefs.
Gary Stevason
: >Sandeep, you should not reveal your gurus' writings about Hinudism ...
: >their understanding is very juvenile. They may have become more sincere
: >about God after they encountered the Vedas, but clearly their view of
: >Vedanta is most immature and quite laughable, tiny kids know more!
: Sat Sri Akal
: My objective in providing quotes from our Gurus was to clearly show that the
: Sikh Gurus never considered themselves to be Hindus but separate and distinct.
: My objective was not to provide an essay on Hinduism.
: By your rudeness and disrispect you have shown who is the immature and
: juvenile one. You could have written "I don't agree with what the Sikh Gurus
: wrote about Hinduism", and that would have been fine. But instead you resorted
: to slandering, insulting remarks about the Gurus. Sikhs will not tolerate any
: such comments directed at their Gurus from anyone! Grow up.
Devotees of Sri Krsna will not tolerate your Gurus' petty comments either. I
used to respect Sikhs, but the Internet contingent has destroyed any of
that. Your poor Gurus missed this very straightforward part of the
Bhagavad-gita [9:11]:
avajananti mam mudha
manusim tanum asritam
param bhavam ajananto
mama bhuta-mahesvaram
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My
transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.
You should note that I did not call your Gurus juvenile or immature, but
rather their superficial understanding of Vedanta.
If your Gurus had just said they disagreed with Vedanta, one could
tolerate that, but they "resorted to slandering, insulting remarks about"
Krsna. This kind of behaviour is denounced by you above. Clearly you
would not expect me to tolerate such rudeness. Krsna is far greater than
your Gurus, there is no comparison ... their offence was far greater!
: The Sikh Gurus sir had a deeper understanding of eastern religions such as
: Hinduism and Islam then what you could ever hope to accomplish in a lifetime.
: >One indeed wonders what words they used in their writings to refer to the
: >great mystery God. Elsewhere here, someone said that Guru Nanak himself
: >uses the words Ram and Krsna for his God. If this is the case, you should
: >definitely forget these foolish quotes you have posted here. Forever.
: The Gurus used hundreds of different names for God in Sri Guru Granth Sahib,
: everything from Hari to Allah. The Sikh religion believes that God is above
: any specific label or name.
One can only hope their constant use of Krsna's name can somehow offset the
vulgar quotes you posted. [Note: the 'quotes' are vulgar, not
necessarily the people]
I know Caitanya Mahaprabhu associated with Guru Nanak, and for this reason
only do I not write him off completely. Somehow, somewhere, there may be
a good reason for all of this. But it does not change my perception of
'Sikhs' on the Internet here.
Amitabh Hajela
Sandeep:
What't the point of quoting selected verses which put down Hinduism,
when you know there are an equal number of verses of Guru Gobing Singh's
which glorify Hinduism?
The fact is, Guru Gobind Singh's writings (Dasam Granth) contain much
which is Hindu in nature. Even regarding the Goddess Durga, it would be
hard to pinpoint Guruji's precise stance; true, he forbade idol worship,
and the worship of Hindu Gods, but he also wrote Chandi Di Var, and
other verses dealing with the heroic exploits of Durga Ma; he did uphold
her as a model of bravery and righteousness for the Khalsa, even if he
didn't intend for them to believe in Her literally. And he is known to
have visited Durga Mata Mandirs.
I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to Guru Gobind Singh, IF
YOU'RE OBJECTIVE, it isn't easy to know exactly what he felt about
Hinduism; the evidence goes both ways.
Harpreet Singh
> -----------------------
>
> I don't think sikhism was created to protect the opressors.
> It was created by punjabi hindus, to protect hindus from muslims, and
> that is a fact.
When Mughals could not fight the Afghans, the Sikhs kicked their ass and sent them
back from where they came from. How were Hindus protected in this case?
Harpreet Singh
> --
> zzzzz
Gary Stevason
Rajwinder Singh (rajwi@barney) wrote:
: For someone who believes Guru Nanak danced with Chaitanya, this was quite
: a number of words, Gary.
I do believe it was Nanak who chanted while Caitanya danced. The rest was
not worthy of you, nor any comment.
Those who were envious of Sri Krsna left India with Buddha to worship the
Void, I guess those that stayed became Sikhs. Then they could be showered
by Krsna's holy names by their Gurus without invoking their envy, thereby
allowing their consciousness to slowly become purified. Very, very slowly
it seems; I guess in a future life. :-)
Jassa
Kunal Singh (nnyxsi@swap31-220) wrote:
: Absolutely wrong by my experience, as the lingam stone has given me
: many realizations. This Arjan Dev does not seem to be very good in
Like what, that your wife gets better satisfaction in riding the stone
penis than your small, wrinkled piece?
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <4n7u57$p...@col1.caribsurf.com>,
It is interesting to note that all the Hindus on the net are calling the Sikhs
Hindus while all the Sikhs are pointing to ther distinctiveness and
separatness from Hinduism.
However, the central problem with this is that there is no such thing as a
historical "Hindu identity". Since the late 19th century the intellegensia
from the caste orthodoxy (the traditionally non-landowning and non-martial
segments of Indian society such as Brahmins, Kayasth, Banias, etc.
claiming to be the "upper castes") has been grapling with this
question. The desire to define a "Hindu identity" is really a
desire for hegemony by the caste orthodoxy (less than 8% of Hindus - Mandal
Report) over the other communities of India such as Rajputs, Jats, Dalits and
Harijans and also other religious communities such as Sikhs, Muslims, and
Cristians who make up the majority (over 92%) of Indians.
The caste orthodoxy (CO) is ideologically married to its elitist caste agenda
modelled on Manu's VarnaAshramDharma although for public relations reasons
they deny it. As a consequence of late 19th century colonial recruiting
practices this group was heavily recruited to serve as clerical staff to
British Officers in the colonial administration. After 1885 when the Indian
Congress was formed, the same group also entered this organization for the
purpose of using it as a lobby group to get better jobs in the colonial
bureaucracy.
Finally, in 1947, control over the state apparatus fell into the hands of the
caste orthodoxy after the British Govt's "Transfer of Power" to the Congress.
After being catapulted into power, the CO has been actively using the levers
of state power and control to obtain political and economic hegemony over the
multitude of nationalities, communities, and religions of the Indian
subcontinent.
None of the Brahmanical manuscripts even mention that the followers
of the Brahmins are "Hindus". Brahmin writings interpret and catagorize
society according to their caste system, not some concept of
collective spirituality or religion. In fact, the term "Hindu" originally had
a completely non-religious meaning. Its original meaning was
entirely geographical as in ancient times the Persians described the
Punjabis living close to the river Indus (now in Pakistan) as "Hindus" or
"the people of the Indus". Later on, as trade links from this region
expanded to central asia and Europe, this term began also to be used by
others living much farther away from the Indus.
It was only after the 10th century A.D., after contact with Islam that
this term began to assume a collective religious connotation at all - and that
too in a reflexive as opposed to proactive way. It became a term for
refering to the natives "who were not Muslims" as opposed to defining
Hinduism as a religion or a system of belief. For example, Jews,
Cristians, Sikhs, etc have a proactive identity in the sense that one can
say "Christians are people who believe in the teachings of Christ as laid
down in the Bible". The same holds true for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
and Christians.
However, given the historical evolution of the term "Hindu" from a merely
geographical one to one carrying a reflexive religious connotation, the
term "Hindu" as an "identity" is the one which is most ambigous and
problematic to define. Yet, as a result of repetition and control of the
education system and media by the caste orthodoxy in India, people have
been conditioned to take it as an "identity" at face value without
critical thought. So we have the result that people who did not think of
themselves as "Hindus" in any religious or nationalistic sense are now
defined and labelled as "Hindus".
Another problem with the "Hindu Identity" is that the traditionally
martial and land-owning segments of Indian society who are known today
as Rajputs, Jats, Gujars, etc. entered the northern reaches of the
subcontinent relatively recently. For example, the pioneering works of
19th century scholars such as Todd, Elliot, and Cunningham have traced
the origins of Rajput clans to the White Huns (or Epthalites) from
central asia who overan tracts of the northern subcontinent between
500-700 A.D.
The Jats (and other many other traditionally agrarian groups such as Ahirs,
Gujars, Awans, Ghakkars, etc.) of the north have been traced to the
Massa-Gatae branch of the Scythians ("Jat" is from "Gatae"; "Massa" means
"Grand" or "big" in old Persian - the language of the Scythians) who invaded
and settled the northern subcontinent in periodic waves between 300 B.C.-400
A.D. From ancient Greek sources such as Herrodontus and Pliny it is known
that the Scythians as far back as 400 B.C. ruled over much of Central Asia
including the northern subcontinent up to the river Ganges. These groups, who
formed the ruling class of this region till the 7-10th century A.D.,
patronized Buddhism and are referred to disparigingly in Brahmin writings as
"melechha kings". Therefore, much of the history of the northern
subcontinent's history during the Buddhist period from 400 B.C. - 700 A.D. is
tied to these Indo-Scythians.
Many nembers of these Scythic or Hun ethnic nationalities groups are
classified as "Hindus", however, they have maintained to a large extent and
introduced into the broader culture their traditional kinship system and
cultural traditions and ethos which they brought with them. A good example of
these cultural artifacts is the dance (e.g. Bhangra), ceremony, and social
customs of Jats, Rajputs, and others. Also through marraige within their
own groups or closely allied groups, these ethnic castes have maintained
their blood-line. Is this cultural and ethic heritage, which was at one
time historically foreign to the subcontinent to be also defined as
"Hindu" by the champions of the newly empowered caste orthodoxy?
Before the rise of British imperial power in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries, these groups formed the politically dominant "martial" (British
term) landowning groups and in most of the north had regained back their
political independence from the Mogul empire. During the 19th century,
the intellegentia from the caste orthodoxy attempted to create a new positive
and nationalistic identity for themselves using the "Aryan Theory" as their
educational position improved during the time of the British Raj. Therefore,
if any identity needs further defining and clearification, it is the
relatively new "Hindu nationalism" whose roots lie in the late 19th century
political ambitions of the caste orthodoxy.
Lastly, your illusions of a homogenous "Hindu nationality" will completely
unravel if you address yourself to the following question:
"How nationalistic would you feel about Bharat Varsh, if tomorrow the
Prime Minister of India was an Untouchable, the President of India
was a Dalit and most of the top decision-making centeres of power
in the Indian political and bureaucratic system were dominated
by the Dalits and Untouchables who form over 92% of Hindus ?".
Tamil
In article <4nfuad$1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
|> In article <4n7u57$p...@col1.caribsurf.com>,
|> Amitabh Hajela <haj...@caribsurf.com> wrote:
|> >Sandeep:
|> >
|> >What't the point of quoting selected verses which put down Hinduism,
|> >when you know there are an equal number of verses of Guru Gobing Singh's
|> >which glorify Hinduism?
|> >
|> customs of Jats, Rajputs, and others. Also through marraige within their
|> own groups or closely allied groups, these ethnic castes have maintained
|> their blood-line. Is this cultural and ethic heritage, which was at one
|> time historically foreign to the subcontinent to be also defined as
|> "Hindu" by the champions of the newly empowered caste orthodoxy?
|>
|> Lastly, your illusions of a homogenous "Hindu nationality" will completely
|> unravel if you address yourself to the following question:
|>
|> "How nationalistic would you feel about Bharat Varsh, if tomorrow the
|> Prime Minister of India was an Untouchable, the President of India
|> was a Dalit and most of the top decision-making centeres of power
|> in the Indian political and bureaucratic system were dominated
|> by the Dalits and Untouchables who form over 92% of Hindus ?".
Factful article.
N. Tiwari
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <4n7u57$p...@col1.caribsurf.com>,
As long as you see the trees, you will never see the forest.
You have to literally rise, to see the forest. Try defining
a forest. And you will have the same problem which you face
when you attempt to define Hinduism. Try defining God. And
you have the same problem. The very idea of 'definition' is
rooted in exclusivism. The notions of 'Hindu', 'forest' and
'God' are just the opposite. So, the fact that I cannot produce
a good def. does not imply that 'Hindu-identity' is non-existant.
I will take this logic still further. Try defining matter and
energy. Both of them are pure ideological abstractions. This
is especially true in view of the Einstein's energy-mass
relation. But you can define mass, and can define energy. Yet
they are not real. Not try defining the 'real' (in scientific
sense) and you run into trouble. Does that mean that there is
no reality in the scientific world.
Your arguments are based on 'exclusivism'. Rooted in Western
thought and Western conditioning, you will never see the
forest. Rather, you will always see the trees. That is your
problem.
: The caste orthodoxy (CO) is ideologically married to its elitist caste agenda
: modelled on Manu's VarnaAshramDharma although for public relations reasons
: they deny it. As a consequence of late 19th century colonial recruiting
: practices this group was heavily recruited to serve as clerical staff to
: British Officers in the colonial administration. After 1885 when the Indian
: Congress was formed, the same group also entered this organization for the
: purpose of using it as a lobby group to get better jobs in the colonial
: bureaucracy.
Sometime back, your friends (and perhaps you too) said that
the Brahmins were never in top positions in colonial Punjab.
Now you say the opposite. Make sure that the 'truth' is not
argument and case sensitive.
: Finally, in 1947, control over the state apparatus fell into the hands of the
: caste orthodoxy after the British Govt's "Transfer of Power" to the Congress.
: After being catapulted into power, the CO has been actively using the levers
: of state power and control to obtain political and economic hegemony over the
: multitude of nationalities, communities, and religions of the Indian
: subcontinent.
: None of the Brahmanical manuscripts even mention that the followers
: of the Brahmins are "Hindus". Brahmin writings interpret and catagorize
: society according to their caste system, not some concept of
: collective spirituality or religion. In fact, the term "Hindu" originally had
: a completely non-religious meaning. Its original meaning was
: entirely geographical as in ancient times the Persians described the
: Punjabis living close to the river Indus (now in Pakistan) as "Hindus" or
: "the people of the Indus". Later on, as trade links from this region
: expanded to central asia and Europe, this term began also to be used by
: others living much farther away from the Indus.
: It was only after the 10th century A.D., after contact with Islam that
: this term began to assume a collective religious connotation at all - and that
: too in a reflexive as opposed to proactive way. It became a term for
: refering to the natives "who were not Muslims" as opposed to defining
: Hinduism as a religion or a system of belief. For example, Jews,
: Cristians, Sikhs, etc have a proactive identity in the sense that one can
: say "Christians are people who believe in the teachings of Christ as laid
: and Christians.
As long as you try to define Hinduism, and then exclude people,
you will fail to understand Hindu Dharma. Cease that exercise,
and you will see something different.
: However, given the historical evolution of the term "Hindu" from a merely
: geographical one to one carrying a reflexive religious connotation, the
: term "Hindu" as an "identity" is the one which is most ambigous and
: problematic to define. Yet, as a result of repetition and control of the
: education system and media by the caste orthodoxy in India, people have
: been conditioned to take it as an "identity" at face value without
: critical thought. So we have the result that people who did not think of
: themselves as "Hindus" in any religious or nationalistic sense are now
: defined and labelled as "Hindus".
The fact that you cannot define something, is not a good
basis to deny its existance. Read my earlier comments for
more details.
: Another problem with the "Hindu Identity" is that the traditionally
: martial and land-owning segments of Indian society who are known today
: as Rajputs, Jats, Gujars, etc. entered the northern reaches of the
: subcontinent relatively recently. For example, the pioneering works of
: 19th century scholars such as Todd, Elliot, and Cunningham have traced
: the origins of Rajput clans to the White Huns (or Epthalites) from
: central asia who overan tracts of the northern subcontinent between
: 500-700 A.D.
What is the problem with "Hindu identity" in this case.
As I see it, it is this identity, that accorded these
foreign people a place in India. And the newcomers lived
happily ever after. I am not too sure that the Jats of
Harayan or the Rajputs of Rajasthan suffer from an identity
crisis.
Do you??
: The Jats (and other many other traditionally agrarian groups such as Ahirs,
: Gujars, Awans, Ghakkars, etc.) of the north have been traced to the
: Massa-Gatae branch of the Scythians ("Jat" is from "Gatae"; "Massa" means
: "Grand" or "big" in old Persian - the language of the Scythians) who invaded
: and settled the northern subcontinent in periodic waves between 300 B.C.-400
: A.D. From ancient Greek sources such as Herrodontus and Pliny it is known
: that the Scythians as far back as 400 B.C. ruled over much of Central Asia
: including the northern subcontinent up to the river Ganges.
Typical example of race and race as the sole determinant of
one's identity. That too, when these events took place atleast
1000 yrs back, and a great amount of intermingling has occured.
Tell me one thing. In this scheme of yours, where does the non
Jat Sikh fit in.
: Many nembers of these Scythic or Hun ethnic nationalities groups are
: classified as "Hindus", however, they have maintained to a large extent and
: introduced into the broader culture their traditional kinship system and
: cultural traditions and ethos which they brought with them. A good example of
: these cultural artifacts is the dance (e.g. Bhangra), ceremony, and social
: customs of Jats, Rajputs, and others. Also through marraige within their
: own groups or closely allied groups, these ethnic castes have maintained
: their blood-line. Is this cultural and ethic heritage, which was at one
: time historically foreign to the subcontinent to be also defined as
: "Hindu" by the champions of the newly empowered caste orthodoxy?
Yes. That is the genius of an all inclusiveness. Any one can find
his/her place in the Hindu pantheon. Ever wondered about the Parsis.
Also, your above post smacks of 'racial exclusiveness' which when
taken to its logical end, could easily degenerate into racism
and race based hatred. No wonder, with upadeshaks like you, we
see so oft repeated claims of the Jat pride.
: Before the rise of British imperial power in the late 18th and early 19th
: centuries, these groups formed the politically dominant "martial" (British
: term) landowning groups and in most of the north had regained back their
: political independence from the Mogul empire. During the 19th century,
: the intellegentia from the caste orthodoxy attempted to create a new positive
: and nationalistic identity for themselves using the "Aryan Theory" as their
: educational position improved during the time of the British Raj. Therefore,
: if any identity needs further defining and clearification, it is the
: relatively new "Hindu nationalism" whose roots lie in the late 19th century
: political ambitions of the caste orthodoxy.
The Hindu identity is a pretty ancient one. You see not only
Indians professing this identity, but also see the foreigners
(Megasthenese in Alexander's times, Huen Tsang) acknowledging
India as ONE unit.
The new Guru (aka Guru-Upadesh) does not see it.
: Lastly, your illusions of a homogenous "Hindu nationality" will completely
: unravel if you address yourself to the following question:
: "How nationalistic would you feel about Bharat Varsh, if tomorrow the
: Prime Minister of India was an Untouchable, the President of India
: was a Dalit and most of the top decision-making centeres of power
: in the Indian political and bureaucratic system were dominated
: by the Dalits and Untouchables who form over 92% of Hindus ?".
Very much. I feel very much nationalistic, and Hindu.
I am aware of the fact that most of the Indian epics
have been written by two 'Shudras' (in the sense of
birth. These were Vyas and Valmiki. I feel bad, when
I see people of Indira Gandhi's ilk (brahmin in the
sense of birth) rising to power. I feel proud that my
nation was ruled by Chandragupta Maurya (a Shudra by
birth). I feel pained to see Phoolan Devi coming to
the Lok Sabha.
Do you see in the same way.
--
Jassa
I must say Gurupdesh's article is probably the best article i have read
so far on this newsgroup - it seems to be based on sound research and is
thorough in discussing the subject matter at hand. It is refreshing to
know that there are intelligent indians out there and not just some
bigoted hindu idiots who don't have clue as to what they are arguing about.
Again, congratulations on a fine article, keep them coming and never mind
the bigots, remember the old saying: EMPTY POTS MAKE THE LOUDEST NOISES.
Jassa.
: The caste orthodoxy (CO) is ideologically married to its elitist caste agenda
: modelled on Manu's VarnaAshramDharma although for public relations reasons
: they deny it. As a consequence of late 19th century colonial recruiting
: practices this group was heavily recruited to serve as clerical staff to
: British Officers in the colonial administration. After 1885 when the Indian
: Congress was formed, the same group also entered this organization for the
: purpose of using it as a lobby group to get better jobs in the colonial
: bureaucracy.
: Finally, in 1947, control over the state apparatus fell into the hands of the
: caste orthodoxy after the British Govt's "Transfer of Power" to the Congress.
: After being catapulted into power, the CO has been actively using the levers
: of state power and control to obtain political and economic hegemony over the
: multitude of nationalities, communities, and religions of the Indian
: subcontinent.
: None of the Brahmanical manuscripts even mention that the followers
: of the Brahmins are "Hindus". Brahmin writings interpret and catagorize
: society according to their caste system, not some concept of
: collective spirituality or religion. In fact, the term "Hindu" originally had
: a completely non-religious meaning. Its original meaning was
: entirely geographical as in ancient times the Persians described the
: Punjabis living close to the river Indus (now in Pakistan) as "Hindus" or
: "the people of the Indus". Later on, as trade links from this region
: expanded to central asia and Europe, this term began also to be used by
: others living much farther away from the Indus.
: It was only after the 10th century A.D., after contact with Islam that
: this term began to assume a collective religious connotation at all - and that
: too in a reflexive as opposed to proactive way. It became a term for
: refering to the natives "who were not Muslims" as opposed to defining
: Hinduism as a religion or a system of belief. For example, Jews,
: Cristians, Sikhs, etc have a proactive identity in the sense that one can
: say "Christians are people who believe in the teachings of Christ as laid
: down in the Bible". The same holds true for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
: and Christians.
: However, given the historical evolution of the term "Hindu" from a merely
: geographical one to one carrying a reflexive religious connotation, the
: term "Hindu" as an "identity" is the one which is most ambigous and
: problematic to define. Yet, as a result of repetition and control of the
: education system and media by the caste orthodoxy in India, people have
: been conditioned to take it as an "identity" at face value without
: critical thought. So we have the result that people who did not think of
: themselves as "Hindus" in any religious or nationalistic sense are now
: defined and labelled as "Hindus".
: Another problem with the "Hindu Identity" is that the traditionally
: martial and land-owning segments of Indian society who are known today
: as Rajputs, Jats, Gujars, etc. entered the northern reaches of the
: subcontinent relatively recently. For example, the pioneering works of
: 19th century scholars such as Todd, Elliot, and Cunningham have traced
: the origins of Rajput clans to the White Huns (or Epthalites) from
: central asia who overan tracts of the northern subcontinent between
: 500-700 A.D.
: The Jats (and other many other traditionally agrarian groups such as Ahirs,
: Gujars, Awans, Ghakkars, etc.) of the north have been traced to the
: Massa-Gatae branch of the Scythians ("Jat" is from "Gatae"; "Massa" means
: "Grand" or "big" in old Persian - the language of the Scythians) who invaded
: and settled the northern subcontinent in periodic waves between 300 B.C.-400
: A.D. From ancient Greek sources such as Herrodontus and Pliny it is known
: that the Scythians as far back as 400 B.C. ruled over much of Central Asia
: including the northern subcontinent up to the river Ganges. These groups, who
: formed the ruling class of this region till the 7-10th century A.D.,
: patronized Buddhism and are referred to disparigingly in Brahmin writings as
: "melechha kings". Therefore, much of the history of the northern
: subcontinent's history during the Buddhist period from 400 B.C. - 700 A.D. is
: tied to these Indo-Scythians.
: Many nembers of these Scythic or Hun ethnic nationalities groups are
: classified as "Hindus", however, they have maintained to a large extent and
: introduced into the broader culture their traditional kinship system and
: cultural traditions and ethos which they brought with them. A good example of
: these cultural artifacts is the dance (e.g. Bhangra), ceremony, and social
: customs of Jats, Rajputs, and others. Also through marraige within their
: own groups or closely allied groups, these ethnic castes have maintained
: their blood-line. Is this cultural and ethic heritage, which was at one
: time historically foreign to the subcontinent to be also defined as
: "Hindu" by the champions of the newly empowered caste orthodoxy?
: Before the rise of British imperial power in the late 18th and early 19th
: centuries, these groups formed the politically dominant "martial" (British
: term) landowning groups and in most of the north had regained back their
: political independence from the Mogul empire. During the 19th century,
: the intellegentia from the caste orthodoxy attempted to create a new positive
: and nationalistic identity for themselves using the "Aryan Theory" as their
: educational position improved during the time of the British Raj. Therefore,
: if any identity needs further defining and clearification, it is the
: relatively new "Hindu nationalism" whose roots lie in the late 19th century
: political ambitions of the caste orthodoxy.
: Lastly, your illusions of a homogenous "Hindu nationality" will completely
Saurabh Jang
N. Tiwari (nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu) wrote:
Nachiketa,
Much as I admire the knowledge of history and Hinduism that goes into your
various postings, I think Gurupdesh hit the nail on the head with his
article.
Hinduism as practised till now gives it's followers only one identity:
the identity of their caste. The defining feature of Hindu religion
in reality is the caste system.
Just so that you know where I am coming from, I am a UP Jat by ancestry
and I don't hold any religious convictions; I consider myself to be an
atheist.
I was lucky to have extremely liberal parents who never tried to
instill a narrow caste-based or religion based identity in me, and
I didn't even know what caste I was by birth till the 10th standard.
However since then it has been painfully obvious to me that there is
no all-inclusive Hindu identity. Look at any bureaucratic organisation
in India whether they be the IAS, IPS, PCS etc. you will find the
existence of caste based lobbies which influence major decisions.
This is not hearsay, I have a cousin who recently joined the IAS
and was telling me that decisions of who to appoint to plum posts
are made not on the basis of merit, but which lobby is dominant
at that time. Frustrated by this he has decided that he is going to
go all out to build a Jat lobby in the civil services so that others
can be given a dose of their own medicine.
Now I dont condone all this casteism, but I think more and more
castes are realizing that they have been taken for a ride by
Brahmins and other elite castes. And historically speaking they would
be 100% correct.
All this is not conducive to the unity of India and this is the reason that
I am currently a reluctant BJP supporter, because at least they show
promise of actually forming a pan-Indian Hindu identity irrespective
of caste. The Congress-I and NF only seek to exploit caste based divisions,
because as long as they exist, they will rule.
Saurabh
--
Saurabh Jang e-mail: sj...@cs.mtu.edu
MSCS Student www : http://www.cs.mtu.edu/grads/Jang/Home.html
Michigan Tech work #: (906)487-2839
Vivek Khare
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
> "How nationalistic would you feel about Bharat Varsh, if tomorrow the
> Prime Minister of India was an Untouchable, the President of India
> was a Dalit and most of the top decision-making centeres of power
> in the Indian political and bureaucratic system were dominated
> by the Dalits and Untouchables who form over 92% of Hindus ?".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FYI, non-Brahmins do NOT imply Dalits and Untouchables. The percentage
of Dalits is less than 30%. Ofcourse, there is no justification for there
being even _one_ untouchable in India, but do not exaggerate their
numbers.
And all your rhetoric aside, there have been many many ministers
who belong to the Dalit class. The next president of India was going to
be a Dalit, and people will have absolutely no problem if a Dalit becomes
a prime minister.
Regards
Vivek
Raghu Seshadri
Mr Gurupdesh Singh writes -
: "How nationalistic would you feel about Bharat Varsh, if tomorrow the
: Prime Minister of India was an Untouchable, the President of India
: was a Dalit and most of the top decision-making centeres of power
: in the Indian political and bureaucratic system were dominated
: by the Dalits and Untouchables who form over 92% of Hindus ?".
How can nationalism be dependent on which
Indian is in power ? They are all Indians, after all,
not Germans or Chinese. In fact it will strengthen
nationalism, because deprived groups would
then feel part of India's destiny and social
tensions will decline, making India a happier
place.
One puzzling thing is that you are talking
as if these are hypothetical things. We have
already had a Harijan president, several
highly powerful harijan Central
ministers and Chief ministers. Untouchability,
illegal since 1947, is on a rapid decline on
the field as well. India-lovers
are happier as a result. I don't understand
why you think any nationalist would feel
unhappy upon seeing India evolve into a better
country. Your logic is incomprehensible.
RS
Arun Gupta
Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>However, the central problem with this is that there is no such thing as a
>historical "Hindu identity". Since the late 19th century the intellegensia
Since people here have written that Guru Nanak wrote that he is neither Hindu
nor Mussulman, there was a Hindu identity before the 19th century, it was not
a creation of that era.
So I reject your theory [which I have deleted]. "Hindu" identity probably
dates to the 11th century with the first largescale contact with Muslims,
and was probably adopted in self-defense.
None of the ancient religious works uses the word "Hindu", not even the
Manusmriti, as far as I'm aware. It would be interesting to find the
first use of the word in a religious text.
-arun gupta
Shabari Kumar
On 18 May 1996, Arun Gupta wrote:
> Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> >However, the central problem with this is that there is no such thing as a
> >historical "Hindu identity". Since the late 19th century the intellegensia
>
> Since people here have written that Guru Nanak wrote that he is neither Hindu
> nor Mussulman, there was a Hindu identity before the 19th century, it was not
> a creation of that era.
But did the people Nanak calls Hindu identify themselves as Hindu? and
is Nanak's def. of Hindu the same one we use today? I think the answer is
no on both counts.
Non-subcontinentals have long used "Hindu" to identify subcontinentals.
Kabir and Nanak are doing something similar--identifying what they think
of subcontinental orthodoxy. Kabir, for example, says he's not a Hindu
and yet does things (e.g. worship Ram) which a) we now think of as
quintessentially Hindu, and b) which he was surely aware the people he
calls Hindus also do. So what did he mean?
>
> So I reject your theory [which I have deleted]. "Hindu" identity probably
> dates to the 11th century with the first largescale contact with Muslims,
> and was probably adopted in self-defense.
>
Self-defense?!! I'm not sure how the "hindu" identity is a defense
against anything! In any case, people generally identified their religion
in terms of their household gods/saints--which is why the demarcation of
religion was often fuzzy (c.f. Paul Brass, Susan Bayly).
> None of the ancient religious works uses the word "Hindu", not even the
> Manusmriti, as far as I'm aware. It would be interesting to find the
no, the Manusmriti does not. Neither do the later (post-Muslim contact)
"Hindu" works I am familiar with, bhakti and Tantric. (I use "Hindu" to
mean what we would today consider HIndu, jsut as we today consider Manu
Hindu.)
Arun Gupta
Shabari Kumar <sm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>>
>
>Self-defense?!! I'm not sure how the "hindu" identity is a defense
>against anything! In any case, people generally identified their religion
>in terms of their household gods/saints--which is why the demarcation of
>religion was often fuzzy (c.f. Paul Brass, Susan Bayly).
What I mean is that they had to adopt an alien concept of religious
identification in order to survive. This is similar to cultures with
no idea of land ownership by individuals having to adopt this when
steamrolled by Western cultures.
-arun gupta
Rajwinder Singh
Arun Gupta (gu...@mrspock.mt.att.com) wrote on 18 May 1996 16:41:29 GMT:
>None of the ancient religious works uses the word "Hindu", not even the
>Manusmriti, as far as I'm aware. It would be interesting to find the
>first use of the word in a religious text.
I do not know about the FIRST use of the word, but Guru nanak bani has the
word used in a RELIGIOUS sense in many places [in a DIRECT comparison with
Islam, and this in fact is one basis for Sikhism being a distinct
faith from the beginning]. For example, in asa di vaar Guru Nanak writes:
"mussalmaana sift(i) sareeat(i) paR(i) paR(i) karaih(i) beechar(u)
bande' se' j(i) paveh(i) vich(i) bandee vekhaN kau deedar(u)
hindoo saalaahee saalahan(i) darsan(i) roop(i) apaar(u)
teerath(i) naavah(i) archa pooja agarvaas(u) bahkaar(u)
.............."
[This piece from gurbani then goes on to elaborate on other faiths, like the
Yogis', and ends with a couplet on Guru nanak's own, the faith of
true bhagts of God.]
Elsewhere, too, the word "hindoo" is used in a religious sense, many
times.
rs
Rajwinder Singh
Jassa (4h...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote on 16 May 1996 23:46:45 GMT:
>I must say Gurupdesh's article is probably the best article i have read
>so far on this newsgroup - it seems to be based on sound research and is
>thorough in discussing the subject matter at hand. It is refreshing to
>know that there are intelligent indians out there and not just some
>bigoted hindu idiots who don't have clue as to what they are arguing about.
>Again, congratulations on a fine article, keep them coming and never mind
>the bigots, remember the old saying: EMPTY POTS MAKE THE LOUDEST NOISES.
> Jassa.
I agree. Gurupdesh has made some very important points, although it is
a pity hardly anyone against him makes an educated post.
rs
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <4ng2h4$3...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
But a forest is made of a collection of trees. You cant define
a tree without knowing that it is composed of trees.
>when you attempt to define Hinduism. Try defining God. And
>you have the same problem. The very idea of 'definition' is
>rooted in exclusivism. The notions of 'Hindu', 'forest' and
>'God' are just the opposite. So, the fact that I cannot produce
****************************************************************
Then you have a logical delemna. If you cant define Hinduism,
what is the sense of defining Sikhs as Hindus. Also, Sikhs
have no problem defining their religion: a Sikh is someone who
believes in the teaching of the 10 Sikhs Gurus from Guru
Nanak to Guru Gobind and their philosophy and teachings
as enshrined in the Guru Granth Sahib. Some basic aspects
of these are:
1) Belief in the oneness and unity of God and Man.
2) Self-existent nature of God (therefore he does not take birth;
nor does he die like Brahmin devtas).
3) The concept of Naam as a way of attaining union with divinity.
4) Rejection of any man-made ideology dividing mankind into inferior
and superior pedigrees (e.g. the caste ideology of the Brahmins).
5) Rejection of idol worshp as a means of attaining God.
6) Concept of Seva or service of mankind, sharing, and working honestly for
ones living.
7) Strong belief in social justice.
>a good def. does not imply that 'Hindu-identity' is non-existant.
>
>I will take this logic still further. Try defining matter and
>energy. Both of them are pure ideological abstractions.
This is slightly off the topic but matter and energy are not an "identity" and
they are more than "ideological abstraction" (they may be according to Vedanta
philosophy but this is rejected by Sikhism: the 1st stanza of Japjee Sahib
says "Ad such, Jugad such" meaning "The primal is true (real) and the world is
also true (real)"). And if you drive into a on-coming truck on the highway,
if too will discover that matter and energy are very "real".
The Sikh Gurus rejected such useless sohistries. Man is put here on earth for
action, not merely contemplation - and the value of how good these actions are
are judged by how well they serve His creation.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <4nkujp$f...@nntpb.cb.att.com>,
>>historical "Hindu identity". Since the late 19th century the intellegensia
>
>nor Mussulman, there was a Hindu identity before the 19th century, it was not
>a creation of that era.
>
>dates to the 11th century with the first largescale contact with Muslims,
In the original posting, I refered to this interpretation of Hindu identity
as a "reflexive" one as opposed to "proactive" (e.g. Jew) in the sense
that the invaders referred to the local as "Hindus" - meaning "not Muslims"
as opposed to defining Hindusim as a system of belief or thought.
The attempt by the newly western-educated intellectuals from the orthodox
castes to define a new Hindu identity and consiousness was inherently
political. By tying Hindu origins with the "Aryan Theory" and defining
themselves as "Aryans", they hoped to raise their social and political status
above that of the martial landed groups who traditionally dominated society in
the pre-British era. Secondly, it also inspired these elements (around 8%
of Indians according to British Censuses) with new political ambitions.
>and was probably adopted in self-defense.
>
>None of the ancient religious works uses the word "Hindu", not even the
>Manusmriti, as far as I'm aware. It would be interesting to find the
>first use of the word in a religious text.
****************************************
>
I agree with this and stated it in my original response.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <khare.8...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU>,
kh...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Vivek Khare) wrote:
>gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
>
>
>> "How nationalistic would you feel about Bharat Varsh, if tomorrow the
>> Prime Minister of India was an Untouchable, the President of India
>> was a Dalit and most of the top decision-making centeres of power
>> in the Indian political and bureaucratic system were dominated
>> by the Dalits and Untouchables who form over 92% of Hindus ?".
>
Your need to look at the Mandal Commission numbers on caste distribution
which are exprapolated from the 1941 census, the last census carried
out by the British. The Congress in the 1951 census, stopped taking
caste info in the census returns. So, contrary to your hopes, my estimates
are correct and reliable. Also, the caste orthodoxy as I define
it does not include martial agrarian groups such as Jats, Rajputs, Ahirs, etc.
There groups togethor may be around 6% and are confined primarily to the
northern region.
N. Tiwari
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: >As long as you see the trees, you will never see the forest.
: >You have to literally rise, to see the forest. Try defining
: >a forest. And you will have the same problem which you face
: ************************
: But a forest is made of a collection of trees. You cant define
: a tree without knowing that it is composed of trees.
So!! The point is ....
: >when you attempt to define Hinduism. Try defining God. And
: >you have the same problem. The very idea of 'definition' is
: >rooted in exclusivism. The notions of 'Hindu', 'forest' and
: >'God' are just the opposite. So, the fact that I cannot produce
: ****************************************************************
: Then you have a logical delemna. If you cant define Hinduism,
: what is the sense of defining Sikhs as Hindus.
No. There is no dillemma. Look at God. Nanak himself has
hard time defining God. And he candidly accepts it. Does that
imply that we stop thinking about God. Does it imply that
one who is trans-definition (aka God) cannot relate to something
definable (say Sikhism). If you can relate on this plane, then
you will also be able to relate Hinduism and Sikhism. As Meera
says: Ghoonghat key pat khol, tohe piyaa milenge
(Open your veil, and you will find your dear.) But then you have
to raise the curtain.
: Also, Sikhs
: have no problem defining their religion: a Sikh is someone who
: believes in the teaching of the 10 Sikhs Gurus from Guru
: Nanak to Guru Gobind and their philosophy and teachings
: as enshrined in the Guru Granth Sahib. Some basic aspects
: of these are:
: 1) Belief in the oneness and unity of God and Man.
: 2) Self-existent nature of God (therefore he does not take birth;
: nor does he die like Brahmin devtas).
: 3) The concept of Naam as a way of attaining union with divinity.
: 4) Rejection of any man-made ideology dividing mankind into inferior
: and superior pedigrees (e.g. the caste ideology of the Brahmins).
: 5) Rejection of idol worshp as a means of attaining God.
: 6) Concept of Seva or service of mankind, sharing, and working honestly for
: ones living.
: 7) Strong belief in social justice.
Once again. The non-existence of the def. of 'Hinduism' does not
imply that more concrete, definite, definable, things can't belong
to it. The forest in non-definable. The trees are. And yet, the
trees belong to forest. God is beyond def. Yet, all defined religions
aim towards God.
Further, all the aspects which you have spoken about (points 1-7)
have been previously echoed by 'Hindu' thinkers too. We have this
"Nirguna" Sampradaya, (I think initiated by Gorakhnath) who
followed these practices. In fact, even Gorakh-nath did not
initiate it. You can find these very ideas in Indian scriptures,
predating Sikhism by atleast several hundred years. Nanak
never claimed that his was a new path. Gorakh-nath never claimed
the same. The scriptures did the same. These methods have been
used, abused, and discarded, and then re-discovered, reused in India
several times. And it is the same story with all other Indian
paths too.
N. Tiwari
Rajwinder Singh (ra...@bu.edu) wrote:
: N. Tiwari (nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu) wrote:
: : Yes. That is the genius of an all inclusiveness. Any one can find
: : his/her place in the Hindu pantheon.
:
: That is, as long as they submit to the political hegemony of the
: caste orthodoxy.
That may be your opinion. Not the truth. Look at Naga
sadhus. They are very highly respected. These sadhus
have the privilege to initiate the Kumbha Mela ceremonies.
Then look at Parsis. They have thrived and prospered. And
no one raises a finger as to why this is happening.
I can extend this list. But the point is that caste has
had nothing to do with the Indian inclusiveness. Both the
above mentioned groups, have been in India for a very long
time, and have their own place in India. Both these groups
do not care a damn about caste. The Nirgunis, the Kabir
Panthis, ..., the Jains, the SIkhs, .. all have had their
own roles to play in India. None of these groups have caste
as an institution (atleast in theory) in their lifestyles.
And the avg. Indian has barely cared.
Arun Gupta
Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>In the original posting, I refered to this interpretation of Hindu identity
>as a "reflexive" one as opposed to "proactive" (e.g. Jew) in the sense
>that the invaders referred to the local as "Hindus" - meaning "not Muslims"
>as opposed to defining Hindusim as a system of belief or thought.
>
>The attempt by the newly western-educated intellectuals from the orthodox
>castes to define a new Hindu identity and consiousness was inherently
>political. By tying Hindu origins with the "Aryan Theory" and defining
>themselves as "Aryans", they hoped to raise their social and political status
>above that of the martial landed groups who traditionally dominated
>society in
>the pre-British era. Secondly, it also inspired these elements (around 8%
>of Indians according to British Censuses) with new political ambitions.
I agree with your first paragraph, and with your second, where you write
"new Hindu identity" etc. I take it that you are talking about post-1857.
I disagreed earlier because I missed the "new".
I'm not so sure about "it also inspired these elements with new political
ambitions". I think the new political ambitions was in part what caused these
elements to try to define a new Hindu identity. But there were other
motivations as well.
The "new Hindu identity" also is historically coeval with the new Muslim
identity, new Sikh identity, etc. The people got a new self-consciousness,
it appears, and began differentiating and polarizing. I suppose the genie
cannot be put back into the bottle.
-arun gupta
Suman
>: his/her place in the Hindu pantheon.
>
>caste orthodoxy.
Keep your halfwit opinions to yourself. I'm a Hindu and I don't subscribe
to any caste orthodoxy,political or otherwise. In Southall, London, Sikhs
worship in separate temples on caste basis. Put your own house in order before
pontificating on my religion/way of life.
Suman
>
>rs
>
Almighty SHER JAT
On 22 May 1996, Suman wrote:
> Keep your halfwit opinions to yourself. I'm a Hindu and I don't subscribe
> to any caste orthodoxy,political or otherwise. In Southall, London, Sikhs
> worship in separate temples on caste basis. Put your own house in order before
> pontificating on my religion/way of life.
Please expand on this (if possible). This is news to me.
____________________________________________
The \/\/est Side is the Best Side.....
____________________________________________
PAVINDERJIT SINGH ATHWAL
(Almighty SHER JAT)
psat...@ucdavis.edu -or-
pav_a...@appsig.com
____________________________________________
Basketball, Football, and Baseball are life.
The rest is just details.
____________________________________________
Justice is a concept. Muscle is the reality.
____________________________________________
Harpreet Singh
On 22 May 1996, Suman wrote:
> ra...@bu.edu (Rajwinder Singh) wrote:
> >N. Tiwari (nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu) wrote:
> >
> >: Yes. That is the genius of an all inclusiveness. Any one can find
> >: his/her place in the Hindu pantheon.
> >
> >That is, as long as they submit to the political hegemony of the
> >caste orthodoxy.
>
> Keep your halfwit opinions to yourself. I'm a Hindu and I don't subscribe
> to any caste orthodoxy,political or otherwise. In Southall, London, Sikhs
> worship in separate temples on caste basis. Put your own house in order before
> pontificating on my religion/way of life.
>
> Suman
Why don't you quote the Sikh scriptures and keep personal believes of
people out of this discussion. And don't say that a man from a different
caste shall not be allowed in a Sikh temple, for such a belief is false.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >rs
> >
>
>
>
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <4nsk2t$q...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,>: >As long as you see the trees, you will never see the forest.
>: >You have to literally rise, to see the forest. Try defining
>: >a forest. And you will have the same problem which you face
>: ************************
>
>: But a forest is made of a collection of trees. You cant define
>: a tree without knowing that it is composed of trees.
>
****** trees".
>: >when you attempt to define Hinduism. Try defining God. And
>: >you have the same problem. The very idea of 'definition' is
>: >rooted in exclusivism. The notions of 'Hindu', 'forest' and
>: >'God' are just the opposite. So, the fact that I cannot produce
>: ****************************************************************
>
>: Then you have a logical delemna. If you cant define Hinduism,
>: what is the sense of defining Sikhs as Hindus.
>
>No. There is no dillemma. Look at God. Nanak himself has
>hard time defining God. And he candidly accepts it. Does that
***********************
God is not a man-made construct, but religions are. So your
the God analogy is not relevant. But if you cant define religion
A, then you cant say that religion B (which is clearly well defined) is
part of religion A. This is the logical dilemma, isnt it?
>imply that we stop thinking about God. Does it imply that
>one who is trans-definition (aka God) cannot relate to something
>definable (say Sikhism). If you can relate on this plane, then
>you will also be able to relate Hinduism and Sikhism. As Meera
>says: Ghoonghat key pat khol, tohe piyaa milenge
>
>(Open your veil, and you will find your dear.) But then you have
>to raise the curtain.
What if you dont like the one lifting the "ghoongat"?
>
>: Also, Sikhs
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <4nskdi$q...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari) wrote:>: : Yes. That is the genius of an all inclusiveness. Any one can find
>: : his/her place in the Hindu pantheon.
>: That is, as long as they submit to the political hegemony of the
>: caste orthodoxy.
>
>That may be your opinion. Not the truth. Look at Naga
>sadhus. They are very highly respected. These sadhus
>have the privilege to initiate the Kumbha Mela ceremonies.
>
>Then look at Parsis. They have thrived and prospered. And
>no one raises a finger as to why this is happening.
>
>I can extend this list. But the point is that caste has
>had nothing to do with the Indian inclusiveness. Both the
>above mentioned groups, have been in India for a very long
>time, and have their own place in India. Both these groups
>do not care a damn about caste. The Nirgunis, the Kabir
>Panthis, ..., the Jains, the SIkhs, .. all have had their
>own roles to play in India. None of these groups have caste
>as an institution (atleast in theory) in their lifestyles.
>And the avg. Indian has barely cared.
>
All the example you have given regard groups which are
apolitical - groups not concerned about asserting their
identity, political rights, and willing to leave the
political and cultural space to the orthodox castes - the
self appointed guardians of Bharat Varsh. This is a definition
of hegemony and if the Sikhs accept it, then you love them and wish
to call their religion "Hinduism". Otherwise, if they assert their identity,
then they are "lunatics", "outside the national mainstream", "militants",
"Khalistanis", "anti-India", etc. Now, this is a definition of intolerance.
Rajiv Varma
In article <4nkujp$f...@nntpb.cb.att.com>,
Arun Gupta <gu...@mrspock.mt.att.com> wrote:
>
>So I reject your theory [which I have deleted]. "Hindu" identity probably
>dates to the 11th century with the first largescale contact with Muslims,
>
>None of the ancient religious works uses the word "Hindu", not even the
>Manusmriti, as far as I'm aware. It would be interesting to find the
>first use of the word in a religious text.
>
If I may dart into this heavy traffic (and get out :)) ..
.... regardless of the origins of the word "Hindu", it is a fact that by
the time of the Vijaynagara Empire, the word had acquired widespread
acceptability, and the "Hindus" were calling themsleves with immense
pride. Raja Krishnadevaraya was called a "Hindu Suratana" (something like
that).
It is also noteworthy that at that time Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Jainis and
Buddhists, all of them used to call themselves as Hindus.
Earlier, Buddhism flourished which rejected a major tenet of classical
Hinduism (i.e. concept of Atman, or Self). But, still, neither the
Buddhists needed to coin aterm for the rest of the population, nor the
rest of the population needed to coin a term for itself (to distinguish
from the Buddhists). In fact, people "converted" (I doubt the
applicability of this English word), from Buddhism to Vaishnavism to
Jainism and to this school and that sect freely, without any violent
struggles and ethnic ghettoism.
But why all of a sudden, a term, that too an umbrella term for all
non-muslims was needed? IMHO, it was used to denote the non-sanatani
nature of the new creed.
Before Islam, there was no need of the word Hindu, as no creed or sect had
proclaimed that "there is no God but Allah" (the Kalimah).
The word "Hindu" gained currency for the first time as there was a creed
which did not conform to the basic tenets of Sanatana Dharma (Satya, Rta,
Rtu, etc.)
Thus the word "Hindu" is more cultural and civilizational (and
even political) than religious.
>
>-arun gupta
>
--
regards,
Rajiv
Arun Gupta
From Sankara's commentary to the Mandukya Upanishad, S. Gambhirananda
translation :
Those who know Prana consider Prana to be the reality.
[Hiranyagarbha or the immanent God. This is the view of the
worshippers of Hiranyagarbha and of the Vaisheshikas.]
The knowers of the elements consider the elements to be so.
[The Lokayata materialists swear by the four elements --
earth, water, fire and air.]
The knowers of the qualities (gunas) cling to the qualities.
[The Samkhyas hold to Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, which are
the constituents of Prakriti]
The knowers of the categories swear by them.
[The Shaivas hold that three categories -- Self, ignorance
and Shiva -- are the source of the world.]
The knowers of the quarters [viz. Vishva, Taijasa, and Prajna ]
consider the quarters to be the reality.
The knowers of the sense objects consider the sense-objects to be so.
[i.e., the followers of Vatsyayana and others ]
According to the knowers of the worlds, the worlds constitute reality.
[The Pauranikas understand the earth, the intermediate world
and heaven to be eternal realities]
And the worshippers of the gods stand by the gods.
The Vedic scholars ascribe reality to the Vedas,
while the sacrificers ascribe this to the sacrifices.
[Like Baudhayana]
Those acquainted with the enjoyer consider it to be the reality
[The Samkhya view is that the Self is the enjoyer but not
an agent of karma]
where as those conversant with the enjoyable things consider them
to be so
[the epicures ]
People conversant with the subtle consider reality also to be so,
while others dealing with the gross consider it to be so. The
worshipper of God with formss consider reality as possessed of
forms
[e.g., Shiva or Vishnu ]
where as those who swear by formlessness call it a void.
[the nihilists]
The calculators of time [astrologers] call it time. The knowers
of the directions consider them real. The dabblers in theories
accept these to be so.
[that the metals, mantras, etc., hold in them the secret
of immortality]
And the knowers of the universe consider the world to be so.
The knowers of the mind call it the Self
[a class of materialists]
whereas the knowers of intelligence take it for the reality
[a class of Buddhists]
The knowers of ideas consider them to be the reality.
[the Buddhists who swear by subjective ideas which have
no corresponding external things.]
And the knowers of virtue and vice attribute reality to them.
[The Mimamsakas]
Some say that reality is constituted by twenty five principles
while others speak of twenty six.
[The Purusa [conscious individual soul], Pradhana or
Prakriti [nature], Mahat [intelligence], Ahamkara[egoism],
the five subtle elements, five sense of perception, five
organs of action, five sense-objects and mind. This is
the Samkhya view. These 25 and God according to Patanjali.]
Some say that it consists of thirty-one categories, while according
to others it is infinite.
[The Pashupatas add raaga (attachment), avidya (ignorance),
niyati (fate), kaalakalaa (divisions of time) and Maya
(cosmic illusion) to the above twenty six]
Adepts in human dealings say that the people (that is to say
people's pleasures ) are the real things. People conversant with
the stages of life hold these to be the reality. The grammarians
hold the view that words belonging to the masculine, feminine and
neuter genders are the reality; while others know reality to be
constituted by the higher and lower Brahman.
People conversant with creation call creation to be the reality.
The knowers of dissolution call it dissolution. The knowers of
subsistence call it subsistence.
All these ideas are for ever imagined on the Self.
***
What struck me about the above is that it is a dissertation on
categories of religious belief -- but where is the "Hindu" ?
-arun gupta
Javed A Khan
In article <4onvrf$19...@stallion.jsums.edu> rva...@stallion.jsums.edu (Rajiv Varma) writes:
>In article <4nkujp$f...@nntpb.cb.att.com>,
>Arun Gupta <gu...@mrspock.mt.att.com> wrote:
>>
>Before Islam, there was no need of the word Hindu, as no creed or sect had
>proclaimed that "there is no God but Allah" (the Kalimah).
>
If you really want to translate that part of the kalimah correctly it would go
something like "there is no God other than God" or since you prefer to term
the muslim Allah as a seperate term it would become " there is no Allah but
Allah" or something to that effect.
--Javed
>
>--
>regards,
>Rajiv
--