[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious unity and the word Hindu
SV Singam (vijia@pop.jaring.my) wrote:
>>Okay, is it all religions indigenous to India?
>>No, clearly it doesn't include Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism.
>... but that would certainly not sit well with those who wish to
>differentiate themselves from what they pulled thamselves out of. I'm quite
>sure Gautama Buddha, Guru Nanak and Mahavira did not identify themselves as
>'not Hindu'.
Vaaheguroo ji ka Khalsa Vaaheguroo ji ki Fateh!
I am not aware of what Gautam Buddha and Mahavir Jain sahib said,
but in one of his saroops [I will dig up the reference if need be, I think
it was Guru Arjan] clearly proclaims:
Na hum hindoo naa mussalmaan
allah raam ke pinD praaN [from Guru Granth Sahib]
Sikhism does not recognize the "Hindu" and "non-Hindu" divisions. Further
discussion on this point is welcome, and I would suggest we move it to
soc.religion.sikhism since it is central to the charter of that
newsgroup.
> However their followers who are really the 'creators' of these
>religions have certainly considered themselves as 'not Hindu'. I don't
>suppose they are ready today to acknowledge brotherhood with the others who
>chose to retain the label.
As a Sikh I regret that the fellow netter makes such a statement that
Sikhs are really the creators of their 'religion'. I know what religion
means, and the teachings of Sikh Gurus are a complete system which
certainly qualifies per all reasonable definitions of religion.
It must be noted that NO CHANGE has been made to any basic organization or
practices of Sikhism after 1699, when Guru Gobind Singh ji created
the Khalsa. Any changes that have occurred have occurred are at
socio-political levels and are outside the scope of this discussion.
It is pointless to discuss opinions. We can have fruitful discussion
only in light of the defining principles of Sikhism. Knowing the
universal message of Sikhism, I do not consider myself or any other
Sikh as "Hindu". It is actually irrelevant as long as one is interested
in what Sikhism says. In other words, the teachings, practices and
everything else about Sikhism is related to Hinduism and other
philosophies only secondarily. Anyone anywhere born in any background
can be a Sikh simply by following the message of Sikhism. All other
criteria are irrelevant, and so are the multiple of the word "Hindu".
>>The word Hindu is a term that is basically used by people who are NOT
>>Hindus to describe a group of people that they want to lump together.
This is incorrect in light of the fact that anyone, Hindu or non-Hindu
can become a Sikh. Further, shedding all caste, clan, group etc
affiliations is a prerequisite to becoming a Sikh. The failure of
large number of Sikhs to do that does not in any way reduce the
significance of this prerequisite.
>The Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains did not want to be associated with Hindus.
>The Vaishnavas do not want to use an imprecise pop term.
>The Ramakrishnaites want to keep their funds for themselves.
>Such remarkable spirituality :-(
This is a tasteless joke. It shows the level of debate that the
netter is indulging himself/herself in -- completely mundane
and devoid of seriousness. We can spare ourselves some wastage of
time.
Sikhs have paid a huge price for keeping the teachings of Gurus
intact and defending them against all sorts of contamination,
revisionism and denial. It does not behoove the learned readers
of s.r.hinduism to superficially interpret Sikhism.
Vaaheguroo ji ka Khalsa Vaaheguroo ji ki Fateh!
Rajwinder Singh
