Hindus Challenging Originality Of Sikhism

[Jai Tegang!]

Guru Maharaj doing bhagti in the womb is not accordance with Gurmat. Satguru does not enter the womb, nor are they born. Their bodies are not made of the elements our human bodies are made of.

Sikhi does not change or become outdated, but the Dharam of each yug changes. Superiority of Naam does not change, since it was Naam that Bhagat PRahlad Nad Bhagat Dhru meditated on in Satyug.

Bijla Singh you have taken too much of a scholarly approach in your khoj of Sikhi and have neglected what Satpurshs Sants Bhagats have seen and told and believe.

[ms514]

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

"There is no such thing as the Hindu religion, your argument is invalid".

There, the essay has been made null.

Hindu is an Arabic word for thief, as conveyed by Bhai Daljit Singh of Damdami Taksal in his Katha. Bhai Gurdas Sahib has shown exactly how "unified" (sarcasm) the "Hindu faith" was - fighting amongst each other over the superiority of their respective granth (Vedas vs. Upanishads etc.) and cheating people along the way. Hinduism changes from town to town in India - each town has its own diety to worship - Ganesh vs. Shiva vs. Durga etc.

Why not just say that Sikhism and the Universe has an unbreakable bond? The argument is silly and Hindus need to give themselves a better definition rather than just cast a broad net across whatever they want to control (yeah, they'll claim that Islam is a branch of Hinduism too...). They ate the Buddhists, the Jainis and they are gunning for the Sikhs. If one has any faith in Gurbani, they realize (as has been correctly mentioned in this post) that each Yug had its own Dharam - therefore the Dharam of Krishna Sahib was different than that of Sri Raam.

You fail, good night and be quiet Mr. God Bole - God Bole Tah Tera Kacha Gilla Houga.

[gurmukhsodhi]

ਪੰਡਿਤ ਪੜਿ ਪੜਿ ਵਾਦੁ ਵਖਾਣਹਿ ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਏ ॥

The Pandits, the religious scholars, read and argue and stir up controversies, but without the Guru, they are deluded by doubt.

[DrunkenMaster]

Bhai Gurdas Sahib has shown exactly how "unified" (sarcasm) the "Hindu faith" was - fighting amongst each other over the superiority of their respective granth (Vedas vs. Upanishads etc.) and cheating people along the way.

I wonder which other dharam also does this....

[Trying to be Khalsa]

I wonder which other dharam also does this....

What do you mean ?

[THE WARRIOR]

I would like to know is why use Hindu methodology at all? Be it Hindu Symbolism, literalism, History, Folk, Legend, Geography etc In short Guru Gobind Singh Ji could have used any type or formula based on any culture, known or unknown created or he could have as we have today created our own but he didnt. He could have aligned himself with any monotheist mentality but he didnt…..there must have been a reason why, in particular the language and formula of The Granths also demonstrate this.

Guru Maharaj demonstrated how Dharma should be lived and not how it was being lived and not how it had become. The problem we have is Hindu-phobia because we associate a people the Hindus as stone worshiping cow lovers we instinctively dislike these Pagans….so why are they such a threat?

The future should be based on alliances to Humanity and not who or what people worship. People need to move away from being fearful of being assimilated or being swallowed. The fear is just propagated to various agendas and are baseless. There is no great science here or majestic wisdom just common ground for people peace and humanity...Three things Sikhi is all about.

[mohinder pal]

Someone asked God, 'Which Religion is your Favourite'

He Replied, 'Love,Faith and Devotion is my Religion'

Neither Sikhs have upper hand over Spiritually nor Hindus,Muslims or other religions in the world. Whosever FAITH is Bigger, His God is Bigger(Remember the sakhi of 5th Patshahi).

I wonder Avataars never came on Earth to say' From today, Hindus are Great or Muslims are Great or Sikhs are Great'. That is why Guru Gobind singh ji mentioned 'Whosoever Heart is Pure(Khals), He is better than other IRRESPECTIVE which religion he/she belongs to.

[GPS]

The basic thing to keep in mind is that SGGS sahib talks about nirakar ( without form) and Dasam Granth sahib apart from telling us about Nirakar mostly talks about akar ( Creation).That is why Guru sahib wrote this Granth in narrative account and gave advice to his khalsa by citing secular stories to avoid moral pitfalls. Once we understand this we will read message of Dasam Granth sahib in the right perspective and not misjudge writings of Guru sahib.

For example Bachitra natak composition of Dasam Granth sahib has three parts namely philosophical, autographical and historical. The part in discussion here was from autobiographical section of Guru sahib. Hence his prebirth account should be viewed in appropriate perspective.

[Bijla Singh]

Chatanga ji, many of the pauris in Vaar 1 explain many of the religions, paths, sects etc and their beliefs and philosophies. Purpose of this is to explain why their paths were false and incomplete. Bhai Sahib talks about prevalent condition of religions and society during the time when Guru Sahib pargat on earth. It does not mean Bhai Sahib believed or advocated all those paths. He talks about Vedant, Mimansa, Vedas, Shankhya, Buddhism, Islam etc but he doesn't believe in any of them. He is explaining all different paths that existed and what they believed in. Bhai Veer Singh has added some notes to this particular pauri which says:

ਇਥੇ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਜੀ ਪ੍ਰਚਲਿਤ ਮਤਾਂ ਦਾ ਵਰਨਣ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ ਤੇ ਮਤਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੰਨੇ ਹਾਲ ਦਸ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ । ਆਪਣਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਕਿਤੇ ਹੋਰਥੇ ਦੱਸਣਗੇ ।

He further adds: ਏਹ ਇਤਰ ਮਤਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਮਨਾਉਤਾਂ ਹਨ ।

Similarly, Vaar 10 talks about popular stories attributed to bhagats. This Vaar is basically a summary of Bhagat Maal by Nabha Daas. Bhai Sahib doesn't endorse these stories. Once again, please don't take everything literally. Understand the context first. Bhai Sahib could not write anything that is not supported by Gurbani. We can start a separate topic to discuss Vaars which in my opinion is a vast treasure of Gurmat way of life.

Jai tegang ji, I agree that Satguru doesn't enter the womb but Guru Gobind Singh Ji was not Satguru until He became Jot Nanak. My approach of study is not to reject our traditions but to find logics behind them. I study to justify our beliefs. If something doesn't sound right then we must find answers. I am not rejecting Bachittar Natak but if Raam was not born in current Ayodheya then there must be a correct answer somewhere else and we must try to find out if there is any context behind Guru Sahib's writings. Sardar Kapoor Singh's approach to chrittar of Anandpur is different (and correct) than those who took it literally. I am not correct all the time and neither is anybody else. I find your argument similar to what Harnam Singh Dhumma once said after discussing a topic with me for four hours. When he had no answers he started comparing me with Sant Gurbachan Singh Ji though Sant Ji had practiced what I was talking about but his personal ego refused to accept. We should not compare ourselves with each other but find answers by keeping Gurbani as the base. We should take information provided by previous scholars and sampardas and move forward to find out more. If on the way we find something that better explains Gurmat it doesn't mean previous scholars were inferior or they had less avastha. They are still respected the same way. They are still our mentor and we should never dismiss them. Our purpose should be to learn not to follow others blindly otherwise if everything sampardas have said is true and final then where does that leave the room for more research and study of Gurmat? We should be progressive and the works of sampardas and scholars should be used to help us move in the right direction.

Dr Pannu says that it used to be a tradition of the religious saints that whenever they wrote their own biography they wrote a fiction story about their past life. A Buddhist once wrote a granth hundreds years ago on his own life and wrote a fiction story about his past life. Purpose of this was to relay the message that creation is continuous and they are part of it. This way the followers would not glorify them as God which is why I think Guru Sahib wrote "Jo Hum Ko Parmeshar Uchrehn..". Unfortunately, when I went to discuss it further with him he was not there and had gone to stay at his student's house. So I missed the opportunity. Perhaps Guru Sahib will do kirpa and bless me with a better and clearer explanation of the story. Guru Rakha

[Bundha]

Dr Pannu says that it used to be a tradition of the religious saints that whenever they wrote their own biography they wrote a fiction story about their past life. A Buddhist once wrote a granth hundreds years ago on his own life and wrote a fiction story about his past life. Purpose of this was to relay the message that creation is continuous and they are part of it. This way the followers would not glorify them as God which is why I think Guru Sahib wrote "Jo Hum Ko Parmeshar Uchrehn..". Unfortunately, when I went to discuss it further with him he was not there and had gone to stay at his student's house. So I missed the opportunity. Perhaps Guru Sahib will do kirpa and bless me with a better and clearer explanation of the story. Guru Rakha

Sorry, but this is utter baloney and I am surprised our intelligent Gursikhs fall for such rubbish as Bachttar Natak being something about the womb. I heard this story many years ago and it was utter rubbish then as it is now. Please do not compare Guru Gobind Singh Ji to a saint or on parr to a 'Buddhist'. Guru Ji does not deal in fantasy, Guru Ji does not write fictional accounts of His life or anyone elses. There is not difference between the Guru and Akaal, if Akaal is Truth then so is Guru, so why would Guru Ji write a fictional account of his past life ? Why would Guru Ji in essence tell a lie ? .................. Guru Ji writes the TRUTH and only the TRUTH.