[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Sikh view of Hinduism
Sorry for the late response; this only showed up on my server just
this day.
In article <R.ghenDy1H4C.32w@netcom.com>,
Rajwinder Singh <rajwi@barney.bu.edu> wrote:
>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller. See news.admin.net-abuse.announce
>for further information.
>
>Shrisha Rao (shrao@nyx.net) wrote on Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:25:56 GMT:
>
>>I have much regard for Sikhs and for their faith, but I honestly do
>>not think it to be founded on a sounder basis than Vedanta, and I
>>certainly do not think these objections to be worthwhile ones.
>
>Vaaheguroo ji Ka Khalsa, Vaehguroo ji ki Fateh.
>
>Honestly, tell me how much you know about the Sikh Faith. How much
>of Gurbani have you read and understood? How much bani of Bhai
>Gurdas ji and Bhai Nand Lal Singh have you read? Without doing this how
>do you consider yourself qualified for making such pompous judgements?
I am not _myself_, of my own quality, qualified in any sensible way,
but I can claim to have had training in the theory of prAmANya, which
is fundamental to discriminating between right and wrong. This
science is a powerful tool used in deciding the facts about the
ultimate spiritual issues, and is definitely a force-multiplier par
excellence where one's judgement is concerned, as it allows one to
have a clear insight into issues that one could not possibly achieve
on one's own strength. Also, note that while I did say that I do not
believe Sikhism is on a sounder basis than Vedanta, I did not say it
is on a less-sound basis (i.e., I'm quite willing to admit that it is
as sound as some doctrines purporting to be Vedanta).
More importantly, note that neither is my competence vis-a-vis that of
Guru Gobind Singh (or anyone else), nor the soundness of Sikhism in
general, the issue, but the specific claims made about why Krishna,
Ram, etc., are not God. It is quite possible for me to assert that if
Einstein said 2+2=5, then he's wrong -- this has nothing to do with my
worth vs. Einstein's, nor with Einstein's knowledge of math in
general, but only with the correctness or otherwise of a specific
proposition.
>And if you indeed are qualified, let us have detailed discussion on
>the soundness of basis of Sikhism, there will be many interested people
>on soc.religion.sikhism too.
Very well, then let us start with the extant issues; please give me
answers to the queries I raised about the arguments against Krishna
being God, etc., in consultation with interested people in
soc.religion.sikhism or otherwise. We can take things from there.
>The big problem I see with most people, including a whole lot of
>my Hindu friends, and some Sikhs too, is that they really do not know much
>about real Sikhism beyond common hearsay. Even someone quite ignorant like
>myself can see this epidemic of misconceptions.
That's unfortunate but true, I guess.
>Most importantly, however, your presumption that something has to be
>compared with Vedanta to be evaluated, is invalid. As per Gurbani,
>the knowledge of [and philosophy of] vedanta is of no use in itself
>since "Without my True Guru there is utter darkness." [Guru Angad].
The natural response to that is, of course, that your presumption that
anything said by your Guru or in Gurbani is automatically true and
acceptable to all, is invalid. When I have not accepted either as
proofs, it is futile to state them as such. That is why Vedanta is a
sublime standard -- because there is an absence of such assumptions.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Rajwinder Singh
