Intrafaith Dialog - Hinduism, Buddhism And Jainism

10-30-2006, 11:31 AM

Nice try but wont work. Backup claims below..

QUOTEothers such as sikhs/jains too hate them.

or you will end up where all pakis end up on India-Forum. Its THAT simple.

10-30-2006, 11:46 AM

QUOTENice try but wont work. Backup claims below..

BharatVarsh has backed it up quite nicely. What more evidence do you need than the words of one of the founding fathers of VHP? Even Husky has admitted that sikh and neo-buddhist and in some cases, jains are spreading malicious propaganda against hindus. Yet, you want me to prove what you've already accepted. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' />

And I still stand by my statement: you made the claim that sikhs/jains/buddhists are allies of hindus, so the onus is on you to prove it.

QUOTEor you will end up where all pakis end up on India-Forum. Its THAT simple.

Famous words of those who can't reason. Amazingly enough, you'd rather ban a fellow hindu, than admit that non-hindus like sikhs/jains/buddhists are NOT on our side. A typical hindu, as Vivekananda alleged, would rather favor a non-hindu over a hindu, is that it? Why am I not surprised? <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

10-30-2006, 07:42 PM

Mods,

Since we have digressed...

Can you please move posts #79 to #114 to the relevant topic which I think may be be this one: "Intrafaith Dialog - Hinduism, Buddhism And Jainism, An attempt to reconcile the positions" http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...wtopic=1596&hl=

10-30-2006, 08:22 PM

Maruti,
QUOTEIf you believe that sikhs/jains/buddhists are sympathetic to the cause of Hindutva, the onus is on you to prove it. 
In your opinion, what exactly are these sikhs/jains/buddhists supposed to do to prove that they are sympathetic to the cause of Hindutva? I for one would like to know. And please be careful when you answer this since I could hold you or any other Hindu against the same benchmark.

QUOTE(maruti @ Oct 30 2006, 02:16 AM)Famous words of those who can't reason. Amazingly enough, you'd rather ban a fellow hindu, than admit that non-hindus like sikhs/jains/buddhists are NOT on our side. [right][snapback]60031[/snapback][/right]

Don't be too sure; we don't like to discriminate here based on a member being Hindu or non-Hindu.

10-30-2006, 09:14 PM

<!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> QUOTE(maruti @ Oct 30 2006, 02:16 AM)
Famous words of those who can't reason. Amazingly enough, you'd rather ban a fellow hindu, than admit that non-hindus like sikhs/jains/buddhists are NOT on our side.
My question back to u from ur saying:
Can u reason? u started with a biased premise and sticking guns to it.
2nd statement on admitting:
It is for u to admit that nobody bought ur logic in toto. In absence of data on both sides but majority of members saying otherwise, ur saying is democratically ruled out.
At the same time, I won't like to sit complacent on any position but will keep on striving to mend the fences and improve.

10-30-2006, 09:30 PM

Writer of the below is a Sikh, if that means anything for critics.

QUOTE"Sikhs are Hindus" or "Divide And Conquer"
Sumer Singh Chauhan
(An essay on the common heritage of the Sikhs and Hindus)

The argument that Sikhs are not distinct from Hindus, or simply they are Hindus will be assessed on teachings contained in the Shri Guru Granth Sahib, certain characteristics of the Sikhs, the Sikh Gurus, the beliefs and practices of the Sikh nobility, and a brief comparison of ritual. The ritual aspects of the Sikh tradition can be discussed briefly to demonstrate the Hindu origins remaining in the scriptures.

The Shri Guru Granth Sahib is the holy book of the Sikh people. It is divided into ten granths, each reflecting the teachings, beliefs and views of each of the ten gurus of the Sikh faith. For a number of years many individuals in the Punjab have talked of the Dasma Granth, which simply means the tenth scripture of the Tenth Guru. Many villagers of rural Punjab believe that reading this scripture will incur blindness. This, however, is evidence of the faithful being led through religious influence by the Granthis (a type of priest) who wish the people to follow the separatist philosophy for political reasons. Many scholars have stated that the Granth contains specific references to Hindu gods such as Rama and Krishna. The gurudwaras, or Sikh temples, have always been decorated with pictures of Hindu devas and devis. The first desecration of these pictures was in 1906 at Harmandir, and this was the first action taken by separatist Sikhs. Other gurudwaras also had them removed as recently as 1984, this occurred after the attack on the Golden Temple. This was not an attack on religion but was justified for reasons of national security.

The Hindu faith is based on a number of schools of Vedic philosophy but in the end all these schools focus on one school, the Vedanta of Rishi Vedvyas. It seems through lectures and research that perhaps the aim of the other schools was to finally develop this Vedanta philosophy. It was Vedvyas who wrote the Mahabharat, which is not only the ancient epic of India but the epic of the world. The Mahabharat is a poem consisting of approximately one hundred thousand stanzas. Hindus have placed so much faith in this work that it is claimed that if you cannot find the answer to your questions here, you will not find the answer anywhere else.

The Bhagavad Gita is the section of the Mahabharat that relates the conversation that takes place between Krishna and Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. This conversation touches on all topics discussed in Hindu philosophy and can be referred to as a guide to the spiritual strength and warriorship required in a person's path in life. An understanding of these scriptures is required before trying to understand the Guru Granth Sahib or Guru Gobind Singh.

The history of the Sikh sect begins with its founder Guru Nanak. He was born in the Punjab in 1469. Guru Nanak challenged the authority of Brahmins (due to their abuse of the caste issue at the time), preached the equality of all men, and described a simple monotheism. In this, God is Sat, true, pure or essential reality; the divine being was both sakar and nirakar, both with form and formless; and He revealed Himself through His creation. It is man's duty to meditate on God's name to reach nirvana. Nanak also upheld the dignity of labour.

The guru was to be the guide through which a person can attain salvation. The Gurubani (Guru ki bani), or teachings of the guru, were to be given the same reverence as the presence of the guru. Meditation upon these teachings was considered the best form of worship.

Guru Angad succeeded the First Guru based on his devotion to the teachings of Nanak. The third guru, Amar Das, defined specific places for the pilgrimage of the Sikhs. The fourth guru, Ram Das, founded the holy city of Amritsar, where the fifth guru, Arjun, built a gurudwara and named it Hari-ka- mandir (the temple of Hari), later to be known as Harmandir. Guru Arjun also compiled the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikhs, which contains hymns from the Sikh and, Hindu gurus, and from Suffi saints and Kabir.

By the beginning of the seventeenth century the guruship was in the hands of the sixth guru, Hargobind. The Sikhs began to show an element of militancy because of the threat of persecution from Islam, which had brought forth the martyrdom of Guru Arjun. Hargobind fortified Amritsar and built the Akal Takht, the throne of God, opposite Harmandir. This complex of both buildings is referred to as the Golden Temple. Some of the followers of the guru were beginning to be transformed from pacifist members of a religious sect into a highly organized militant body, organized to meet any challenge to the Hindu faith. After Guru Gobind Singh (the last and tenth guru) had formed the Khalsa brotherhood this transformation was complete.

"The best source on Sikh philosophy is the Shri Guru Granth Sahib, with special reference to the Dasma Granth since it was Guru Gobind Singh who distinguished the identity of the Sikhs." -Jimiyat Singh Gill.

Guru Gobind Singh encouraged faith in the hearts of his people at a time of great persecution and fading hope. The total amount of time to develop the accepted Sikh canon took 208 years. Since Guru Gobind Singh was assassinated by a muslim in 1708, anything written after that is of little or no importance to us.

Scholars have authenticized the Dasma Granth in case there is any question of its validity. Thakur Das, the author of Sikh Hindu Hain (Hosiarpur, 1899), Bhai Randhir Singh of Punjabi University, Patiala, Hari Ram Gupta author of History of the Sikhs (Lahore, 1944), Sardar Jimiyat Singh Gill, founder of the Shiromani Sikh Society of Toronto and founder of the first Toronto gurudwara, Joseph Davy Cunningham, author of A History of the Sikhs from the Origin of the Nation to the Battles of the Sutlej (Calcutta, 1849), to name a few have all stated that the Dasma Granth was an authentic part of the Granth.

If the Guru Granth Sahib were to be examined, there is no difference between Hinduism and Sikhism because the Granth is based on the Hindu scriptures and beliefs.

An authority on modern Sikhism, Dr. Gopal Singh, indicated in his translation of Shri Guru Granth Sahib that the worship of Rama and Krishna is found in the Granth. It should also be remembered that the Tenth Guru had designated the word of the Granth as the final word of authority binding on all Sikhs. In this the Granth functions as the Guru for all Sikhs. This makes the significance of the Tenth Guru, in two traditions, stand out. It was Bhai Mani Singh who compiled the Dasma Granth. On June 24th, 1734, under the orders of Zakaria Khan, Bhai Mani Singh was executed for not embracing Islam.

It is accepted that the Akal Ustat and Vachitra Natak are authentic works of Guru Gobind Singh. His composition Akal Ustat is mainly in the praise of God and is so clearly put forth that there is no need for personal interpretation. The Vachitra Natak is basically an autobiography, but it is also describes the Guru's philosophy of action and his philosophy of the origins of material existence.

The separatist Sikh can only draw wisdom from the Granth which cannot be gained by following the ideas of reformers like Bhai Kahn Singh who attempted to splinter the Sikh identity in order to reinvent Sikhism into a completely distinct religion. Individuals such as Bhai Kahn Singh are viewed as renegades within the Panth (Faith) and they have damaged the essential Sikh identity held by the Gurus and the martyrs. 

It is also important to remember here that the Guruship had passed to a canon of authority, the Granth, not to an individual. Guru Gobind Singh ordained the word of the Granth as final. This is the commandment- "the Granth must be obeyed" -because it was issued by the Tenth Guru. Whosoever goes against this is a traitor to the panth and is no longer a Sikh. Guru Gobind Singh states:

Sab Sikhon ko hukum hai
Guru manyo Granth
Guru Granthji Manao
Pragat guran ki deh
Jaka hirdai shudh hai
Oat shabad mein le
Raj karega Khalsa
Aaki rahe na koi.
Paar hoy sab milenge
Bachae sharan jo hoy
Khanda jaakae hath mein
Kalgee so he shish
So hamaree raksha kare
Shri kalgee dhar Jagdish.
Wahe Guru nam jahaj hai
Chare so utare paar
Jo shardha kar sevande
Guru par utaran har.

In the Mahabharat, according to Vedvyas God is known as Omkar or Parbrahma. God then converted Himself into Vishnu. Out of Vishnu's navel came Brahma and from His forehead came the Akal Pursh (otherwise known as Akal, Rudra, Shiva or Mahesh). Marich was the son of Brahma. In time, Marich had a son named Kashyap Rishi who then married the daughters of Daksh Prajapati; Ditti, Aditti, Vinta and Kadru. Aditti produced the gods and man. Ditti brought forth the demons and Kadru produced snakes. Vinta was the mother of Garuda (vehicle of Vishnu) and the sun-god Surya.

The Suryavanshi Rajputs claim their origin from Aditti. The most famous of Suryavanshis was Bhagwan Rama or simply the Lord Rama. Other famous Suryavanshis are Maharana Pratap, king of Mewar and sworn enemy of Akbar the Turk (also known as Akbar the Great); and Maharana Jung Bahadur, virtual ruler of Nepal, Emperor of the Gurkhas. Lord Rama was the son of Raja Dashrata of Ayodhya, born on the site of where the Babri Masjid once stood. He is the seventh incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The relevance of this will be evident later in the paper. When Vishnu, Brahma and Akal combined their powers, or shaktis, to create the image of the Mother goddess it was Durga who came forth. Durga is also known as Shiva, Devi, Mata, Parvati, Chamunda, and Jwaladevi. This becomes important because Guru Gobind Singh was a great devotee of Durga.

"As far as the eighteenth-century Khalsa was concerned, the Dasma Granth was as much a part of the canon as the Adi Granth. The Dasma Granth breathes a militant spirit which matches that of the eighteenth-century Khalsa. Its influence on Khalsa ideals is well illustrated by portions of the Chaupa Singh Rahit-nama and by the strong fascination exercised within the eighteenth-century Panth by the Devi cult." - McLeod: "Who is a Sikh?"

We will now compare the Mahabharata to the Dasma Granth, to illustrate the common element of whether one is derived from the other, ie. the Dasma Granth derives its essence from the Mahabharata. It might be suggested that the Dasma Granth was purposely removed from the gurudwaras for political reasons because of separatist trends which begin to surface after the annexation of the Punjab by British India.

The argument now is based not only on the thoughts of the author of this paper but also on the indepth research of others and the interviews conducted for the research of this paper. Guru Gobind Singh describes in the Dasma Granth how Akal (God) had expanded Himself to first become Vishnu, then Brahma and Shiva. This is described in the Vichitra Natak.

The Guru then goes on to describe the characteristics of Vishnu. He also goes on to discuss the origins of gods, demons, Garuda and other beings in the same manner as Vedvyas did before. The Tenth Guru then goes so far to claim his own origin from Lord Rama and His descendants.

Most people of the Punjab know that the city of Lahore was built by the elder son of Rama, Luv, while the city of Kasur was built by Kush, the younger son. A powerful point can be made here in that Guru Gobind Singh states Guru Nanak as being a descendant of Kush, while himself (Guru Gobind) is a descendant of Luv. Guru Gobind describes the genealogy in great detail and tells how this came to be so. Except for Guru Angad and Guru Amardas, the eight remaining Gurus were recognized as descendants of Lord Rama, whether it is because of devotion or respect, this view is held by both Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs.

A further analysis of the Guru Granth, the Dasma Granth and Hindu scriptures will show that there is no difference between the philosophies they all convey. The philosophy and devotion of Hindus belonging to the Shakti cult (Mother Goddess) can also be seen by Guru Gobind's monumental work "Var Durga Ki" which is revered by both Sikhs and Hindus. The only conclusion that one can make is that there is no philosophical or cultural difference between the Hindus and Sikhs. It is only that Sikhism is a simplistic form of Hinduism and is separate from any other religion that could have influenced it during its evolution.

Guru Arjun, who compiled the Granth Sahib, writes in the fifth Granth "O God you are as great as you adopted the form of Vamana [fifth incarnation of Vishnu], you are also Ram Chandra [seventh incarnation of Vishnu] but you have no form or outline". This "no form or outline" concept can also be found in the Divine Manifestations, the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna states He has a form and is beyond form. Guru Arjun goes on to make references to Narsimha [fourth avatar], Warha [second avatar], Krishna [eight avatar] and Kach [third avatar].

Guru Nanak makes specific references to Lord Rama and wrote several hymns about Lord Krishna. All throughout the Granth praises are specifically addressed to the avatars of Vishnu, particularly to Rama and Krishna. A very interesting observation of the literature is the occurence and reference to the name "Bithal", which is found throughout the Granth. Bithal is the Punjabi version of the Marathi name "Vithal" which is another name for Lord Krishna. Hardyal Singh M.A., a famous Punjabi revolutionary during the time of the British Raj, said that "if you were to remove every page that contained the name of Bithal or Ram from the Granth, you will be left with nothing more than a few pages and the book case." The Guru Granth Sahib clearly states that Bithal is the Lord.

According to Vedvyas the earth is created from the dead remains of demons who were vanquished by the gods. This concept can be understood if one looks into the philosophy of maya, this however is not the purpose of this paper. This concept of the earth's creation is restated in the Dasma Granth, chaupai 14. The Tenth Guru made it easier for the common layman to comprehend this philosophy by putting it in a less abstract form.

The difference of the body and the soul, evolution of consciousness through transmigration of the soul through eight million four hundred thousand existences is discussed by Vedvyas. At the time of the Gurus, the Islamic faith was at its zenith in the Punjab and could have easily influenced the Sikhs to adopt the Islamic viewpoint on this subject, yet the Gurus, along with Guru Gobind Singh, stood firmly within the Hindu viewpoint. Therefore nothing different stands between the viewpoint of Vedantic philosophy and that of the Guru Granth Sahib.

The goal of Hindus and Sikhs alike is not to reach a heaven, because this achievement is only temporary, but to break the cycle of life and death in order to achieve moksha (salvation or nirvana). If one fails, they may have to repeat either one, some or all of their existences. This is not the view held by the other tradition that could have influenced Sikhism, namely Islam.

The modern Sikhs claim another difference in their belief, that of secularism, but this philosophy is also found in Jnana Yoga, the fourth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna states that all other paths come back to Him, therefore one should not persecute another belief. It is only the Hindus in world history who can claim that their's is the only faith not to have persecuted the Jewish people, instead they built ancient and recent synagogues for the Jewish people to practice their faith.

Reference is made to the avatars of Vishnu in the Granth Sahib. There are ten major avatars referred to as the Dasha Avatars, there are fourteen minor avatars as well. All these avatars are recognized in the Guru Granth Sahib even if Hindus of different sects may not recognize them all. The Dasma Granth deals with all the avatars beginning on page 169. Volume two of the Dasma Granth is exclusively based on Krishna. It is accepted that Guru Gobind Singh was a staunch believer in Durga Mata (Mother Goddess) as many of his hymns such as 'Deh Vo Shiva' are directed towards Shiva (not the male god but his female consort also known as Shakti or Devi who at times is referred to by His name).

In the entire Guru Granth Sahib, the Vedas are respected and referred to as sacred. Guru Gobind Singh states that the Vedas originated from Brahma and the path of the Vedas is the only path for the people to follow:

Chaupai 197 Brahma char he ved banaie Sarab lowg tih karam chale Brahma created the Vedas For all people to follow (translation mine)

Guru Gobind Singh even goes further to state that the Vedas came from the mouth of God: Chaupai 24 Disa vidi sayan jimi asman Chatur ved kathyn karan purana All directions (or religions), actions, and the sky, so says the Wise One (God) All came from the four Vedas so says the Puranas. (translation mine)

Sikhism heavily bases itself on Karma yoga (the science of actions) and states that if an individual acts only on good deeds, selfless acts with a pure devotion to God, they can achieve the ultimate state of existence.

Further similarities between Sikhs and Hindus are evident in practices and rituals of the Sikh Gurus. It is a documented fact that Guru Nanak worshipped Krishna. Guru Nanak also recited the famous aarti (song of worship) of Ek Omkar which he composed in praise of Lord Jaganath of Puri. He also went on pilgrimage to Badri Nath which is sacred to Hindus. Guru Tegh Bahadur, tn pilgrimage to Jwalamukhi in Kangra. Guru Gobind Singh worshipped Durga and fought the mughals to free Ayodhya Masjid (the controversial mosque of Ayodhya). Guru Ramdas wore a Vaishnav tilak on his forehead.

The name of 'Singh' is adopted fom the Rajputs (a martial race of the Hindus, identified with Aryan ancestry).The Kirpan (dagger) is also adopted from the martial tradition of the Rajputs carrying the Katar. The turban is a common headdress of the Hindu people of India and is not exclusively Sikh. The concept of uncut hair was introduced by the Tenth Guru and not before.

Maharajah Ranjit Singh was a worshipper of Baba Balak Nath (patron saint of Kangra) and Durga. Hari Singh Nalwa, the General of Maharajah Ranjit Singh was also a worshipper of Baba Balak Nath and Durga.

The royal families of Faridkot, Nabha, and Patiala are all of Sikh nobility. They all engaged Brahmin priests and Hindu temples were built for family use. Maharajah Pupinder Singh offered bali (sacrifice) of a waterbuffalo to the temple of Kali in Patiala which he built. Every year the Maharajah of Patiala donates a nose ring and gold bracelet to the River Sarsa which is directed by the Brahmin priests and in accordance to Hindu traditions.

Sikhs and Hindus have intermarried since Guru Nanak's time. Sikhs have never accepted intermarriage with the muslims. The Hindus accepted the marriages because Sikhism was considered a part of Hinduism, and marriages for Sikhs were performed by the Pundits ( Hindu priests) until the beginning of the twentieth century, this was a result of the reform movement of Bhai Kahn Singh. The Sikhs saw nothing wrong with intermarrying with the Hindus because this did not present a loss of identity.

The reader must be reminded that this is not a new argument but one that has been debated for generations since the annexation of the Punjab by the Raj. The traditions of Sikh nobility, the rituals of the Gurus on pilgrimage, and the recitation of Hindu prayers all show the essence of Sikhism as Hindu. The statements of the Gurus clearly show that they did not create another faith but instead merely simplify their own. When the muslims attempted to wipe out the Sikhs during the reign of Aurangzeb (the Mughal emperor), it was from the Hindus that the Sikhs found new recruits to carry on the survial of the Panth. The ritual sacrificing of halva (sweet wheat) with the kirpan is clear evidence of the influence of the Devi cult. The Ardas ritual found amongst the Sikh tradition is another example of the presence of the Devi cult found within the Sikh rituals. It should also be noted that this paper clearly reflects the views of individuals who influenced and led the Sikh people. Although the author of this paper does acknowledge the fact that not everyone may agree with the views presented here, the truth is the truth and the sacrifices of the Gurus must not be in vain, lest we forget.

The Sikhs are Hindus.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 10-30-2006, 10:23 PM by Bharatvarsh.)

Bodhi does that really matter, when we are deciding something like this we need to go by what the majority in the Sikh community thinks and they indeed think they are a separate community.

Even I know some Sikhs who think they are Hindus, infact Ranbir Singh Sekhon the HHR president is a Sikh (not Amritdhari), but he is just one person from the community, the majority rejects any Hindu identity and have done so for the past 100 years and we still have Hindus delusionally insisting that they are Hindus.

Haven't you ever heard of the saying that "You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

If a Hindu is so convinced about the Hindu identity of Sikhs, let him/her undertake a detailed study to refute all the arguements and the supporting points that Sikh writers put up for a separate identity.

If you are interested, go through the following article:
QUOTENa Koi Hindu Na Koi Musalman?
- by Kartar Singh

In the Bhai Bala Janam Sakhi reference is made of an exclamation of a prophetic nature by Nanak's (Vedic) teacher Pandit Brajnath to Nanak's father, Mahta Kalu: "O Kalu! The knowledge of the four Veda are becoming lost in this world; your son has become manifest to bring to light the four Veda." Although it may be argued that this was a Hindu or Brahminical attempt to Hinduise the image of Nanak, according to Sikh tradition Akal Purakh too said the same, and it was admitted by Nanak. Bhai Mani Singh (an orthodox Khalsa Sikh who was one of Guru Gobind Singh's closest disciples and at one time, the head Granthi of Harimandir Sahib), related in his highly authoritative work, the Pothi Janam Sakhi of Guru Nanak (1730 CE), that in a state of meditation, Nanak became one with Brahman and went to visit Him in Vaikuntha (the abode of Vishnu). Lord Vishnu asked whether Nanak had finished his work or whether there was anything still left to do. Nanak answered:

"By your grace, I have turned the wheel of the Dharma of the 'name of Truth' in three directions of India, and the fourth direction of the west remains. In that fourth direction, the Mlecchas are guilty of the murder of cows and Brahmins. They have defiled all the pure bathing places (on the banks of rivers) and pilgrimage sites of the Hindus. They are idolaters and they call the tombs and walls of Mecca and Medina, the house of Allah, and worship it. And even still, they don't consider themselves idolaters while they themselves worship stones. Thus, if it be Your will, then (after) going to Mecca and Medina to give those Mlecchas the teachings of the 'name of Truth', I shall return."

Having said this, the Almighty Lord Visnu replied to Nanak:

"There is no difference between you and Me. In the beginning of creation I gave the four Veda to Brahma but because of the lies and bad deeds of the individuals of Kaliyuga, the knowledge of the Veda has been lost. Therefore returning from there, in the form of worship of the 'name of Truth', produce the fifth Veda in the common language, so that the individuals of Kaliyuga may be redeemed."

The fifth Veda referred to here is the Granth Sahib, whose believed method of receipt is very much indifferent to the Vedic one. Bhai Mani Singh also relates the discourse between Guru Nanak and Pir Muhiyuddin at the time of the Guru's trip to Baghdad. The Pir was under the impression that the Guru had started a new 'religion' in the Semitic sense of the word, to which Nanak clarified:

"In the world, the Hindus have forsaken the Dharma of the Veda, so we/I have come for the protection of the Dharma of the Veda. Just as you have existed for the protection of the din, in that way the Creator has sent us/me for the protection of Dharma"

Guru Gobind Singh filled his foremost composition the Dasam Granth (=the tenth book) with Puranic stories of various avatars, the largest accounts being those of Krsna and Rama. The mythology laid down in the Hindu texts concerning Manu, the legendary father of mankind and his apparent authorship of the Manusmrti is too described by the Guru:

"The Beginning of the Story of Manu-Raja Avatar. Sri Bhagauti Ji Sahai. Quatrain. Everyone became followers of the Jain religion and abandoned acts of Dharma. Everyone abandoned the service of Hari and no one believed in the Almighty Guru.

1. Sadhu folk became un-sadhu-like and everyone abandoned acts of Dharma. Then Akal-Purakh (the timeless Being) gave the command and according to that command, Visnu again performed his task (of taking avatar).
2. Taking the form of King Manu, Visnu was incarnated and in the world, spread the ManusmÂ¤ti. He put all those on the bad path onto the good one and freed them from sinful acts.
3. In the form of Raja (King) Manu, Visnu took avatar, and again performed all acts of Dharma. Whoever performed sin, was now killed and in this way, the King performed the task of putting all the subjects on the good path.
4. The sinful (ones) were finished at that moment and all the subjects were given teachings on Dharma. (Now everyone) obtained the education of the Name and (the virtue of) charity and in this way, the King enabled the abandonment of Jainism.
5. Only those who fled far away from King Manu's kingdom were able to remain in Jainism; the rest of the subjects went on the path (of Dharma). Thus leaving the bad path, they took on the path of Dharma.
6. Manu Raja was the avatar of Visnu and he put the whole world on the prevalence of acts of Dharma. He put all those on the bad path onto the good one. Instead of sinful activities, he put everyone towards Dharma.
7. Couplet. All those who were on the bad path came onto the good one and in this way, stayed away from the Jains. From this work, Raja Manu's fame filled in the whole world.
8. 'Here endeth the 16th avatar Manu-Raja of Sri Bacitra Naak.16. Auspicious truth'."

It is thus determinable here, the Guru's attitude towards the Smrti texts as indirectly divine teachings where Dharma is rooted. Sikh texts too gave instructions to the Sikhs to observe the sacred texts of Hindus as their own. Bhai Kesar Singh Chibbar's Bamsavali Nama Dasam Patsahiam Ka [14.88-90] says:

âThis way the Muslims killed lacs of Sikhs, looted the Sikhs and defiled them from Dharam. Say Sikhs! What good deeds have the Muslims earned? Even if (after) seeing and hearing this, no Sikh understands, may Dharamraj fear from this kind of indiscrimination. Each person's deeds will go with them. Our Dharam and their honesty will show beauty. We Sikhs (must) study Gurbani, the Ved-Shastras and the Purans, and those Muslims (are to) perform circumcision, (Ramadan) fasts and study the Qu'ran. Everyone shall reap the fruits of their actions. Those who do bad will lose and those who do good will win."

In the Sau Sakhi text, the Sikh is instructed to, "Take upon (himself) the Ved, Sastra and the Guru's word." Page 1243 of the Adi Granth insists that, "The Veda describes the good (punu) and sinful (papu) deeds, the cause of heaven and hell." The question of identity arises with the Gurus. Had the Gurus rejected their Hinduness if at all they did set up a distinct religious system? Allegories offer an answer to this:

At the age of 38 years, Guru Nanak went to bathe in a nearby river and disappeared for three days. News had dissipated that Nanak had drowned but the Janam Sakhis maintain that Baba Nanak had been taken to Vaikunha, the abode of the 'Almighty' Visnu to meet Him and to receive His instructions. Three days later, when Nanak reappeared a conglomerate of people congregated to whom he uttered as is found in the B40 Janam Sakhi, "There is no Hindu, there is no Musalman." It is suggested that by this proclamation Sikhism was formed yet as far as I am aware, there is no explicit indication of this in any of the Sikh texts. Even if the Guru had claimed that the Sikh panth had started for 'Sikhism' would have been absent in his vocabulary, then as we have seen, it was simply a panth of Dharma. I refrain at this point from offering an explanation for Baba Nanak's "Na koi Hindu, na koi Musalman" as it becomes self-evident further on.

In Mecca, the religious city of Islam in which non-Muslims are forbidden to enter, Baba Nanak was asked to identify himself to which he answered, "(If I) say (I) am a Hindu, (you will) kill (me, but) I am not a Muslim; a puppet (made) of five elements, Nanak is my name." Nanak here does not identify himself as a Muslim; he was neither born of Muslim parents, nor did he accept the fundamental tenets of Islam. Yet he hasn't affirmed that he is not a Hindu

The 15th Sakhi of the Adi Sakhian, tells that:

"Guru Nanak visited the wasteland of Mecca. On the way, he met some Fakirs who asked him, "What is your name?" The Baba (Nanak) said, "Sirs! My name is Nanak." Then they said, "Are (you) a Hindu or Musalman?" Baba (Nanak) replied, "Sirs! (I) am Hindu." (When) Baba (Nanak) said (this), they stood aside. Then they said, "Nanak! This path is not for the Hindus." Baba Nanak said, "Why Sirs! Why is this path not for the Hindus?" Then they said, "In this country is the reign of the Sayyids . They kill the Hindus; they don't let them go."

Bhai Mani Singh provides an account in his Pothi Janam Sakhi of the Guru's trip to Afghanistan:

"Then Baba ji and Mardana and Bala, wandering around arrived (in) Kabul (at) the place of Asa Devi then on hearing Baba ji's name, many Pirs (=Muslim old men/saints) and Fakirs and Sardars that were there, came and on coming, said, "You are a Hindu Fakir and this land is of the Musalmans. So tread carefully." Then Baba (Nanak) said, "the light of the Divine is one in all, and that which is the body...so to this body, performing circumcision (=sunnat) calls (one) a Musalman, and wearing the sacred thread and the frontal mark (=tilak) calls (one) a Hindu but I/we are the witness of this body."

The Guru again utters as above, "(If I) say (I) am a Hindu, (you) will kill (me)...." We find that the inhabitants of Kabul already know of Nanak and that he is a Hindu. The soul is thought of as the witness of the body, thus the Guru here identifies himself with the soul. This therefore makes sense of 'Na koi Hindu, na koi Musalman' for in essence atman has no labels. The same was the attitude in devotionalism towards caste.

Even as late as the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, Emperor Aurangzeb offered the ninth Guru the option to accept Islam or death. Bhai Santokh Singh in his text, the Guru Pratap Suraj 12.64.34-35, composed in 1843 CE describes what was said by the Guru before refusing to accept Islam and thus death:

"Hearing this, the hero Sri Tegh Bahadur in fulfilling his Dharma gave the answer, 'My Dharma (is) Hindu, (It is) so dear (to me) how can I leave it. In (this) world (and) the other it is the giver of happiness. (There is) no other like it (which can) be accepted. That impure and foolish minded individual (who thinks of) abandoning it, he is undoubtedly wicked. This type of person experiences extreme grief in this world and by giving punishment (to him), Yamaraja is not even satisfied. I am good-minded, why (should I) leave it? (I) am forever devoted to the protection (of) Dharma."

http://geocities.com/hindutatva/sikh_hindu.html
That looks nice yes but there are indeed Sikh chronicles dating back from before British take over that clearly state that Guru Gobind by his creation of Khalsa had indeed separated them from both the Hindus and Muslims.

The following is reportedly what Guru Gobind said when he created the Khalsa, the author cites, a Muslim chronicle Tawarikh-i-Hind in which it is supposedly found:
QUOTEI wish you all to embrace one creed and follow one path, obliterating all differences of religion. Let the four Hindu castes, who have different rules laid down for them in the shastras, abandon them altogether and mix freely with one other. Let no one deem himself superior to another. Do now follow the old scriptures. Let none pay heed to the Ganges and other places of pilgrimage which are considered holy in the Hindu religion or adore Hindu deities like Rama, Krishna, Brahma and Durga, but all should have faith only in Guru Nanak and his successors. Let men of four castes receive my baptism, eat out of the same vessel and feel no disgust for each other.

http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/invas...f%20relious.pdf
Now the above author is a plain liar and hater of Hindus as can be seen by his rubbish about Hindus driving out Buddhism from India (for which he offers no supporting details).

But how does the above quote from a medieval chronicle go down with the prevalent tradition that the Guru performed a yajna to the Devi?

Things are never black and white in many cases.

Also in the article by Kartar Singh he quotes the reply of Guru Tegh Bahadur to Aurangzeb where he categorically declares himself to be a Hindu, the quote is indeed authentic to the extent that it exists, but it is from Guru Pratap Suraj compiled in 1843 CE by Bhai Santokh Singh, which means that it was written 168 years after Guru Tegh Bahadur died, no other work puts those words in his mouth and some work written 168 years later will not be taken seriously by any authentic historian.

On the other hand the quote from Bhai Mani Singh's Gyan Ratnavali is a serious blow to Sikh separatists, Bhai Mani Singh was a direct disciple of the 10th Guru and compiled the Dasam Granth, he was the first jathedar of Har Mandir and was later tortured to death by Muslims.

If Hindus are serious then let the one's interested spend some time and energy to come out with a scholarly work dealing with all the arguements and supporting quotes put forward for a separate Sikh identity.

So things are never that simple.

10-30-2006, 10:20 PM

Maruti (since that is the name u have picked)

Another pretty typical paki trait -> namedropping. Husky, Bharatvarsh, Swami Vivekananda - even if none of that has anything to do with the post. Unfortunately that doesnt work either. One more time, backup claims

QUOTEothers such as sikhs/jains too hate them

And your proof has to follow the following guideline..

QUOTEI take it you know millions of Jains/Sikhs, and that's how you've come to this conclusion. If not, your opinion has no value.

10-31-2006, 01:03 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Oct 30 2006, 12:48 PM)Bodhi does that really matter, when we are deciding something like this we need to go by what the majority in the Sikh community thinks and they indeed think they are a separate community.

----
[right][snapback]60059[/snapback][/right]


Bharat, I totally agree with you about this one. I am not saying Hindus should go about announcing "Sikhs are Hindus" - which is just futile - afterall who are we to say it if someone would not accept that? You have misunderstood me. I am not advocating that artificial inclusiveness.

I am just saying that Jains, Bauddha, Sikhs and (rest of the) Hindus, can still consider themselves together, share the same vibes rooted in common spiritual values, common philosophical tenets, common festivals, common cultural codes of conducts, common heritage of saints we respect, common enimies we are fighting with, common stratagic interests ....and so on...

That samarasata is what is needed - and which would provide Sikhs/Jains/Bauddhas a sense of unity and sense of common-ness, and eliviate their having to again and again assert their difference from (the rest of) Hinduism.

And how will that come, by NOT reciprocating their bitterness born out of some artificial sense of insecurity resulting in identity assertiveness on their part.

I would think we need to encourage interfaith dialog, and respond to them with - as explained by Patanjali and Gautama Buddha - Maitri-Karuna-Mudita-Udasin-Upekhyaya bhav, former the better. (Friendship-Mercy-Compassion-Indifference-Ignoring)

This has not been tried. While Nehruvian-Gandhian congressees have always appeased Indian muslims and christians, they have never cared for this inter-faith dialog. VHP/RSS have tried to do that though, with some success.

10-31-2006, 01:08 AM

Also. Maruti, just review your signature which says "Abhyuthanam Adharmaysya". It means just the opposite of Sri Krishna's promise.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 10-31-2006, 10:44 AM by Bodhi.)

Bharatvarsh,

You prompted me to look at Zafarnamah. It basically is a diplomatic letter of Sri Guru Govind Singh to Aurangzeb, after all four of Guru's sons had been martyred, several of his commanders had been lost, and an advanced party of his had been intercepted, captured and killed by Aurangzeb.

Zafarnamah has 111 chaupais composed nicely in fine percian. Almost throughout the letter Guru is scolding Aurangzeb for being a traitor, being a false muslim, for bearing false oath on Koran and so on.

Now a few strange things:

A) From the 89th chaupai, for just about 4 chaupais, the tone of the letter suddenly changes to appeasing and praising Aurangzeb, which is very surprising. I quote these

à¥à¥à¤¶à¤¸ à¤¶à¤¾à¤¹à¤¿ à¤¶à¤¾à¤¹à¤¾à¤¨ à¤à¤°à¤à¤à¥à¥à¤¬ à¥¥
à¤à¤¿ à¤à¤¾à¤²à¤¾à¤ à¤¦à¤¸à¤¤à¥ à¤à¤¸à¤¤à¥ à¤à¤¾à¤¬à¥à¤ à¤°à¤à¥à¤¬ à¥¥à¥®à¥¯à¥¥
à¤à¤¿ à¤¹à¥à¤¸à¤¨à¥à¤² à¤à¤®à¤¾à¤²à¤¸à¤¤à¥ à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨ à¥à¤®à¥à¤° à¥¥
à¥à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤µà¤à¤¦ à¤®à¥à¤²à¤ à¤à¤¸à¤¤à¥ à¤¸à¤¾à¤¹à¤¿à¤¬à¤¿ à¤à¤®à¥à¤° à¥¥à¥¯à¥¦à¥¥
à¤à¤¿ à¤¤à¤°à¤¤à¥à¤¬ à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨à¤¿à¤¶ à¤¬ à¤¤à¤¦à¤¬à¥à¤° à¤¤à¥à¥ à¥¥
à¥à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤µà¤à¤¦à¤¿ à¤¦à¥à¤à¥ à¥à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤µà¤à¤¦ à¤¤à¥à¥ à¥¥à¥¯à¥§à¥¥
à¤à¤¿ à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¨ à¥à¤®à¥à¤° à¤à¤¸à¤¤à¥ à¤¹à¥à¤¸à¤¨à¥à¤² à¤à¤®à¤¾à¤² à¥¥
à¥à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤µà¤à¤¦ à¤¬à¥à¤¶à¤¿à¤à¤¦à¤¹à¥ à¤®à¥à¤²à¤à¥ à¤®à¤¾à¤² à¥¥à¥¯à¥¨à¥¥
à¤à¤¿ à¤¬à¥à¤¶à¤¿à¤¶ à¤à¤¬à¥à¤° à¤à¤¸à¤¤à¥ à¤¦à¤° à¤à¤à¤ à¤à¥à¤¹ à¥¥
à¤®à¤²à¤¾à¤¯à¤ à¤¸à¤¿à¥à¤¤ à¤à¥à¤ à¤¸à¥à¤°à¤¯à¤¾ à¤¶à¤¿à¤à¥à¤¹ à¥¥à¥¯à¥©à¥¥
à¤¶à¤¹à¤¿à¤¨à¤¶à¤¾à¤¹ à¤à¤°à¤à¤à¥à¥à¤¬ à¤à¤²à¤®à¥à¤ à¥¥
à¤à¤¿ à¤¦à¤¾à¤°à¤¾à¤ à¤¦à¥à¤° à¤à¤¸à¤¤à¥ à¤¦à¥à¤° à¤à¤¸à¤¤ à¤¦à¥à¤ à¥¥à¥¯à¥ªà¥¥

Which means:
You are king of king, O fortunate Aurangzeb; you are a clever administrator and a good horseman (89). With the help of your intelligence and the sword, you have become the master of Deg and Tegh(90). You are the acme of beauty and wiseom; you are the chief of chiefs and the king(91) You are the acme of beauty and wisdom; you are the master of the country and its wealth(92) You are most generous and a mountain in the battlefield; you are like angels wielding high splendour(93) Though you are the king of kings, O Aurangzeb, yet you are far from righteousness and justice? (94)

Very surprising to me is the above sudden softening of tone towards Aurangzeb, who had killed all four sons, who had annihilated many of Sikh commanders, was killing thousands of Sikhs every day...

And then suddenly comes the 95th chaupai, you had referred to:

à¤®à¤¨à¤® à¤à¥à¤¶à¤¤à¤¹à¤à¤® à¤à¥à¤¹à¤¿à¤¯à¤¾à¤ à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤«à¤¿à¤¤à¤¨ à¥¥
à¤à¤¿ à¤à¤ à¤¬à¥à¤¤ à¤ªà¤°à¤¸à¤¤à¤à¤¦à¥ à¤®à¤¨ à¤¬à¥à¤¤à¤¶à¤¿à¤à¤¨ à¥¥à¥¯à¥«à¥¥
I vanquished the vicious hill chiefs, they were idol-worshippers and I am idol-breaker (95)

So, these 6 out of the total 111 Chaupais seem very very strange and out of place to me. Just the tone itself changes so much that I felt it is interjected/modified/tempered or something like that. But I am no expert :-(

B) Never forget this is a diplomatic letter, which a somewhat weakened politician is writing to his enimy. Situation is that Guru was militarily weaker at the moment and wanted to buy some time. Might it be a diplomatic trick?

C) In any case, I then decided to look at some other versions of Zafarnama and found an old one. Surprise! The 95th chaupai is just a little bit different in the older one! Only the last words of both lines are different in this. This version says:

MANNAM KUSHTEHAM KOHI-AAN BUTT PRAST
KE O BUTT PRASTAND MAN BUTT SHIKAST (95)

BUTT PRAST (and Not Pur-fitan)
BUTT SHIKAST (and not But-shikan)

'shikast' in farsi means defeating, and 'shikan' means breaking. By change of this word, the meaning of chaupai changes. This version means, "..while they are idol worshipers, I am engaged in defeating the idol worship." (defating the concept of idol worship does not mean breaking the idol. Swami Dayanand, Gorakshnath, Adi Shankar, all engaged in that kind of 'defeating'). And then Chaupai refers to annihilating certain "Kohiaan" means hill-people. Does history record any such literal "annihilation" of certain hill people by Guru Govind Singh? I could not locate such 'annihilation' record. Since you are better researcher maybe you know better on this...
About his defeating the hill people:
QUOTEAfter defeating the Pahari Rajas in the battle of Bhangani, he did not confiscate their land and property (Is there any parallel example in the history of world where a victor has treated the vanquished in such a manner?) He has even laid down that war should be the last resort when all other means to solve a problem are exhausted. Lastly Guru Ji has referred to the other enemy viz the Pahari Rajas, whom he was trying to emancipate from the Mughal yoke but instead was forced to take up the sword against them. If these Hill Rajas had not played into the hands of the Mughals and joined forces with the Guru and accepted him as their guide and liberator, the Mughal power would have been broken effectively sooner. There would have been no tyrants like Mir Mannus, and Furrukhsiyars later and further conversion campaigns would have ended. In fact there would been altogether a different India today.
(Life of Guru Gobind Singh by Prof Kartar Singh).

If he was an "idol-breaker" bigot of the christo-muslim way, why would he engage in freeing up of Ram Janma Bhumi a butt-khana from mughals?

QUOTEBaba Vaishnavadas was a disciple of Samarth Ramdas (Shivaji's Guru) who had raised an army of Chimta-dhari Sannyasis. His repeated attempts to liberate the site had not met with success. Baba Vaishnavadas appealed to Shri Guru Govind Das to liberate the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Guru accepted his invitation and arrived in Ayodhya via Prayag. Baba Vaishnavadas was finally successful in liberating the holy site, with the eighteen-year old Guru at the helm. This is recorded in the Alamgir-Nama.
"Sikh Itihas Mein Shri Ram Janmabhoomi"Â Rajendra Singh, Voice of India, 1991


So, while I am still not clear in my head about what conclusion to draw. This much is sure. Internet is full of Sikh separatism propoganda. Looks like these guys have worked very hard, over time, to come up with so much of propoganda....I am not going to rely upon internet for Sikhism-related material much.

(how much I miss messaging functionality of our forum right now!...this info is sensitive...I did not really want to post it, but just wanted to send it to you...)

10-31-2006, 11:48 AM

Bodhi,

Good find. Nothing beats looking at the original texts.

Guru Gobind Singh also worshipped devi durga or chandi and claimed in one of his writings that the devi gave him a boon. Those writings are nowadays deprecated by puritan sikhs.

QUOTE...."Abhyuthanam Adharmaysya".Â It means just the opposite of Sri Krishna's promise.


Actually "abhythhAnam adharmasya" is correct. Meaning whenever "adharma" rises, then Sri Krishna takes an avatAra. The two words appear joined together in sandhi as "abhyutthAnamadharmasya", which by adding a halant can be mistakenly read as "abhyuttAnam dharmasya". If Krishna meant rise of dharma, then the phrase would have been "abhyutthAnAya dharmasya".

P.S. Due to metrical considerations "glAnirva bhavati" should just be "glAnir bhavati"

10-31-2006, 12:42 PM

Maruti,

It seems you don't have anything to contribute. Your post are queued for now, only good contribution from you will appear.

Best wishes,
Moderator.

10-31-2006, 10:22 PM

QUOTE>
> This is an interesting point from the perspective whether Jains and
> Buddhists should be considered a sub-sect of Hindus. I am curious
> to know if there has been any historic incidence when shaivites
> converted to Vaishnavism and the vice-versa as it happened in the
> case of Jain and Buddhist religions.

The concept of saMpradAya is much misunderstood. A lot of people,
including some members of this forum, think that a saMpradAya is a
like a sect or denomination. This is true to an extent, but a very
simplistic understanding.

Strictly speaking, a saMpradAya is a guru-SiShya lineage. The term is
most commonly applied to sannyAsI lineages (or lineages of householder
initiates in some cases) associated with specific philosophical
schools such as vedAnta. The average householder Hindu is generally
not bound by any saMpradAya.

Historically, most Hindus have followed their jaati traditions. A
jaati is not merely an endogamous ethnic group but also a cultural
group. Concepts of dharma also typically flow from parents to children
through the jaati. Historically, people looked to their own family
elders to understand dharma, instead of consulting priests or
scriptures [As an aside, this is a reason why it is very difficult to
give general answers on dharmic matters in the Hindu context. The
particular always overrides the general.]

In particular regions where a specific saMpradAya has been strong, the
local people gravitated towards that saMpradAya and gradually absorbed
some of its philosophical outlook. This is particularly true for
brahmin communities who have been traditionally engaged in studying
the veda-s and allied disciplines.

But only a small percentage of the Hindu population strictly
identifies with specific saMpradAya-s. This percentage varies across
the country, from almost zero in most of the Gangetic plain to a
significant number (my wild guess would be 25%) in states like Tamil
Nadu.

So when one talks of "conversion" from say shaivam to vaiShnavam, it
must be understood in the above context. It has always been rare for
entire communities to convert from one tradition to another. What has
been more common is for scholars from different philosophical schools
to engage in debate, with the losers accepting the views of the
victor. However, this rarely affected the traditions & religious rites
followed at the household level. It was more like a modern day person
changing his views from say communism to capitalism.

However southern India (especially TN and parts of AP and Karnataka)
have been somewhat exceptional in this regard. From the 6th century or
so, one finds the emergence, in these areas, of schools very strongly
favouring a particular devatA. This was not an entirely new
phenomenon. Such schools have existed since time immemorial. But
around this period, they emerged in a much stronger manner than
before.

So one finds, in TN and some nearby areas, that entire jaati-s have
strong affiliations with particular saMpradAya-s. But even in these
areas, these afflilations are more common amongst the brahmins than
the other jaati-s. So conversions from one tradition to another did
occur in these areas. But even here, the focus was more on the
scholarly class & the rulers, with a lot of politics thrown in. And
even in these cases, family traditions including religious rites have
largely remained the same inspite of movement across saMpradAya-s.
Hence, the saMpradAya identity has tended to remain weaker than the
jaati identity.

To a large extent, these saMpradAya concepts are true for bauddha-s
also. bauddham started off as a purely monastic tradition. There was
no such thing as a bauddha family or a bauddha community. Scholarly
people from different jaati-s, with a significant chunk (probably even
a majority) being brahmins, joined the bauddha sa~Ngha as monks. In
regions where the sa~Ngha had a strong presence they would have
influenced the local jaati-s, but by & large there was no distinction
between bauddha & non-bauddha as far as householders were concerned.
Householders continued to follow their jaati traditions irrespective
of bauddha influence. In general, bauddha influence would mean no more
than the addition of an image of the SAkyamuni to the set of images in
the household pUjA room.

[As an aside, the above should make it clear that bauddham was not a
social reform movement, unlike what many modern-day westernized
worthies say. sannyAsa by definition is a renunciation of the world,
and jaati is a wordly identity meant to provide a framework for
householders. Therefore, a sannyAsI has no jaati. As bauddham started
off as a purely monastic tradition, it did not give much importance to
jaati. However, a look at subcontinental societies where bauddham has
survived as a householder tradition clearly shows that jaati has
continued in bauddham. Sri Lanka is the classic example where jaati
has remained strong under bauddha influence for 2300 years]

Over time, with the emergence of the vajrayAna type of bauddham,
householder communities started to form in northern & eastern India.
But it was still a rather weak phenomenon, which was why bauddham
disappeared entirely when the Muslim invaders destroyed the huge
vihAra-s where the monks were concentrated. There was no householder
community with a strong & distinct bauddha identity. So when the
monastic establishment was destroyed, these people either converted to
Islam or became indistguishable from the rest of their Hindu
neighbours (from whom they had never really separated anyway).

The jaina tradition is somewhat different in the sense that it is a
very ancient tradition whose origins are obscure. The jaina monastic
establishment has always been widely dispersed (unlike the
concentrated bauddha vihAra-s) and there has long been a community of
jaina householders, most of whom have been traders. But the jaina-s
have always had a strong relationship with the other Hindu
communities, including a significant amount of intermarriage. Though
jaina muni-s are aware of their philosophical differences from the
vedic schools, the average householder jaina is not always
distinguishable from householders following the vedic tradition.

So overall, "conversion" from one saMpradAya to another has not been a
very common phenomenon, and this analysis is fairly easily extendable
to jaina-s & bauddha-s. The primary identity marker in Hindu society
(including bauddha-s & jaina-s) has always been jaati, with an overlay
of the various philosophical schools that had varying levels of
influence. The religious rites followed by households are primarily
jaati-based rather than saMpradAya-based.

In modern times, there has been an erosion of jaati traditions and
generic practices have started to emerge, but the relationship between
saMpradAya & householder religious traditions is likely to get even
weaker with time (it has never been strong anyway).

Bharatvarsh · 11-01-2006, 09:01 AM

Bodhi thanks for the info, will pass it onto more informed people I know, I would have done the research myself if not for the fact that I cannot read Hindi properly at all, that is why I haven't yet read Rajendra Singh's "Sikh Itihaas Mein Rama Janmabhoomi" but I did hear that it is a very good book, so check it out.

Speaking of that, here is something from Vishal Agarwal that may interest you:
QUOTEVA: It is not true that the Bairagis did not regain occupied temples.
The Hanuman Garhi was also demolished by a Muslim Emperor and in
1800's it was captured by Hindu monks after a bloddy battle with the
muslims.
I believe that the Hanuman Garhi was subsequently used as a bastion
by Hindu monks to launch an attack on the Babri temple itself, but it
failed.
The Muslims tried to regain possession of teh Hamuman Garhi itself.
Matters reached a boiling point and Wajid Ali Shah, the then ruler of
Awadh, warned Muslim zealots not to attempt that.
The Muslim group was covertly funded by the Begum of Bhopal, while
the Hindu group had support from the Raja of Gwalior. When the Muslim
group decided to advance, they were shot dead by the soldiers of
Wajid Ali Shah, and about 400 Muslims died (this was around 1850 AD)
and were buried in graveyard called 'Kabristan e shahidaan' on the
side of the Babri mosque.
Apparently, during the demolition of the mosque in 1992, the
graveyard was also obliterated.

In Ayodhya itself, there is a 'Brahmakunda Gurudwara' which was built
at the spot where Guru Gobind Singh led a Hindu attack on the Babri
Masjid and occupied it. The Granthis/Gianis of the Gurudwara
therefore follow the Guru's tradition and have been firm supporters
of the Temple movement, and are constant seen in the company of
Ramachandra Pramahans.

Also, are there any
> records within the tradition ( rAmAnandI or Tulsidas or
> any other hindu source ) about rAm janmasthAn being at
> the exact same spot where the babri masjid now stands?

VA: Tulasidasji does not mention any historical details and I do not
know about Ramanandis. Their rise in Ayodhya is fairly late and the
town was under the domination of Shaivite monks till 1700's.

There were massive Hindu muslim riots in Ayodhya in 1934 after
Muslims butchered a cow on Id, and the Babri mosque was very heavily
damaged (apparently large portions of one side of the wall was
demolished and then rebuilt only later but before 1948).

It would be difficult to pinpoint exactly the sites of several
prominent temples in India, and we are forced to rely on tradition.
In the case of Janmasthana, we atleast have something in the Skanda
Purana (that section is later than the arrival of Muslims though,
becaue it names 'Turuskha' peoole').

Vishal

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/19770
A good book to bring out would be an account of the various battles that we waged to regain the spot since the mandir was demolished by the barbarian Babur.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 11-01-2006, 12:04 PM by Husky.)

Post 62 (maruti):
QUOTEEven Husky has admitted that sikh and neo-buddhist and in some cases, jains are spreading malicious propaganda against hindus. I admitted no such thing. I have repeatedly written that I doubted the people were Jains. I also wrote that the modern anti-Hindu Buddhist movements are not Buddhist (underscored by the fact that these 'Buddhist' sites write more about the hatred they bear Hinduism than revealing any understanding of Buddhism).

This is what I stated, so don't put words in my mouth:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=59841
QUOTESome Jain writers deny that Jainism has any relation to Hindu Dharma and strangely argue for the p-sec view (maybe they are not Jains). And in http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=59931
QUOTEThere are most definitely some Sikhs and Indian Buddhists and possibly (?) Jains who knock Hinduism. (There was a site where a 'Jain' was writing about how Hindus were communalist and only trying to unify with Jains so as to fight ChristoIslamism. The writer made at least 4 mistakes about Jainism and I got suspicious. Turns out the site was a Christian propaganda site.) http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=59841
QUOTEthe anti-Hindu Buddhist movements in India today (although the modern Buddhist movements in India are not Buddhist at allLater on in the same post I used it in the same context, when writing "Modern Indian Buddhism (neo-Buddhism) is often completely anti-Hindu."

You need to appreciate that any one may pretend to be 'Jain',... when arguing anonymously on-line. That is why I rely more on my personal experience than on unlikely and suspicious characters conveniently gathered together at propaganda sites.

As for the Sikh characters and sites I've come across who were anti-Hindu - I merely assumed they were Khalistanis (or their desperate attempts to seem more like mainstream Sikhism). In such situations too, I must allow I may have been misled as to who the real writers were in each case.

11-03-2006, 09:52 PM

Shri Godbole's article on eSamskriti.. Must read..

http://esamskriti.com/html/essay_index.asp...hindu_sikh_bond

03-13-2007, 01:48 AM

QUOTEWhat is the original tradition of the Hindus?
The vedic tradition.
Which is the most important vedic doctrine?
The doctrine of knowing indra.
Are bauddha nAstIka-s true inheritors of the vedic tradition?
We know that even in the late brAhmaNa period the position of indra was being eroded with the rise of prajApati and to a certain extant rudra and viShNu. Yet, the bauddha doctrines retain the high position of indra, to the extant possible within the nAstIka Weltanschauung [to clarify- the tathAgata is the highest object of veneration and power, but shakra is definitely the most powerful of the beings in the world structure] Interestingly, the deities viShNu and rudra find a limited mention in comparison to indra, who is repeatedly termed a boddhisattva and the protector of the bauddha dharma in the early days of this nAstIka mata. In fact, some myths of indra, which have been lost in brAhminical tradition are preserved in early bauddha tradition.

Some late upaniShadic traditions which profess connections with the veda rebel against the veda. A clear case is the muNDaka upaniShat. While claiming to be attached to the shaunaka atharvaveda it rebels against vedic authority and claims a knowledge higher than the veda. A similar position is hinted by the earliest yoga texts. The early bauddha texts are not exactly disrespectful towards the veda, but rebels against them claiming a higher knowledge to attain the arihant status or buddhahood. In essence, this higher knowledge is merely semantically and descriptively different from the upaniShadic brahma-vidyA and yoga of the yoga texts -- phenomenologically these systems are similar.

Sectarian schools of the AstIkas developing within the vedic fold like shaiva, vaiShNava and prAjApatya-brahmavAda are also very distinct in their spirit from the original shrauta religion in their displacement of indra and formulation of distinct ritual systems. This in a way is not very different from bauddha-s worshiping the buddha-s and boddhisatvas.

Both the sectarian schools of AstIkas and the nAstIka bauddha-mata are products of brahma-kShatra activity associated with asceticism. The early pAshupata-s, the early vaiShNava-s both vaikhAnasa and pA~ncharAtra are dominated by ascetic brAhmaNa-s. While buddha was a kShatriya, his primary followers, the first arihants are the brahmins shariputra and maudgalyAyana. Both the sectarian AstIka-s and bauddha-s position themselves as The true path. Thus, we might conclude that in diverging from vedic, in conceptual terms, the sectarian AstIka-s and bauddha-s are not really all that different. Both may merely be seen as a part of the same continuum of the post-vedic traditions that drastically diverged at different points from vedic principles. Yet, a careful comparison of these traditions raises chronological and sociological issues that are critical for understanding early Hindu history.

Let us observe some features of the early bauddha corpus in comparison to the mainstream AstIka texts:
The devas: Both texts speak of a comparable set of gods. As mentioned above in the bauddha system as in the veda indra stands at the head of the pantheon and is the most frequently mentioned deity. brahma is the other god who is prominently mentioned though much less than indra. In the samyutta nikaya 11.5 (the subhAsita-jaya sUtta) presents a brahmodaya contest between indra and the asura viprachitti in which indra triumphs and in his brahmodaya recitation gives verses that declare the bauddha doctrine. This motif of the triumphant indra winning a brahmodaya on account of his elucidation of bauddha thought to be very parallel to the late kena upaniShad where indra attains supremacy of the gods because he understands the vedantic brahma vAda. In the dIgha nikaya 20 (mahA-samaya sUtta), the tathAgata introduces the sangha to the devas, gandharva, yakShas etc. In the samyutta nikaya 11.3 (dhajagga sUtta) the tathAgata again mentions several devas and tries to claim that he is greater than them. In these early bauddha works we find the mention of other gods mentioned include prajapati, varuNa, ashvins viShNu, ishAna (rudra), soma and yama. Thus, the bauddhas were well-conversant with the classical vedic pantheon. In he brahma-jAla-sUtta the buddha disparagingly talks of the worship of the devI shrI. In the chula-niddessa which appears to be of the later layer of the pAli canon we encounter the mention of vAsudeva and balabhadra suggesting that the early pA~ncharatric vaiShNAva sect was known to exist coevally.

However, in addition the bauddha-s also mention certain deities that appear to have been lost or largely forgotten in mainstream AstIka religion. These include the 4 divine world-kings: dhR^itarAShTra, virUpAkSha, virUdhaka and kubera. Of these only kubera is prominently retained as king of yakSha-s in AstIka tradition. virUpAkSha is remembered as a rAkShasa, whereas dhR^itarAShTra as a nAga. Then there is the goddess manimekhalA, an assistant of indra, who appears to have been popular among seafaring vaishyas as the guardian deity of the sea. She appears in the eponymous tamil bauddha work as a prominent deity and her worship survives to date in Cambodia. These examples illustrate the diversity of Indic tradition outside of the vedic core and remind us that the surviving traditions are only partially cover the original diversity.

It also important to note that the bauddha-s appear to share with the purANas the doctrine of multiple cycles of brahma and indra, which is very alien to vedic thought.

dAnava-s: The early bauddha works know of several dAnava-s such as viprachitti, prahlAda, bali, virochana, rAhu, namUchI, and the kAlaka~njas. Thus, in addition to the typical vedic demons they also appear to record ones otherwise mentioned only in the purANas. An important point to note is that the chief adversary of gautama buddha is namUchI, he is often mentioned by his uniquely bauddha name mAra. Thus, the tathAgata appears to have stolen the conquest of namUchI from indra, just as the vaiShNava-s appear to do it more subtly in their sectarian purANas.

Sects and doctrines: With the exception of the passing mention of worshipers of vAsudeva and balabhadra we do not find a detailed debate with the sectarian AstIka-s amongst the bauddha-s. Some say there is some evidence that a~NgulimAla was shaiva earlier, but there is little strong evidence for this. In contrast, in somewhat later bauddha works we find explicit polemics against on the worshipers of viShNu and shiva by nAgArjuna. In the even later texts we find the mahAyAna bauddhas internalizing sectarian AstIka deties and trying to demonize the AstIka versions. The main doctrinal adversaries of the buddha are brAhmaNa vedic ritualists (see below). While he disparages various brAhmaNa and ascetics performing magical rites, he himself is not averse to showing his superiority in magical rites to his brahmin adversaries (This is excellently illustrated in the tale of the jaTila uruvelA kAshyapa whom the tathAgata converted by staying in their shrauta sacrificial hall). In philosophical terms too he closely positions himself to the brahminical philosophies and tries to overthrow them. He appears to be aware of vaisheShika in the teachings of pakudha kAtyAyana, and obviously of upaniShadic doctrines which he subverts (though he does not mention them by name). Another important point is that he battles lokAyata-s who are described as brAhmaNas. Thus, as seen from the internal evidence of bR^ihaspati and jayarAshi bhaTTa, lokAyata-s were always brAhmANa, probably in core associated with bhUtachaitanya vAda. The early bauddha works also known of a great diversity in shramaNa or ascetic traditions and mention the naked jain (nirgrantha nAthaputra) and AjIvikas of makkhali gosala.

Personalities: The early bauddha works are aware of upaniShadic teachers as historical not contemporary figures and tries to claim them as teachers of bauddha doctrines. These include kR^iShNa-dvaipAyana (a bodhisattva), janaka the king of mithila, uddAlaka AruNi, shvetaketu, nArada. They also know of the rAmAyaNa with certain fine details, and claim rAma as a bodhisattva. They know the harivaMsha/mahAbhArata, the existence of the historical king yuddhiShThira in indraprastha. In line with the paurANic genealogies they know of ajAshatru of the rising magadhan imperialism as the contemporary of their hero.

vedic terminology: One of the most important but oft missed point is that the early bauddha works consciously adopt vedic terminology for all their major doctrinal concepts: 1) Firstly the doctrine of the buddha is termed dharma. jaimini begins the mImAmsa sUtra-s begin as "athAto dharma-jij~nAsa". Thus vedic sacrificial ritual was seen as dharma. 2) In the bauddha doctrine the bauddha religious intention is taken to mean karma, again imitating the vedic ritual action which is termed karma. 3) The central knowledge required for the bauddha is called the trayi-vidyA: (i) knowledge of past incarnations of one-self (ii) knowledge of past incarnations of others (iii) knowledge of the four Arya truths. Thus, the vedic term of trayI-vidyA, which signifies the 3 kinds of mantra R^iks, sAmans and yajushes (not 3 vedas) is imitated. 4) The teaching emanating from the buddha is termed ArSha. Thus the buddha is being considered a R^iShi like the seers of the veda. 5) The bauddha oral tradition is recorded in the form of recitations termed sUtta-s. Here the term used is the same as the vedic oral recitation the sUkta (sUtta does not mean sUtra as commonly mistaken by the unerudite but sUktaM), which fits in well with the tAthagata's teaching being ArSha. 6) The follower of the bauddha path is termed Arya, wherein the vedic term for a dvija eligible for ya~jna is taken up. 7) The aspirant entering the bauddha 8-fold teaching is called snAtaka, imitating the qualified vedic student. 8) Charity given for the support of the sangha is termed dakShiNa in imitation of the vedic ritual fee given to the brahmin.

Thus, the buddha and his early successors saw themselves as the correct inheritors of the older tradition and that they were giving the true or correct meanings of the terms in that tradition-- they use the term sad-dharma. Not surprisingly the buddha spends a lot of effort lecturing on who is the true brahmin . Perhaps, this is also consistent with the observation that in the dramiDa maNimekhalai the bauddha-s consider themselves a "vedic" philosophy like sAmkhya and mImAmasa.

Reviewing these points an apparent conundrum emerges: The bauddha-s appear to be linked in a direct sense to the vedic tradition as successors. Whereas, within the AstIka tradition we see the sectarian vaiShNavism and shaivism as successors of vedic. These dominate the epics to greater or lesser degrees and have precursors even in the late vedic period. Yet, these find no or little mention amongst the bauddhas. The typical white Indologists and their fellow travelers have persistently tried to claim that the late vedic corpus (upaniShads, mImAmsa sUtras and itihAsa) and the early bauddha corpus overlapped. However, if we carefully view the evidence we find that as usual the conventional Indological ideas are flawed: The paurANic genealogies, the mentions of the itihAsas by buddha but not vice versa, the mention of upaniShadic teachers by buddha and not vice versa, the mention of post-vedic paurANic deities and figures by the early bauddha works, the mention of diverse pre-existing community of ascetics (already a common feature in the itihAsas), the existence of vaisheShika, lokAyata and mImAmsa thought as prior conditions all suggest that the bauddha mata was indeed later than all the above developments as traditionally believed by Hindus. What this means is that even-though the sectarian streams had prominence in the itihAsa-s they were not as widespread as it might seem in the period of the buddha. Instead the vedic religion was the dominant feature amongst the elite. Further, the folk beliefs preserved by the tathAgata again had indra and the vedic pantheon, along with many others rather than the sectarian pantheons. This shows that the extant of permeation of vedic Indo-Aryan culture into the grass-roots of Indian society and that the true rise of sectarianism at the grass-root level was a later phenomenon.

In reality like the bauddha-s the sectarian streams too used the veda as a base. Early sectarian works like bhAgavataM use vedic material, but for their own agenda. Thus, subversion was model in both AstIka and nAstIka traditions. Herein, Indo-Aryan India paralled the earlier Aryan developments- namely subversion of the proto-Indo-Iranian religion (the ancestor of vedic) by Zarathustra in founding the cult of Ahura-Mazda. The huge departure of Zarathushtra was he tendency towards zealous exclusivism or almost monotheism. Likewise, both the AstIka subversionists (shaiva-s and vaiShNava-s) showed some exclusivist tendencies in their later but not early development. The radical departure of the bauddha-s was in erecting blatant nara-stuti (at least vAsudeva and balabhadra were merely emanations of viShNu) and more importantly rejecting deva-bhASha and chandas. This linguistic departure more than anything else was probably to set the bauddha mata aside for ever as a nAstIka tradition. This came as we know from siddhArtha's own mouth as he forebade the brAhmaNas from composing his work into vedic hymns.

03-15-2007, 05:16 AM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /> Leaders pledge to unite against casteism
[ 15 Mar, 2007 0020hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

NEW DELHI: About 5,000 people, including several Dalit and Hindu leaders, pledged to work against untouchability and discrimination through a seven-point action plan at the first truth & reconciliation conference held in the Capital.

The conference was initiated by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Foundation. Addressing the conference, he said, âDiscrimination is not sanctioned by religion. Every Hindu should be educated about the fact that many sacred texts were written by Dalits... Fear and communication gap between communities is keeping us apart. We must reconcile differences."

The seven-point action plan focuses on ensuring temple entry for Dalits, collective celebrations of festivals including community feasts, abolishing the practice of separate utensils for Dalits, empowerment of women from economically weaker sections of society, providing educational facilities to weaker sections, spiritual and religious education to Dalit children and equality and justice for all.

As a symbolic implementation of the plan, leaders partook in a community feast. Dalit leader and president of the Indian Justice Party, Udit Raj welcomed the initiatives.

He said Dalits would have to be integrated in all streams of society if caste discrimination were to be eliminated.

Raj advocated that the posts of the head of maths be filled by priests from every caste on a rotation basis.

The conference also featured a special exhibition on the contributions of Dalit maharishis in Hindu literature.

Notable examples are the two great epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata written by Dalit Maharishis Ved Vyas and Valmiki.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?