[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Definition of Hindu (Was defn by VKRao)
-
From: rajwi@bu.edu (Rajwinder Singh)
-
Date: 18 Jan 1996 12:03:35 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Karmee aapo aapNee ke neRai ke door(i)||
-
References: <4cdes4$dl2@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4cgd3i$jgv@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4cnncl$oc5@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
>>>* A Hindu has two tenets (apart from others which differ from sect to sect):
>>> (1) Belief in the doctrines of karma and rebirth
>>> (2) Belief in Vedas as infallible and their acceptance as
Vaaheguroo ji ka Khalsa Vaaheguroo ji ki Fateh!
Since the dubbing of Sikhs as Hindus has been done on this forum
many times, I feel obliged to point out that as per the above
definition of Hindu [which I have no problem with, BTW], Sikhs
are impossible to be considered Hindus. Guru Gobind Singh writes:
svaiyyaa
paaye(n) gahe' jab te' tumre' tab te' ko-oo aankh tare' nahee aaniyo
raam raheem puraan kuraan anek kahai mat ek na maaniyo
simmriti saastr bed sabhai bahu bhed kahai ham ek n jaaniyo
sri asipaan kripaa tumree kar mai kahio sabh tohe bakhaanio.
In line #2, "Rama, Raheem, the Puranas and the Quran proclaim many
things-- I subscribe to none of that."
In line #3, Guru Gobind Singh clearly states: "the numerous smritis,
shastras, vedas say many things ["secrets"] of which I recognize
none."
The only useful discussion about Sikhism is on the basis of Gurbani
and bani sanctioned by Gurus as valid, which includes the bani of Bhai
Gurdass Ji and Bhai Nand Lal ji Goya. Arguments based on geography
and social history are useless.
Vaaheguroo ji ka Khalsa Vaaheguroo ji ki Fateh!
Rajwinder Singh
