Understanding Sikh History-1
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
^^^
Then it is good.
Then it is good.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Well Sushupti-ji; with all due respect, your criticism did not come across earlier as "qualified"; some ways in which you engaged the topic, were almost guaranteed to cause friction.Sushupti wrote: My probelm is with this ‘Malesh Sikhi’ (Sikhism of the filthy foreigner) or Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism which reminds me of exclusivism of Abrahamic cults who claim as if Guru Nanak found something which nobody had it before and hence he is unique and superior to all and others are lowly,inferior and invalid.
Anyway, there is no doubt that there have been some people brought into Sikh families (I will not call them Sikh myself) -- who degraded both the Akal Takth as well as the path of Guru Gobind Singh Ji -- however it is not a good idea to take that further from their and spread it out.
It was a bad phase, which has hurt the community of Sikhs more than anyone else -- it was a gift from our birathers to the west, and I personally really feel bad for our brothers who went over to the dark side. If ever there was a case of "they are just misguided children of our own" approach towards militancy, it was in that case.
We should bury that past, and if we have to combat it, that combat should not be within our camp, but theirs.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
From among the whole Bhakti Wave that swept India during that era, only two of the figureheads were powerful enough to generate a new community, with its own structure, organization, philosophy, theology, and even teleology. One was Sikhi in Punjab, the other was the Gaudiya Vaishnavas in Bengal. You will find a similar exclusivity and sense of a "new dispensation" amongst Gaudiya followers. Its not just Sikhism.Sushupti wrote:All these Bhakti Saints were more less equivalent from the "Sadhaka" perspective. My probelm is with this ‘Malesh Sikhi’ (Sikhism of the filthy foreigner) or Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism which reminds me of exclusivism of Abrahamic cults who claim as if Guru Nanak found something which nobody had it before and hence he is unique and superior to all and others are lowly and inferior.
Very true. But that inclination to dwesha and ghrNa is not peculiar to "monotheism and exclusivity" (and BTW Sikhism is neither monotheist nor exclusive). Its just a neophyte mentality (kanishTha-adhikAri). A supercilious disdain and crushing contempt is often found amongst non-monotheistic exclusivism-denying schools, too, and they are experts at obfuscation and blowing smoke to politically out-maneuvre the others. Its all in the spirit of a game.SwamyG wrote:As a general rule, when a system preaches monotheism and exclusivity; hated towards other paths is not far behind. It is one thing to believe a particular path is supreme and argue passionately and document how other paths are less, but it is altogether another thing to consider other subjects with dwesham and grna.
But Dharmik traditions are set up in such a way that such mentality quickly tends to mature. Especially, as the Vedanta-sutras declare clearly, Parabrahman is free of vaishamya (favoritism) and nairghrNya (pitilessness).
However, one should not try to malign or eliminate the important "exclusivity" meme either. Exclusivity as a concept is definitely there. On Kurukshetra, Bhishma lying on a bed of arrows defines devotion as loving (in that context) Krishna, and not loving anyone else. But it is a subtle concept and needs to be understood correctly, rather than just associating it with immaturity. Bhagavad Gita 9.29 -
समो 'हं सर्व-भूतेषु
न मे द्वेष्यो 'सति न प्रियः
ये भजन्ति तु मां भक्त्या
मयि ते तेषु चाप्यहं
"I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him."
That said, I accept only one point from Sushupti ji - that perhaps there was some British meddling in the identity-politics of Sikhism, to deracinate them and cut them off from the Vedic tree. But by and large in my personal experience, I have not seen those types.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
When did i say anything about Sikhism?. why are you hell bent on equating ‘Malesh Sikhi’ with Sikhi of Guru Nanak?. Gaudiya Vaishnavas developed streaks of monotheism only after Prabhupada decided to sell Krishna as Krsna (Supreme Godhead as a replacement of "One True God") to the West.Carl wrote:From among the whole Bhakti Wave that swept India during that era, only two of the figureheads were powerful enough to generate a new community, with its own structure, organization, philosophy, theology, and even teleology. One was Sikhi in Punjab, the other was the Gaudiya Vaishnavas in Bengal. You will find a similar exclusivity and sense of a "new dispensation" amongst Gaudiya followers. Its not just Sikhism.Sushupti wrote:All these Bhakti Saints were more less equivalent from the "Sadhaka" perspective. My probelm is with this ‘Malesh Sikhi’ (Sikhism of the filthy foreigner) or Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism which reminds me of exclusivism of Abrahamic cults who claim as if Guru Nanak found something which nobody had it before and hence he is unique and superior to all and others are lowly and inferior.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
I don't agree it is thing of past. Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism is not just the militant movement of 80s. Just refer to the issue of Nanakshahi calender, which was adopted by SGPC in 1998, and arguments in its favor.Sanku wrote:Well Sushupti-ji; with all due respect, your criticism did not come across earlier as "qualified"; some ways in which you engaged the topic, were almost guaranteed to cause friction.Sushupti wrote: My probelm is with this ‘Malesh Sikhi’ (Sikhism of the filthy foreigner) or Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism which reminds me of exclusivism of Abrahamic cults who claim as if Guru Nanak found something which nobody had it before and hence he is unique and superior to all and others are lowly,inferior and invalid.
Anyway, there is no doubt that there have been some people brought into Sikh families (I will not call them Sikh myself) -- who degraded both the Akal Takth as well as the path of Guru Gobind Singh Ji -- however it is not a good idea to take that further from their and spread it out.
It was a bad phase, which has hurt the community of Sikhs more than anyone else -- it was a gift from our birathers to the west, and I personally really feel bad for our brothers who went over to the dark side. If ever there was a case of "they are just misguided children of our own" approach towards militancy, it was in that case.
We should bury that past, and if we have to combat it, that combat should not be within our camp, but theirs.
Last edited by Sushupti on 25 Jan 2012 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Pardon?! The idea of Krishna as "Supreme Personality of Godhead" is found all through Gaudiya Vedanta, going back to Rupa and Sanatan Gosvami, and Baladeva Vidyabhushana. There is a Vedantic term "svayam bhagavAn". Generally in Vedanta, that is equated with a mUla-rUpa of Vishnu, of which nothing ought to be said (as per Acharya Madhva, for example). But Gaudiyas, being rasa-centric in their orientation, equate svayam bhagavAn with Shri Krishna, based on the following verse from the shrimad Bhagavatam (1.3.28):Sushupti wrote:Gaudiya Vaishnavas developed streaks of monotheism only after Prabhupada decided to sell Krishna as Krsna (Supreme Godhead as a replacement of "One True God") to the West.
एते चांश-कलाः पुंसः
कृष्णस्तु भगवान स्वयं
इन्द्रारि-व्याकुलं लोकं
मृदयन्ति युगे युगे
"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists."
The word "tu" is interpreted by Madhva as "and", while the Gaudiyas take it in its more common meaning "but", and get the above translation. The views are divergent, but not necessarily contradictory. In any case, Madhva and other Vaishnava acharyas, and even formally Advaita exponents like Madhusudan Sarasvati and Sridhar Svamin have said that in this age Krishna is to be meditated upon.
Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnavism turned out primarily a Brahmin-Vaishya community, whereas Sikhi turned out primarily Kshatriya and Jatt. But most other things are very similar, and I have noticed several Gaudiya leaders last century have suggested the two communities are complementary and should collaborate for sankirtan!
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Help yourself. HK is not Dvaita.Carl wrote:Pardon?! The idea of Krishna as "Supreme Personality of Godhead" is found all through Gaudiya Vedanta( what is that?) , going back to Rupa and Sanatan Gosvami, and Baladeva Vidyabhushana. There is a Vedantic term "svayam bhagavAn". Generally in Vedanta, that is equated with a mUla-rUpa of Vishnu, of which nothing ought to be said (as per Acharya Madhva, for example). But Gaudiyas, being rasa-centric in their orientation, equate svayam bhagavAn with Shri Krishna, based on the following verse from the shrimad Bhagavatam (1.3.28):Sushupti wrote:Gaudiya Vaishnavas developed streaks of monotheism only after Prabhupada decided to sell Krishna as Krsna (Supreme Godhead as a replacement of "One True God") to the West.
एते चांश-कलाः पुंसः
कृष्णस्तु भगवान स्वयं
इन्द्रारि-व्याकुलं लोकं
मृदयन्ति युगे युगे
"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists."
The word "tu" is interpreted by Madhva as "and", while the Gaudiyas take it in its more common meaning "but", and get the above translation. The views are divergent, but not necessarily contradictory. In any case, Madhva and other Vaishnava acharyas, and even formally Advaita exponents like Madhusudan Sarasvati and Sridhar Svamin have said that in this age Krishna is to be meditated upon.
Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnavism turned out primarily a Brahmin-Vaishya community, whereas Sikhi turned out primarily Kshatriya and Jatt. But most other things are very similar, and I have noticed several Gaudiya leaders last century have suggested the two communities are complementary and should collaborate for sankirtan!
Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha
http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml
Let us not bring Daviata-Advaita issue in Sikh history thread.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
I don't agree it is thing of past. Tat Khalsa Singh Sabhia Sikhism is not just the militant movement of 80s. Just refer to the issue of Nanakshahi calender and arguments in its favor.[/quote]Sushupti wrote: We should bury that past, and if we have to combat it, that combat should not be within our camp, but theirs.
In which case please refer to the bolded part.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Sushupti ji,
I don't know why, on this thread, you have been spraying around scurrilous propaganda culled from sources with specific and well-known agendas. After going at Sikhism, it looks like you have some beef with Gaudiyaism too.
The source you quote above is by the Cyber Madhva Sanga, which has a running battle against the Gaudiya org ISKCON. So they managed to get this statement out of one of the Maadhva Swamis. However, later, another statement was made by the traditional Maadhva Mathas, comparing the Iskcon founder Bhaktivedanta Swami to Bhaghiratha, who brought the Ganges down to Earth. Here is the transcript of the public lecture by Sri Visvesa Tirtha Svamiji of Pejavara Adhoksaja Matha:
http://gosai.com/udupi-matha/pejavara-swami-lecture
I won't be responding to further troll posts. In order to make some points, I had responded to your posts about Sikhism and other Indic traditions like some Bhakti communities. But you still want to stick to your position that Guru Gobind Singh ji was a submissive politician, or some similar hatred for Gaudiyas.
I don't know why, on this thread, you have been spraying around scurrilous propaganda culled from sources with specific and well-known agendas. After going at Sikhism, it looks like you have some beef with Gaudiyaism too.
The source you quote above is by the Cyber Madhva Sanga, which has a running battle against the Gaudiya org ISKCON. So they managed to get this statement out of one of the Maadhva Swamis. However, later, another statement was made by the traditional Maadhva Mathas, comparing the Iskcon founder Bhaktivedanta Swami to Bhaghiratha, who brought the Ganges down to Earth. Here is the transcript of the public lecture by Sri Visvesa Tirtha Svamiji of Pejavara Adhoksaja Matha:
http://gosai.com/udupi-matha/pejavara-swami-lecture
That is the Vedanta commentry by Gaudiya exponent Baladeva Vidyabhushana. Bhai, if you don't have an education, at least take the trouble to google the names mentioned in my previous post before responding.Sushupti wrote:Carl wrote:Pardon?! The idea of Krishna as "Supreme Personality of Godhead" is found all through Gaudiya Vedanta( what is that?)
I won't be responding to further troll posts. In order to make some points, I had responded to your posts about Sikhism and other Indic traditions like some Bhakti communities. But you still want to stick to your position that Guru Gobind Singh ji was a submissive politician, or some similar hatred for Gaudiyas.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
What do you mean by "perhaps"?. Research Kahn Singh Nabha, Vir Singh, Teja Singh Bhasuriya and Macauliffe.Carl wrote:
That said, I accept only one point from Sushupti ji - that perhaps there was some British meddling in the identity-politics of Sikhism, to deracinate them and cut them off from the Vedic tree. But by and large in my personal experience, I have not seen those types.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Sushupti-ji; why this Kolaveri da? Hardly the right approach for a unifying pan Indian, Bharitya outlook Prabhu.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
If you want to discuss this Iskcon (not Gaudiya Sampardaya) Vs Davita on some other thread, it is fine with me. I am not replying to that one on this thread. Regarding Dasam Guru don't put words in mouth. I never said Guru Govind Singh was submissive person ( i doubt he was a politician). Issue was the content of Jafarnama. Where did i type Guru Govind Singh was submissive?.Carl wrote:Sushupti ji,
I don't know why, on this thread, you have been spraying around scurrilous propaganda culled from sources with specific and well-known agendas. After going at Sikhism, it looks like you have some beef with Gaudiyaism too.
I won't be responding to further troll posts. In order to make some points, I had responded to your posts about Sikhism and other Indic traditions like some Bhakti communities. But you still want to stick to your position that Guru Gobind Singh ji was a submissive politician, or some similar hatred for Gaudiyas.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
svenkat wrote:Surinderji,
Your accusation is unfair.Once someone(anyone) acquires power,he seeks to retain it.The Sikhs(or Brahmanas) too will be under scrutiny for the match between ideals and professions.
...
But the Hindus who are accustomed to yugas will not accept any received thinking just as the Sikh panth has challenged orthodoxy.
Svenkat, which accusation of mine?
I haven't suggested that they do.But the Hindus who are accustomed to yugas will not accept any received thinking just as the Sikh panth has challenged orthodoxy.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Sushupti ji,
There is politics involved in every organized religion, no matter what type of religious doctrine it is. Take even the most monastic institution, and you will find a can of worms in its history if you investigate. Don't let it bother you too much (except to learn some lessons). Look at the good side and see how the beneficial memes from all these communities can be harvested and integrated into Aadhunik Bhaarat.
There is politics involved in every organized religion, no matter what type of religious doctrine it is. Take even the most monastic institution, and you will find a can of worms in its history if you investigate. Don't let it bother you too much (except to learn some lessons). Look at the good side and see how the beneficial memes from all these communities can be harvested and integrated into Aadhunik Bhaarat.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Ghora Challa Gya, Ghorre Chadd gya
Koi Dukhti hui ragg ko
Nanga chorr gya!!
Snasarr ko oddharenge
par
Hum nahi sudhrenge!!
Bhai Bhai nahi
Mausere bhai hai !!
Now say Alvida
Kyon ki
Hum nahi Sudhrenge!!
Koi Dukhti hui ragg ko
Nanga chorr gya!!
Snasarr ko oddharenge
par
Hum nahi sudhrenge!!
Bhai Bhai nahi
Mausere bhai hai !!
Now say Alvida
Kyon ki
Hum nahi Sudhrenge!!
Last edited by Prem on 25 Jan 2012 23:47, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Every person is entitled to think that HIS Guru is the best, HIS Guru is God himself. Why are you and Goel riled up over this. I have every right to that opinion. Why does Goel feel the utter need to bring Guru Nanak Dev Ji in comparison to Saint Garibdas? Why can't he worship Sanit Garibdas and leave us alone. Why this urge to compare?Sushupti wrote: In word's of Goel "Guru Nanak was by no means greater than other Sants like Garibdas (to whose panth Goel’s own family belonged) and I agree with that.
Why did he not write "Jesus was no greater than Garibdas", or "Mohammad was no greater than Garibdas", or for that matter "Ram/Krishna were no greater than Garibdas." Why bring in Sikhism? Why is the urge? Goel is not even Sikh himself, let us beleive in anything we want to beleive, as long we don't bother him. Why this urge to bring in Sikh Gurus? Something bothering him?
In the anwwer to the above lies the core of the problem. A variant of this comes in many forms. Since times immemorial in India people have venerated thier own Guru and their figureheads. Why not extend the same couresy to the Sikhs?
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Sushpuari Ji
Who is Sant Goel ? I have not heard about this Bhakti Sant. AFAIK, Guru Nanak himself said he is the dust of Saints' feet. Btw as per Acharya Rajnish , it is better to be Amirdass than Garibdass.
Who is Sant Goel ? I have not heard about this Bhakti Sant. AFAIK, Guru Nanak himself said he is the dust of Saints' feet. Btw as per Acharya Rajnish , it is better to be Amirdass than Garibdass.
Last edited by Prem on 25 Jan 2012 23:53, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Sushupti-ji; Surinder-ji, Carl-ji and all others.; some pulls and pushes to spreads one's own Guru's teaching is welcome, the problem issurinder wrote: In the anwwer to the above lies the core of the problem. A variant of this comes in many forms. Since times immemorial in India people have venerated thier own Guru and their figureheads. Why not extend the same couresy to the Sikhs?
1) It some time takes the route of running others down rather than spreading your own word.
2) It some time appears to others as running others down when it does not.
But to me the biggest problem is that the pulls and pushes are staying within the Indic fold. That is different Guru's are merely redistributing the already Indic amongst themselves based on some fine philosophical differences -- where as the need of the hour -- and the issue is that -- the indic is shrinking and we are under constant attack from others.
This difference of opinion is merely creating useless friction amongst ourselves, while not doing the task of getting others in our fold.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Saku Sir,
What we are doing is counting leaves while throwing away the mangos because of few semantics like Mango must be of 7colors and shaped like Banana or grow like Grape Guchhe. Essence is the key, if we feel spiritually elated ,get in touch with our inner self, soul by certain indulgences then these very indulgences,deeds , activities are holy to us. Rest we need not care or worry about as these unnecessay distractions are nothing but
Kahat Kabir sunne re Gyani
Khotte
Kyon Vilovat Pani.
Na kheer, Na Makhan
Na Kaam Avee Maadani.
Galti se Oochlli tho
Karegi Aankh Kanni
Atam tuut ki Mausere Bhai
Phir bhi na hogi Pehchani.
What we are doing is counting leaves while throwing away the mangos because of few semantics like Mango must be of 7colors and shaped like Banana or grow like Grape Guchhe. Essence is the key, if we feel spiritually elated ,get in touch with our inner self, soul by certain indulgences then these very indulgences,deeds , activities are holy to us. Rest we need not care or worry about as these unnecessay distractions are nothing but
Kahat Kabir sunne re Gyani
Khotte
Kyon Vilovat Pani.
Na kheer, Na Makhan
Na Kaam Avee Maadani.
Galti se Oochlli tho
Karegi Aankh Kanni
Atam tuut ki Mausere Bhai
Phir bhi na hogi Pehchani.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
^^^
True, Sir-ji.
True, Sir-ji.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
surinderji,
I felt your comments on Rajputs very harsh and inappropriate for BRF.I will come back to it some other time.Not now.
I dont think India has become so bad that this plea has to made here.Nobody here thinks any other way.The whole debate has gone in the wrong direction.We should all cool off for the time being.
I felt your comments on Rajputs very harsh and inappropriate for BRF.I will come back to it some other time.Not now.
Code: Select all
Since times immemorial in India people have venerated thier own Guru and their figureheads. Why not extend the same couresy to the Sikhs?
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Jhujar, Sanku ji, very true.
However, prachaar is the game of doctrinal kashmakash. Friction is good if there is dry grass around and a fire is to be lit. Like the araNi sticks of the forest mentioned in the Upanishad, they are rubbed together to produce knowledge. I think the Sikh Gurus themselves exemplified this. "No-friction" philosophy cannot be allowed to become a lowest common denominator, imho.
For harmony, Dharmic traditions clearly have a common ground of method and practice, ethics and etiquette.Sanku wrote:This difference of opinion is merely creating useless friction amongst ourselves, while not doing the task of getting others in our fold.
However, prachaar is the game of doctrinal kashmakash. Friction is good if there is dry grass around and a fire is to be lit. Like the araNi sticks of the forest mentioned in the Upanishad, they are rubbed together to produce knowledge. I think the Sikh Gurus themselves exemplified this. "No-friction" philosophy cannot be allowed to become a lowest common denominator, imho.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Svekant Ji,
One time Chacha Nehru landed in small town to give his secular speech. People gathered around but then suddenly left. Nehru was baffled and inquired the reason and was told a Saint has just walked in the town on the other side and janta think it is more important to have the darshan of Sant than listen to PM who is only a politician. Some one remarked that Nehru for the first time was astounded and realized the civilizational pull of Indics. ( Then he took the revenge by installing Secular Devta) In Nutshell, Saints , Gurus will always have the most respect and reverence in India , regardless of Mlecchic influence. Its in our blood and soul. Civilizational India will be finished the day it stop revering its Gurus, Rishis and Saints.
Carl ji,
It is better to have milk churning friction which produce Makkhan than trying to squeeze sweet juice out of small stones. Appreciate your input/s on the Gyan , Dhyan, Puran,Itihass Dhagas. Provoking is good if done with good intention, Insults cant lead to Vicchar.
One time Chacha Nehru landed in small town to give his secular speech. People gathered around but then suddenly left. Nehru was baffled and inquired the reason and was told a Saint has just walked in the town on the other side and janta think it is more important to have the darshan of Sant than listen to PM who is only a politician. Some one remarked that Nehru for the first time was astounded and realized the civilizational pull of Indics. ( Then he took the revenge by installing Secular Devta) In Nutshell, Saints , Gurus will always have the most respect and reverence in India , regardless of Mlecchic influence. Its in our blood and soul. Civilizational India will be finished the day it stop revering its Gurus, Rishis and Saints.
Carl ji,
It is better to have milk churning friction which produce Makkhan than trying to squeeze sweet juice out of small stones. Appreciate your input/s on the Gyan , Dhyan, Puran,Itihass Dhagas. Provoking is good if done with good intention, Insults cant lead to Vicchar.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
^^ Point taken.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
As a Hindu i do Puja (not worship) to a piece of cow dung as Ganesha, why you think i will have problem with Sikkhs worshipping (or Puja i don't know) their Guru (a living human form) as God?. Regarding Goel, about names you mentioned you will have to read him first.surinder wrote:Every person is entitled to think that HIS Guru is the best, HIS Guru is God himself. Why are you and Goel riled up over this. I have every right to that opinion. Why does Goel feel the utter need to bring Guru Nanak Dev Ji in comparison to Saint Garibdas? Why can't he worship Sanit Garibdas and leave us alone. Why this urge to compare?Sushupti wrote: In word's of Goel "Guru Nanak was by no means greater than other Sants like Garibdas (to whose panth Goel’s own family belonged) and I agree with that.
Why did he not write "Jesus was no greater than Garibdas", or "Mohammad was no greater than Garibdas", or for that matter "Ram/Krishna were no greater than Garibdas." Why bring in Sikhism? Why is the urge? Goel is not even Sikh himself, let us beleive in anything we want to beleive, as long we don't bother him. Why this urge to bring in Sikh Gurus? Something bothering him?
In the anwwer to the above lies the core of the problem. A variant of this comes in many forms. Since times immemorial in India people have venerated thier own Guru and their figureheads. Why not extend the same couresy to the Sikhs?
Last edited by Sushupti on 26 Jan 2012 01:08, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
everything is in the context of "Hindu like" practices. Why you think it is OK to treat Hindusim (specially Brahamanical type) as "Pind di parjai" whose husband has gone to "pardes"?Sanku wrote:Sushupti-ji; why this Kolaveri da? Hardly the right approach for a unifying pan Indian, Bharitya outlook Prabhu.
Seriously.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
^^^ I am not a mod but:
1. The topic of this thread is Understanding Sikh History and NOT Religion
2. Religious discussion is banned on BR
You guys are going to get this thread locked and Admin hellphyrrs on yourselves.
1. The topic of this thread is Understanding Sikh History and NOT Religion
2. Religious discussion is banned on BR
You guys are going to get this thread locked and Admin hellphyrrs on yourselves.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
I am sorry for saying "Hindu like" I take those words back. I meant "reformed practices".everything is in the context of "Hindu like" practices.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
if we are going to have this discussion, then humble advice is we must refrain from "my guru" vs. "your guru". nothing good can come of that debate. everybody has their personal preferences and there is no need to start a debate on whose guru is great. already some statements have been made in that direction, and I think we should stay away from that path. I'm sure the admins are watching!
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
I can't see it because parochial posters are on my ignore list, so use the report button in that offending post. Let's see what action the mods take.svenkat wrote:surinderji,
I felt your comments on Rajputs very harsh and inappropriate for BRF.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Why should I read Goel? You quoted him, you answer. I posed many questions on your quote, you haven't answered a single one of my questions. I have no interest to read Goel, you are responsible for explaining his quote.Sushupti wrote:As a Hindu i do Puja (not worship) to a piece of cow dung as Ganesha, why you think i will have problem with Sikkhs worshipping (or Puja i don't know) their Guru (a living human form) as God?. Regarding Goel, about names you mentioned you will have to read him first.surinder wrote: "Sushupti": In word's of Goel "Guru Nanak was by no means greater than other Sants like Garibdas (to whose panth Goel’s own family belonged) and I agree with that.
Every person is entitled to think that HIS Guru is the best, HIS Guru is God himself. Why are you and Goel riled up over this. I have every right to that opinion. Why does Goel feel the utter need to bring Guru Nanak Dev Ji in comparison to Saint Garibdas? Why can't he worship Sanit Garibdas and leave us alone. Why this urge to compare?
Why did he not write "Jesus was no greater than Garibdas", or "Mohammad was no greater than Garibdas", or for that matter "Ram/Krishna were no greater than Garibdas." Why bring in Sikhism? Why is the urge? Goel is not even Sikh himself, let us beleive in anything we want to beleive, as long we don't bother him. Why this urge to bring in Sikh Gurus? Something bothering him?
In the anwwer to the above lies the core of the problem. A variant of this comes in many forms. Since times immemorial in India people have venerated thier own Guru and their figureheads. Why not extend the same couresy to the Sikhs?
I am sorry that I argued with you.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
I actually do not agree with you Sanku Ji, with all due respect. I am on the side of Car Ji.Carl wrote:For harmony, Dharmic traditions clearly have a common ground of method and practice, ethics and etiquette.Sanku wrote:This difference of opinion is merely creating useless friction amongst ourselves, while not doing the task of getting others in our fold.
However, prachaar is the game of doctrinal kashmakash. Friction is good if there is dry grass around and a fire is to be lit. Like the araNi sticks of the forest mentioned in the Upanishad, they are rubbed together to produce knowledge. I think the Sikh Gurus themselves exemplified this. "No-friction" philosophy cannot be allowed to become a lowest common denominator, imho.
We are not creating friction on this thread, we are talking of friction that already exists or has existed in the past. Our own divisiveness was the reason why the Turks ruled for 800 years on a country where RoP was miniscule for most of their rule. The Brits ruled for 200 years with even smaller number of Britis in India.
Somewhere we are at fault, we may not agree what that fault is, but we all know somewhere something is broken, very fundamentally. Somewhere there is something within us which is either not good, or does not let the good grow when it does.
I think it is OK to air these out. I think it is fine for us to know that Sikh history is not one big march onto greatness. It is OK to bring out that segments of Indian themselves subverted the movement and fought against it. While Sikhs think of themselves at the vanguard to protect dharma, it is instructive to know what the "Hindu Revivalists" really think of them. On the other hand, it is also instructive to know that not everyone thinks like this. It is no use pretending that differences do not exist, let us put our dirty laundry out. India has some pretty nasty skeletons in the cupboard.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
I don't think I have said anything inappropriate about Rajputs. You are welcome to quote me and prove me wrong.svenkat wrote:surinderji,
I felt your comments on Rajputs very harsh and inappropriate for BRF.I will come back to it some other time.Not now.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Sanku Ji, I am not into spreading teachings. I am merely discussing. I have no teaching agenda.Sanku wrote:Sushupti-ji; Surinder-ji, Carl-ji and all others.; some pulls and pushes to spreads one's own Guru's teaching is welcome, the problem issurinder wrote: In the anwwer to the above lies the core of the problem. A variant of this comes in many forms. Since times immemorial in India people have venerated thier own Guru and their figureheads. Why not extend the same couresy to the Sikhs?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
This is the problem that Abrahamic religions face - and I had expected that Bharatyias would be able to go beyond that.
Two simple facts: what appears to have [or claimed to have] been working for a particular group of people, at a particular period of historical time, at a particular geographical place - when claimed to be universally applicable for all peoples, at all period sof time forever into the future, and for all places - becomes a serious obstacle in the march of human understanding.
Doing this, adds stuff to our viewpoints that are rooted in the specifics of history, locality, peoples actions on the ground and their motivations. These elements should not clutter our philosophy - they are supremely important, but they are not our philosophy. Philosophy or "darshan" - view - is more about the timeless, placeless, peopleless aspects of our thoughts about self and the non-self.
One way forward is give supreme honour and respect to the illuminated ones of the past, regard their times and deeds as light shining from the darkness of unknown times, but still rooted in those times. Those words are like our ancestor's clothes - left for posterity in loving tenderness- hoping that we will find wearing them useful.
But neither they expected us, or we should expect - those clothes to be fitting us now, or be usable at present times.
Those clothes were left us as a token of continuity, connecting us to them, and perhaps to keep the knowledge of how they stitched their dress - passed on to us. It is there to teach us suggestions of making dresses and how at least they stitched functioning ones. We can learn the technique, but we have to do with new cloth that we weave now, with new thread we spin, with new needles we fashion from new metal throiugh new techniques.
Its the stitching technique and dress making principles that remain unaltered - not the material.
Basangsi jeernani - all those historical accretions are like old disintegrating clothes. We take from each of those left by our ancestors (not those with whom we do not have continuity of knowledge) but build anew. Maybe we should start calling ourselves "yatris", travellers. Sikhs are travellers too, towards light. Hindus are travellers too - towards the light. Each in their own way that they are fond of, like old favourite nostalgic roads. But they are all travelling towards the same light. In the process, new roads may have to be discovered. If we can accept that - maybe theres a start.
Two simple facts: what appears to have [or claimed to have] been working for a particular group of people, at a particular period of historical time, at a particular geographical place - when claimed to be universally applicable for all peoples, at all period sof time forever into the future, and for all places - becomes a serious obstacle in the march of human understanding.
Doing this, adds stuff to our viewpoints that are rooted in the specifics of history, locality, peoples actions on the ground and their motivations. These elements should not clutter our philosophy - they are supremely important, but they are not our philosophy. Philosophy or "darshan" - view - is more about the timeless, placeless, peopleless aspects of our thoughts about self and the non-self.
One way forward is give supreme honour and respect to the illuminated ones of the past, regard their times and deeds as light shining from the darkness of unknown times, but still rooted in those times. Those words are like our ancestor's clothes - left for posterity in loving tenderness- hoping that we will find wearing them useful.
But neither they expected us, or we should expect - those clothes to be fitting us now, or be usable at present times.
Those clothes were left us as a token of continuity, connecting us to them, and perhaps to keep the knowledge of how they stitched their dress - passed on to us. It is there to teach us suggestions of making dresses and how at least they stitched functioning ones. We can learn the technique, but we have to do with new cloth that we weave now, with new thread we spin, with new needles we fashion from new metal throiugh new techniques.
Its the stitching technique and dress making principles that remain unaltered - not the material.
Basangsi jeernani - all those historical accretions are like old disintegrating clothes. We take from each of those left by our ancestors (not those with whom we do not have continuity of knowledge) but build anew. Maybe we should start calling ourselves "yatris", travellers. Sikhs are travellers too, towards light. Hindus are travellers too - towards the light. Each in their own way that they are fond of, like old favourite nostalgic roads. But they are all travelling towards the same light. In the process, new roads may have to be discovered. If we can accept that - maybe theres a start.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Call all of them Dharm Yatri/Pujari or Atmic Margi.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
I accept that I am a Traveller/Yatri/Musafir!!!!Sikhs are travellers too, towards light. Hindus are travellers too - towards the light. Each in their own way that they are fond of, like old favourite nostalgic roads. But they are all travelling towards the same light. In the process, new roads may have to be discovered. If we can accept that - maybe theres a start.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Bji,
you are preaching to the choir.
Not everyone see himself as a traveller.The spirit of the surveyor and conqueror is present too.Lands have been conquered and then comes ownership,rules of enjoyment,bequeathment,legacy,succession,counter claims.
It is not just clothes,it is land,who owns it,who has the claim on the past and present in myriad ways.
you are preaching to the choir.
Not everyone see himself as a traveller.The spirit of the surveyor and conqueror is present too.Lands have been conquered and then comes ownership,rules of enjoyment,bequeathment,legacy,succession,counter claims.
It is not just clothes,it is land,who owns it,who has the claim on the past and present in myriad ways.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
Surveyors and conquerors get stuck in time and land - which means they are weakened. I did not say that all belong to our marg.
Re: Understanding Sikh History-1
How is that possible? The title is akin to having a title like:Tanaji wrote:^^^ I am not a mod but:
1. The topic of this thread is Understanding Sikh History and NOT Religion
2. Religious discussion is banned on BR
You guys are going to get this thread locked and Admin hellphyrrs on yourselves.
"Understanding Hindu History-1" or "Understanding Muslim History-1" or "Understanding Christian History-1" ityadi. If it was "Understanding Punjabi History-1" or "Understanding Assamese History-1", then it is possible to de-link the religious angle. Right now, based on the title, it gives plenty of valid opportunity to discuss Sikhism.
Look at the very first post: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=4625 - it is loaded with religious tones. It started off celebrating the traits of a particular guru, and based on the moderators blessing and members participation. Such disagreements were bound to happen. Should the thread have been allowed, well that is for the admins to say. But Sikh history cannot be discussed without discussing religions, unless the discussion should be restricted to the warfare techniques, equipments used and the Kingdoms and territories. In that case the scope and title have to be changed.
Wiki article on Sikh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh