Creation Myths: A Look at Hindu and Sikh Texts

[singhbj singh]

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

[jkvlondon]

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

[Guest]

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 ...

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.

 

[jkvlondon]

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

[Guest]

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 

[MrDoaba]

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

[jkvlondon]

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)

 

[MrDoaba]

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?

 

[jkvlondon]

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

[Guest]

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'