[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ARTICLE : Sikh view of Hinduism





Rajwinder Singh <rajwi@barney.bu.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDy1H48.31q@netcom.com>...
> H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote on Mon, 16
Sep 1996 17:25:00 GMT:
> >You are right; those were extremely shallow arguments. It seems that
Guru
> >Gobind Singh essentially tries to limit God by making Him bound to his
> >mundane logic.
> 
> Vaaheguroo ji Ka Khalsa, Vaehguroo ji ki Fateh.
> 
> Dear Harikrishna, 
> 
> The arguments seem shallow because the topic they are on is shallow --
> precisely the point Guru Gobind Singh is dwelling upon in the cited 
> Gurbani. In his own Revelations, Guru Gobind Singh repeatedly stresses
> the point of God being Unbounded, Unlimited and Timeless. Given your
> viewpoint [unbounded God etc] I am sure you will be interested in Guru
> Gobind Singh ji's bani "Jaap Sahib."
> 
> His logic seems mundane because he is indeed commenting upon something
which
> is based on rather mundane logic!

First of all, Guru Gobind Singh has it wrong when he talks about Krishna
being born from the womb of Devaki, etc. In fact, most of what was posted
by Sankar (Singh's arguments) is a gross distortion of the historical
facts.

Secondly, there is no reason why Krishna should not be considered
unbounded, unlimited, and timeless. He makes these exact claims in the
Bhagavad-Giitaa. The problem is that some people, using mundane logic (that
which is based on experience of things in the material world) try to apply
that logic to God and come to the conclusion that anything with name and
form must be limited. There is no good reason for this.

> Indeed, and as per my understanding, Guru Gobind Singh says precisely the
> same: it is futile to imagine God being born from a woman;s womb and
other
> such stories.

Then Guru Gobind Singh has no idea what he is talking about. First of all,
Krishna was not born from the womb. He appeared before Vasudeva and Devaki
as Naaraayana, then changed Himself into a child. 

Secondly, the stories are not imaginative. They are fact. The orthodox
schools of Vedanta consider them to be historical, and this is the same
claim made by these scriptures themselves. 
 
> I do not know how to put it in a way that does not conflict with many
> readers' beliefs and faiths, but the criticism of many commonly held
> beliefs and practices is very unambiguous in Gurbani.

The criticism of Vaishnavism at least, is based on false premises and
misapplied logic. To understand God fully, one must seek a higher authority
-- the Vedic literatures (which were not authored by humans). Logic can
only get you so far, and it is at best a supporting mode of evidence.

regards,

-- Krishna