Why are we not Hindus?

[namespace]

Why would you say they have been after it since 1925?  Has greed not existed before this time?

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, namespace said:

Why would you say they have been after it since 1925?  Has greed not existed before this time?

that is when it was said out in the open for the first time by that faction's prececessors Arya Samaj

[Punjabiwolves]

 

[MrDoaba]

8 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

that is when it was said out in the open for the first time by that faction's prececessors Arya Samaj

Arya Samaj is not the predecessor of the RSS lol even if they do cross paths today. RSS does not equal Arya Samaj or vice versa.

Most Hindus think Arya Samaj are a bunch of whackjobs. They are a minority within Hinduism.

The ironic part is that Arya Samaj and Singh Sabha have so much in common in terms of thinking and approach lol...they are basically the same people except for a different cause.

[dallysingh101]

I thought I'd throw this in the mix:

I use Kahn Singh Nabha's epic Mahan Kosh quite a bit when doing research. He was obviously a savant and the sheer breadth of his background knowledge (as evidenced in that and other works) is astounding even today.  

For the record I don't believe Sikhs are Hindus. But as a consequence of the Singh Sabha lehar we've got to the stage where we actually have an outright antipathy towards useful aspects of our pre-Sikh cultural heritage. I think the whole process of the SS lehar led to such a politicisation of religion in India that stuff I would class with the more neutral term 'Indic' as opposed to 'Hindu', has been largely jettisoned from our corporate knowledge. This is ironic because when you read Nabha's work, he was obviously VERY familiar with this stuff, and we've run away from it like it has fleas or something.  

Gurbani does use references from wider Indic culture, an example being the concept of trai-gunh. And as the Dasam Granth testifies, SIkhs weren't exactly discouraged from studying, knowing and learning stuff from the wider Indic world (as well as other cultures, as Guru jis references to Persian classics such as Firdausi in Zafarnama demonstrates). 

I don't think the modern incarnation of Singh Sabha really reflects the original movement. And there is a genuine criticism that the lehar brought religion to the point of collusion with the wider British colonialist agenda - even if it did oversee the return of Gurdwaras in Sikh hands. And we can't in all good conscience ignore the fact that the lehar has petered out into a money making scheme for particular families (such as the Badals) who have their own nonreligious objectives - and the plain fact that interpreting Sikhi with western reductionalist, racialised paradigms (not to mention the protestant, victorian slant it inevitably encompassed) changes the whole nature of the thing into another beast altogether - 'Sikhism'. 

[MrDoaba]

@dallysingh101

Articulated very precisely. On point. Unbiased.

Dhanvaad Ji.

 

Gurbar Akaal!

[Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi]

@MrDoaba , why is Baahmanwaad, RSS , Ghar wapsi in your "interest list" in your profile.

Are you batting for it , or (I hope) you're batting against it !

[Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi]

On 11/6/2018 at 1:29 AM, dallysingh101 said:

I thought I'd throw this in the mix:

I use Kahn Singh Nabha's epic Mahan Kosh quite a bit when doing research. He was obviously a savant and the sheer breadth of his background knowledge (as evidenced in that and other works) is astounding even today.  

For the record I don't believe Sikhs are Hindus. But as a consequence of the Singh Sabha lehar we've got to the stage where we actually have an outright antipathy towards useful aspects of our pre-Sikh cultural heritage. I think the whole process of the SS lehar led to such a politicisation of religion in India that stuff I would class with the more neutral term 'Indic' as opposed to 'Hindu', has been largely jettisoned from our corporate knowledge. This is ironic because when you read Nabha's work, he was obviously VERY familiar with this stuff, and we've run away from it like it has fleas or something.  

Gurbani does use references from wider Indic culture, an example being the concept of trai-gunh. And as the Dasam Granth testifies, SIkhs weren't exactly discouraged from studying, knowing and learning stuff from the wider Indic world (as well as other cultures, as Guru jis references to Persian classics such as Firdausi in Zafarnama demonstrates). 

I don't think the modern incarnation of Singh Sabha really reflects the original movement. And there is a genuine criticism that the lehar brought religion to the point of collusion with the wider British colonialist agenda - even if it did oversee the return of Gurdwaras in Sikh hands. And we can't in all good conscience ignore the fact that the lehar has petered out into a money making scheme for particular families (such as the Badals) who have their own nonreligious objectives - and the plain fact that interpreting Sikhi with western reductionalist, racialised paradigms (not to mention the protestant, victorian slant it inevitably encompassed) changes the whole nature of the thing into another beast altogether - 'Sikhism'. 

OHH ! that evil 'Sikhism' vs the pious good'ol 'Sikhi' debate again. Changing names doesn't change anything man.

Agreed Singh Sabha and the passages of time have def changed sikhi , and we truly today are following a flavor of Sikhism perhaps quite different from 200 yrs ago. For one , raag vidya is NON EXISTENT ! I am surprised no one is speaking about that in this debate. Something so important that the entire SGGS is divided into passaged based on Raags and we have not an iota of what it is and how its to be sung ! As the classic joke among sikh circles goes, Harmonium is not old enough .So first step in reviving ancient gurmat sangeet. For that we might need help of non-sikh sources who actually know what Dhanasri is , What sorath is , What Ramkalee is and how they sing it and then try to transpose that music pattern onto gurbani . If it fits well on the shabads, you know you got it right ! 

Secondly , As many hindus themselves have said "Gurbani is an approximation of hindu vedantic thought" and to an extent they're correct.

Now if you go by this viewpoint , you will have to justify why you need a separate identity , since you're following the same tenets of Karma, Dharma, Rebirth , Three gunas (sato , rajo , tamo) and the 5-element body and the other nuances of Indic thought . So why don't we put you as a "sect" of Sanatan Dharam . You have any reply on that ?!!

There must be certain nuances of Sikhi matt and vedantic matt, ELSE I don't see a point as to why Sikhism exists as a separate religion. Now what those nuances are , you can ONLY tell after going through BOTH vedantic (10 mukhya upanishads) and gurbani (SGGS) thought process and compare their differences. 

EDIT ---

There are four mahavaaks from each of the 4 vedas that is the "juice" of the learning from that particular veda or the Upanishad actually linked to that veda .

RigVed : "Prajnanam Brahm" (Intellect is Brahm)

YajurVed : "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahm)

SamVed : "Tat tvam asi" (you are that) (same stuff as "mann tu jot saroop hai")

AtharvaVed : "Ayam Atma Brahm" (the atma is brahm)

So apparently this is juice of all vedic thoughts churned over 3000 yr period ! 

One ashtapadi of Sukhmani sahib  has more gyaan than this ! 

[dallysingh101]

12 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

OHH ! that evil 'Sikhism' vs the pious good'ol 'Sikhi' debate again. Changing names doesn't change anything man.Agreed Singh Sabha and the passages of time have def changed sikhi , and we truly today are following a flavor of Sikhism perhaps quite different from 200 yrs ago.

How can you make such an uninformed, flippant statement? You should know damn well that the 100 year old colonial period introduced all manner of outside influences within Sikhs that weren't religiously motivated but rather political and economic.  

If we didn't have divide and rule strategies employed against us (be this along religious and/or caste lines), we would have the only people in colonial history not to experience such things.  And bear in mind that the colonialists had been perfecting these techniques for centuries prior to the annexation, on other races/communities. The art of dividing people, without letting them know you were behind it, so to speak. Don't be so naive about this. 

Quote

 

For one , raag vidya is NON EXISTENT ! I am surprised no one is speaking about that in this debate. Something so important that the entire SGGS is divided into passaged based on Raags and we have not an iota of what it is and how its to be sung ! As the classic joke among sikh circles goes, Harmonium is not old enough .So first step in reviving ancient gurmat sangeet. For that we might need help of non-sikh sources who actually know what Dhanasri is , What sorath is , What Ramkalee is and how they sing it and then try to transpose that music pattern onto gurbani . If it fits well on the shabads, you know you got it right ! 

Secondly , As many hindus themselves have said "Gurbani is an approximation of hindu vedantic thought" and to an extent they're correct.

Now if you go by this viewpoint , you will have to justify why you need a separate identity , since you're following the same tenets of Karma, Dharma, Rebirth , Three gunas (sato , rajo , tamo) and the 5-element body and the other nuances of Indic thought . So why don't we put you as a "sect" of Sanatan Dharam . You have any reply on that ?!!

 

I don't know if you're conscious of it, but you are actually reinforcing my point. Yes, our understanding and deployment of raags, which bring a whole other emotional/spiritual(?) dimension to Gurbani is yet another thing (amongst many like the indigenous Sikh martial tradition) that was waylaid during the colonial period. We went through a whole 'semantic period', and never brought the Sikh raag tradition back (that isn't to say that semantics isn't important but obviously our Gurus had other dimensions/frequencies in mind too). 

To reply to your direct question - yes, there's obviously overlap with pre-existing Indic spiritual traditions and Sikhi - hence why so many older bhagats are exalted. Maybe you need to consider that the greatest divergence was actually in the radical new Sikh social order (crystallised in the Khalsa), which, to put simply (and not do it any justice) revolves around a militaristic, spiritual, egalitarian meritocracy as the basis of Sikh social order - a VERY powerful and revolutionary step. And pointing out that so and so minor Hindu groups may have hints of these elements within their traditions to try and detract from the originality of Sikhi is a red herring. None of them have/had the whole package. So it is the ideas behind the social order of Sikhs that makes them radically different from Hindus. That Sikhs fail to live up to this and still hanker on for their castes or can't be ar5ed to go through the intellectual, physical, military aspects of their heritage doesn't detract from that in any way. That not  any failing on Sikhi's part, but rather the half-ar5ed lazy Sikhs many people have become. 

Quote

 

There must be certain nuances of Sikhi matt and vedantic matt, ELSE I don't see a point as to why Sikhism exists as a separate religion. Now what those nuances are , you can ONLY tell after going through BOTH vedantic (10 mukhya upanishads) and gurbani (SGGS) thought process and compare their differences. 

EDIT ---

There are four mahavaaks from each of the 4 vedas that is the "juice" of the learning from that particular veda or the Upanishad actually linked to that veda .

RigVed : "Prajnanam Brahm" (Intellect is Brahm)

YajurVed : "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahm)

SamVed : "Tat tvam asi" (you are that) (same stuff as "mann tu jot saroop hai")

AtharvaVed : "Ayam Atma Brahm" (the atma is brahm)

So apparently this is juice of all vedic thoughts churned over 3000 yr period ! 

One ashtapadi of Sukhmani sahib  has more gyaan than this ! 

 

I agree. I think maybe Tirath Singh Nirmala's writing may be an exploration of this very thing. But it's no walk in the park to understand or translate that stuff. That shows another aspect of the SS lehar in that in focusing on the mainly illiterate rural sector of the Sikh community to keep in power, they sort of dumbed things down, or made the difference between Sikhs and Hindus into some pseudo-racial thing obscuring the real subtle nuances that mark the differences between Sikh mat and Hindu Mat. 

[Guest guest]

On 11/4/2018 at 7:53 PM, S1ngh said:

First you need to learn how to debate and put your points without loosing your morals and mind at the same time. I never said anyone nor ever categorized anyone as Hindu or raw or any other fringe group. It’s kinda weird that someone has to declare his/religion religion in order to debate. 

i don't need advice on how to 'debate' .  i was contributing to a discussion, not engaging in a debate.  debates are for "chalak" (sly) people who have preset ideological motives and are only interested in being publicly seen as winning arguments, hence resort to such petty tactics as 'ad hominem'  attacks etc.  this seems your interest, not mine.  the intention you had in asking me about babri masjid was clear.  your lame 'attack' failed.  maybe you should learn to engage in straight forward discussions and concentrate on the points on hand.