Jump to content
singhbj singh

Creation Myths: A Look at Hindu and Sikh Texts

Recommended Posts

As part of Scottish Interfaith Week Interfaith Glasgow invite you to join us for a special Scriptural Reasoning dialogue event exploring creation narratives in Hindu and Sikh scriptures.

All Welcome!

The programme will follow the format of "Scriptural Reasoning," a method of interfaith dialogue where texts are specially chosen to provide the focus for discussion, enabling a deeper exploration of the theme and the traditions concerned.

Two speakers from the Hindu and Sikh traditions will give a short introduction to a text of their choice on the theme of "Creation" before all are invited to share their reflections in small groups, and to listen and learn from one and other as equals.

The goal of the dialogue is not agreement, but friendship and understanding.

You can read more about Scriptural Reasoning here

http://www.scripturalreasoning.org

Although originally designed as a method of dialogue for Jews, Muslims and Christians, this event is open to all - religious and secular.

Source - https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/creation-myths-a-look-at-hindu-and-sikh-texts-tickets-34032015675?aff=es2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect three faith who have a common creation story would have been a pointless exercise ...:rofl

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/10/2017 at 0:45 AM, jkvlondon said:

I suspect three faith who have a common creation story would have been a pointless exercise ...:rofl

what makes you think we don't share atleast some creation similarity with hinduism ?

Hindu texts say Parbrahm created universe and three gods by uttering "om" . We say it was done by uttering "oankar" (Dakhni oankar baani)

Political agendas aside (RSS, etc) , I think hindu texts go in much deeper detail . Baani avoids it as its pointless exercise when you can barely save your soul in one human janam.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

what makes you think we don't share atleast some creation similarity with hinduism ?

Hindu texts say Parbrahm created universe and three gods by uttering "om" . We say it was done by uttering "oankar" (Dakhni oankar baani)

Political agendas aside (RSS, etc) , I think hindu texts go in much deeper detail . Baani avoids it as its pointless exercise when you can barely save your soul in one human janam.

 

no i meant the original line up muslim, jew, christian ....

i think hindu and sikh views will diverge very very quickly after ongkara since we don't deal with mythologies like the churning of the seas , ganga's arrival on the earth etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

no i meant the original line up muslim, jew, christian ....

 

Yes I understood you were referring to three abrahamic faiths.

51 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

i think hindu and sikh views will diverge very very quickly after ongkara since we don't deal with mythologies like the churning of the seas , ganga's arrival on the earth etc

Churning of sea and arrival of ganga etc are mythological stories which aim to deliver a point. 

I think somewhere in SGGS there's spiritual exposition of churning of sea and 14 things and what those 14 things actually mean. I heard a katha on it by maskeen ji 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Hindu texts say Parbrahm created universe and three gods by uttering "om" . We say it was done by uttering "oankar" (Dakhni oankar baani)

 

Although not directly related to your point about Om and Oankaar, I think you'd rather enjoy having a read of this thread over on SA bro. It's certainly an interesting and insightful read (as long as you don't have a Hindu allergy).

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/17656-ੴ-onkar-ਓਅੰਕਾਰ-in-speaking-in-listening-in-meditating/?tab=comments#comment-161666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

Although not directly related to your point about Om and Oankaar, I think you'd rather enjoy having a read of this thread over on SA bro. It's certainly an interesting and insightful read (as long as you don't have a Hindu allergy).

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/17656-ੴ-onkar-ਓਅੰਕਾਰ-in-speaking-in-listening-in-meditating/?tab=comments#comment-161666

interesting  but m sound cannot be made without moving lips or tongue only ng like in nganga   so has to be au ah ng ...NOT au ah m

some tenuous points made to make the case for AUM  which is the code for hindu trinity. M also resonates primarily in the mouth and lips whereas ng goes to the bones of the skull, the ears  and upper nasal chamber  and thus third eye and dasam duar.

I've never heard anyone say oankar (ohankaar) in practice only onkar/ongkar(ohngkaar)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

interesting  but m sound cannot be made without moving lips or tongue only ng like in nganga   so has to be au ah ng ...NOT au ah m

some tenuous points made to make the case for AUM  which is the code for hindu trinity. M also resonates primarily in the mouth and lips whereas ng goes to the bones of the skull, the ears  and upper nasal chamber  and thus third eye and dasam duar.

I've never heard anyone say oankar (ohankaar) in practice only onkar/ongkar(ohngkaar)

 

Very true although some would argue the M sound is actually supposed to be a of bindi of sorts, or at least a nasal M rather than labial (if that makes sense). If you look at some transliteration of text in the Devanagari script you'll occasionally see the bindi represented as an M while it's pronounced the same way as a bindi in Gurmukhi. This could be what misleads people into using their lips when Om is spoken.

Many do say Oankaar. Doesn't Bhai Jarnail Singh pronounce it this way? Or am I hearing it wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrDoaba said:

Very true although some would argue the M sound is actually supposed to be a of bindi of sorts, or at least a nasal M rather than labial (if that makes sense). If you look at some transliteration of text in the Devanagari script you'll occasionally see the bindi represented as an M while it's pronounced the same way as a bindi in Gurmukhi. This could be what misleads people into using their lips when Om is spoken.

Many do say Oankaar. Doesn't Bhai Jarnail Singh pronounce it this way? Or am I hearing it wrong?

 

bro it's onkar  with aspirated au so sounds a tiny bit like oankar

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

interesting  but m sound cannot be made without moving lips or tongue only ng like in nganga   so has to be au ah ng ...NOT au ah m

some tenuous points made to make the case for AUM  which is the code for hindu trinity. M also resonates primarily in the mouth and lips whereas ng goes to the bones of the skull, the ears  and upper nasal chamber  and thus third eye and dasam duar.

I've never heard anyone say oankar (ohankaar) in practice only onkar/ongkar(ohngkaar)

 

ONGKAAR is the most ridiculous innovation in sikhism.

there's no 'G' sound there. It is OANKAAR (read dakhni oankar baani by Guru Nanak where its clearly written "Oankaar" )

the original sound is "Oan" , not "Om" but since in sanskrit , 'n' and 'm' are very close maatras , some people confused 'n' for 'm' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

ONGKAAR is the most ridiculous innovation in sikhism.

there's no 'G' sound there. It is OANKAAR (read dakhni oankar baani by Guru Nanak where its clearly written "Oankaar" )

the original sound is "Oan" , not "Om" but since in sanskrit , 'n' and 'm' are very close maatras , some people confused 'n' for 'm' 

bro watch how you say things please , I was trying to use ng so people would have their mouths in the correct position nothing more, to feel what I am saying, it is an open reverbating N not short like nana or standard bindi , M for sure is closed, restricted sound. the point of onkaar is both in the visual calligraphy and the naad is open onwards moving expansive reflecting that nature ... I remember my Father explaining the calligraphic aspect as a small child and feeling the bismaad of that...it hasn't ended and never will

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×