[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Sikh view of Hinduism
Rajwinder Singh wrote:
>
> Vaaheguroo ji ka Khalsa Vaaheguroo ji ki Fateh!
>
> Well, there are Sikhs around. Sikhs are everywhere :-)
>
Oops! Didn't know that!
> Sankar Jayanarayanan (kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU) wrote in article <ghenDxL7Jt.L4J@netcom.com> on Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:26:17 GMT :
>
> >IMHO the Sikh Gurus were simply unaware of the subtleties of any school of
> >Vedanta (advaita, vishishhTaadvaita or achintya abheda-bheda).
>
> Somehow I have the feeeling that you are not at all versed in Gurbani [the
> writings of Sikh gurus and other saints].
Your feelings have not deceived you :-).
> Because, along with many other
> faiths' practices and beliefs, Gurbani also comments upon, in great detail,
> Hindu philosophy, and that of course includes the core of Hinduism, Vedanta
> and Vedas. Bhai Gurdas ji's bani, which holds place of great significance
> in Sikh theology, also comments on Vedanta. All important concepts of classical
> Hindu philosophy, including Maya, cosmography, rituals, advaita and so on,
> are dealt with in Sikh scriptures. To claim that the Sikh Gurus [and other
> saints whose bani is included in Gur Granth Sahib] were simply unaware
> of subtleties of Vedanta is not at all valid by any means! Many Sikh concepts,
> for example Maya, while sound like Hindu philosophy rehashed, are in fact
> very subtly, and fundamentally, different from them. Unfortunately, even
> a large number of Sikhs are unaware of it, because the names are similar
> [e.g. maya].
>
Thanks for the very informative post. Perhaps the differences are too subtle
to be clearly noticed. e.g, the Buddhists too use the word maya, but the
meaning they assign to it is different from the advaitic one. To both, the word
denotes delusion, but the Buddhists believe that maya causes the delusion
that there is something called the "self," while the advaitins believe that it
robs one of self-knowledge! Though the difference seems clear-cut, one might
read dozens of books on Buddhism without recognizing this simple fact.
> Guru Nanak sahib was very well versed in all classic Hindu scriptures,
> Islamic literature including the Kuran, as well as all the profundities of
> other philosophies, like the yogis' and tantrics. So were all the other
> Sikh Gurus. Guru Gobind Singh had 52 scholars in his court and he specifically
> sent many of his Sikhs to Benares to learn Vedas and Hindu philosophy, just
> as he had Persian and Arabic scholars write great philosophical works.
That's amazing!
> [Unfortunately, the bulk of their output, which is said to have weighed
> around 75 kilograms, was lost to the flooded Sarsa river during the exodus
> from Anandpur Sahib.]
>
:-(.
But the philosophy must have remained in the minds of the philosophers?
Wasn't there any more philosophical writing among the Sikhs?
> >This is one of the major attacks on Hinduism by the Sikh Gurus:
> >------------------------
> >(Guru Gobind Singh, 33 Swaiyyas)
[..]
> >All loving is He and All Holy too then why did He drive Arjuna to battle?
[..]
> >------------------------
>
> >I personally think these arguments are immature. The sikhs give these and other
> >similar arguments and then pride themselves on following a "superior" faith.
>
> Well, that is no problem, since it is only your own view.
I apologize for the wrong notion that I created.
> There are no faiths
> superior to others, since all faith is in one and the same God, known by
> various names to various peoples.
That's being very tolerant!
> However, what you call immature arguments
> addresses very important issues and develops one very coherent argument. Of
> course, as per your world view, the argument might be completely
> incomprehensible.
>
Actually, I was very surprised to read the part about Krishna coaxing
Arjuna into battle, for didn't the Sikh Gurus too fight and win many wars
against the Mughals?
[..]
> Right from Guru Nanak onwards, the verdict has
> been consistent: what is born and material is mortal and destructible,
> whilst the Truth is Unborn and Timeless.
But Vedanta says more or less the same thing! But again, there may
be differences that aren't very obvious.
> Hence the tone of 33 Swaiyyas.
> Bhagt Kabir ji, one of the severest critics of mainstream Hindu practices,
> is one of the saints whose bani has been included in Guru Granth Sahib by
> Guru Arjan sahib.
>
Any direct translations into english of Kabir ji's works available?
Even advaita vedanta is "opposed" to the Karma Kanda portion of the Vedas,
since "action (karma) is incompatible with knowledge (GYAna)". But it's not
true that all advaitins reject the karma kanda: only sannyasis abstain from
the injunctions therein.
> I do not know of many people who understood both Sikh and Hindu philosophies
> really well [I am not one, BTW] and it may help to utilize the analysis
> of those who did. I would recommend the writings of Sirdar Kapur Singh
> in this regard -- this renaissance man knew all the major faiths of the world
> very well, particularly Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. His masterpiece,
> "Prasharaprashna" in fact deals with the very topic at hand.
>
Is that an English book, and if not, is there a translation to English?
> Vaaheguroo ji ka Khalsa Vaaheguroo ji ki Fateh!
> Rajwinder Singh
> --
>
Regards,
Kartik
