Jump to content

Darbandi Baba

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Darbandi Baba's Achievements

  1. Unbreakable wrote: Actually I have done so: "1. Brahmanism is an outdated word used by Indologist scholars of the early 20th century for the Smarta tradition as founded by Shankaracharya with its synthetic attempt to reconcile all theistic Indic religions (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Ganapatya, Surya worship) into one coherent theistic system of belief and liturgy. " Sanatan Dharma is a late neologism as well not found in early Indian sacred texts. All you have is separate religions (vaishnavism, Smartism, Shaivism,Shaktism etc). As a civilisation they all share the same codes of law like in Japan Tendai, Shingon, Zen and Ryobu religions shared the common Shinto social rituals for marriage. But there is no such thing as the idea of a Sanatan Dharma during the classical period. You are entitled to your opinion. When 70 % of a community discriminates against the rest I would define it as a big problem. But then again it's all a matter of perspective. If that is so use the word castism which is more accurate and understood by all instead of Brahmanism which means something completely different. I didn't know I had stopped being an academic...
  2. Shaeediyan wrote: "It doesn't matter in which context the word Brahmanism is used by western or modern academics, the issue here is the derivation of it's use from Sri Guru Granth Sahib where there is theme of hypocrisy and superiority of Brahmans during the Bhagats and Gurus era. It is this culture that the 'modern' word Brahmanism is being used for - be it that the Brahmans being refered to are not 'true' Brahmans or 'high order' egocentric Brahmans that you have mentioned above (thinking lowly of other Brahmans). Guru Sahiban of course give the true and correct definition for Brahmans as they do for Muslims. It is simply a case of accepted generalisation - similar to your generalisation of Sikhs 'whose house should be burned to the ground'. Your use of the terms Sikh is also not correct - as the definition is clearly given in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and Bhai Gurdaas Ji's Vaaran. It's simply another case of snobbery on your part - when you very well know the context the word is being used in. " 1. Although the Adi Granth does talk about brahmins it does not use any Indian equivalent of the term "brahmanism" either in morphology or meaning. So your remark about the use of "brahmanism" in gurbani is out of place. It is as it were an anachronism. The "ism" terms are expressed by the suffix -vada and are used in Sanskritised Panjabi and Hindi. The term brahmanvad is a neologism in Panjabi which is what you translate by "Brahmanism" which is of course a problem as the slot for Brahmanism has already been used and that in any case it is in and of itself semantically incoherent. 2. There is a thing called "language" that human beings use to communicate irrespective of their level of intelligence. One of the fundamentals of linguistics is that both the meaning and the word itself need to be shared by the community of speakers and need to be standardised so as to avoid everyone having their definitions of a word. If all of us would take the word "house" and each would attach a meaning other than that of "four walls and a roof" and instead replace the standard meaning by pizza, kebab, car we would have a society where people speak like this: - He just ordered a pepperoni house - He ate a turkish house with fries - He drove his house whilst chatting on his mobile phone Everyone would recognise that it not only makes no sense but that communication is rendered impossible because of individual definitions of a word. It so happens that the term Brahmanism is not found in gurbani and is a scientific term to define a very specific religious movement. When Sikhs write:" Yeah its all coz of bahmanizm yeah coz bahmans got too much nafrat innit" it may be understood by the small community of ghetto Sikhs that populate the suburbs of British and Canadian cities BUT it means zero to any person who has chosen to use standard language in order to be understood by all out of sheer respect for the idea of clear communication. Now, much to your relief, all is not lost... There another term used in English and commonly understood by all that translates exactly what most of the forum members have been complaining about: the belief in caste supremacy, be it jatt, ramgharia or brahman. It's called "castism". In clear it means the same as racism except it is relevant to caste. Open any Indian newspaper using standard English such as India Today and you'll notice its use. Isn't language a wonderful thing? Now you finally have a word that everyone else on earth understands with which you are able to communicate your grievances about caste related exclusivism. Now I know that some may think:" yeah bahudar u sulla juz coz you know how 2 write ur name correctly dont mean nuffin coz ur full of tati" As I am used to these sort of remarks I'll just opt for the "blase puffing at my ghalyun" pose and say:"Whatever now you know how everyone else speaks. Go forth into the world and communicate your thoughts and sin no more" Ramadan Mubarak
  3. 1. Brahmanism is an outdated word used by Indologist scholars of the early 20th century for the Smarta tradition as founded by Shankaracharya with its synthetic attempt to reconcile all theistic Indic religions (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Ganapatya, Surya worship) into one coherent theistic system of belief and liturgy. 2. The threefold division of society into priest-warrior-famer is common to all Indo European cultures and the appearance of the fourth varna (shudra) in India corresponds to the slave in other societies. It thus predates the Vedas by far. The question in India has always been who was at the top of the sacred hierarchy: the priests or the warriors. The myth of Parashurama refers to this struggle as do many Upanishads who have been authored by kshatriya sages. The theory used by Dalits and Sikh groups according to which the "evil Brahmins" set out a plan to govern Indian society (a sort of Protocol of the Sages of Zion conspiracy theory) is simply ridiculous. Had it been so the shastras wouldn't make constant references to a real Brahmin having to live in outmost simplicity. In fact most of the time real Brahmins (not those who work in temples...that's just considere the lowest of the low for Brahmins) are nto very rich. Proof is that the richest man in Benares is an untouchable who makes millions by taking care of the funerals (any job to do with death is delegated to untouchables). 3. Social mobility seemd to have been more fluid during Buddha's time when the son of a farmer was able to becaome a warrior. Later on this social mobility was limited to jaati i.e. only if a complete jaati changed its profession and costums could it go up or down the varna hierarchy. As for the Gurus they all married within their own jaati and in fact several rahitname do insist on marrying within one's jaati. Equality as proposed in Sikh texts is a religious one, i.e. that brahmins and shudras have the same possibility to attain salvation. Given the absence of a coherent social and political system it would far fetched to project on the Sikh Gurus the project of an utopian socialist society. And to blame Brahmins for the sheer hatred that emanates from the Jatt community for anything non Jatt is again just the same as blaming women for the existence of rapists. The problem is clear and the problem is simple: a community without an intellectual elite lead by gready and resentful Jatts who have been waiting for centuries for their revenge against non Jatts. Unbreakable wrote: "Nobody really knows the true and proper root of Hinduism or its texts, one can only, based on historical books make a educated guess. " Actually there are problems with your statement: 1. Hinduism is a 19th century concept that is very easily traceable see Richard King and Gavin Flood 2. Given the fact that what you call Hinduism is a conglomerate of disparate separate religions whpse texts are datable and identifiable....I guess Indologist scholarship on the subject is a bit more than just "a(n) educated guess"
  4. I would be cautious with the "it's all because of Brahmanism" theory. First of all none of you here has ever come up with a decent definition of what Brahmanism is that actually corelates with what it's usually defined as. Secondly you all seem to forget that Brahmin Sikhs have always been among the closest disciples of the Gurus working as their purohits and advisers. The Rahitname and historical granths have for the most been written by Jatts who have clearly stated their hatred for Brahmins and all other castes. As for the origin of this system of varna and jati it goes way back beforeeven the Vedas came about and to blame Brahmins for the creation of this system is just utter ignorance.
  5. Shaheediyan wrote: The use of religious terminology transcends your own limited individual experience i.e. just because you have only heard Sunni Muslims, fanatical Christians (so far I have only heard of Catholics, Orthodoxs and Protestants I didn't know there was a group called "fanatical Christians") and myself. Apart from the all too obvious association of cliches (fanatic - Bahadur Ali) let's put things back where they belong. Most religious traditions know the concept of blasphemy and that includes Sikhism. Blasphemy implies willingly attacking teh sacred by degrading what makes it sacred in order to hurt a community or the sacred object itself (God, doctrine etc). The Roman Catholic Church regularly prohibits its followers from reqding or watching material that it considers blasphemous. Madonna's song "Like a prayer" or "like a virgin" are examples of songs that contain obvious references to Catholicism in order to insult it. Recently Madonna appeared on stage on a cross. This has been considered blasphemy by the Church. Blasphemy used to be punished by death but the reform of blasphemy laws in Europe and the Churchs withdrawal from direct political rule has made it impossible. Yet the Church still excommunicates blasphemers. In Iran blasphemy against God and his prophets (including Jesus etc) is punished by death. Criticism of the clergy and of religion is allowed as long as it does not involve insults. In 1989 Imam Khomeini (ra) issed the famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie for blasphemy against Ahlul Bayt (as). The term blasphemy is thus equally used by us Shi'as. Judaism strictly prophibits blasphemy and its punishment is death. Because the exile of the Jewish people will only end when the Messiah arrives, Jezs are not allowed to carry out the death penalty for blasphemy but blasphemy is considered a major crime (not just a sin) in Judaism. As for Sikhism the notion of blasphemy does exist even though, in absence of a proper system of jurisprudence no specific term is used in the theological jargon. Yet blasphemy still exists as a notion that needs to be punished. Examples: - during one of the Kumbha Melas of the 19th century a group of armed sadhus slashed a copy of the Guru Granth Sahib. The Nihangs with the help of several Sikh rajas attacked these sadhus causing 2000 deaths. It was a response to the blashemous act of the sadhus. - Ernst Trumpp, German scholar, was accused of blasphemy by large sections of the Sikh clergy including Baba Khem Singh Bedi for smoking whilstr analysing a copy of the Guru Granth Sahib. - The Indian Army's devastations of the Akal Takht was considered an act of blasphemy by most Sikhs - Baba Gurbachan Singh Nirankari was assassinated for having placed his feet on the Guru Granth Sahib and having proclaimed that he would bring about seven blue stars in teh same way as Guru Gobind Singh brought about the panj pyare. -recently Gurpreet Kaur's "Beizhati" was deemed blasphemous by large sections of the UK Sikh leadership - and there are many other examples of people who got eather killed, excommunicated for having insulted Sikh religious feelings. The attempt to bring about the image of a modern and "tolerant" Sikhism in tune with present Western society clashes with reality.
  6. As much as Tsingh is right in terms of not generalising when it comes to Nirmalas. I do nevertheless remember Baba Sher Singh telling me about shahidi degh being used in older times by Nirmalas for prolonged meditation sessions. There is also pictural evidence of shahidi degh being served at Baba Vir Singh's langar. I will provide you with the picture and close up detail soon. But Tsingh is right regarding the position of most nirmalas on shahidi degh.
  7. "Do you mind going into greater depth for us on all the reasons why parcharaks study the granths of other dharms, especially those of Indian religions? " It's pretty simple: it's called contextualising...
  8. There are only 12 Imams in Shi'ism and in modern times the term has only been used for Imam Khomeini and Imam Khamenei in their quality of wali e faqi, which of course is not the same status as the maasum Imams. Abdul Musa is most probably an hojjatol eslam or an ayatollah not an imam.
  9. Who said I would do anything against Sikhs in Iran? If you read my post I said "jsingh96" should come to Tehran and explain to the authorities the Islamophobic content of many Sikh texts. I am just not interested in dealing with Sikhs as a community in Iran as long as they respect the law of the country. If Sikh individuals or Sikhs as a group would go against the laws of the Islamic republic (which they do regularly) it is up to the authorities to deal with them. Yet some issues are problematic: 1.Sikhs in Iran are classified as Hindus in order to be able to fall within the realm of sharia law as we do not recognise any separate religion after Islam. The Sikh temple is called Masjed e Hinduan. So is it ok to call yourselves Hindus when it suits you? Isn't this a lie? and if yes isnt that comspiracy? 2.The issue of Sikhs in Iran not knowing Dasam Granth doesn't take away the fact that it is gurbani. Most Bahais ignore that Bahaullah allowed Bahais to steal and loot the property of Shias it doesn't take away the fact that Bahais as a movement are prohibited in Iran because of the incompatibility of their core beliefs with that of the Islamic Republic. As for the rest, stop this ridiculous "oppressed victims" bs, it's not entertaining anymore...
  10. Innocent? Let's procede logically. 1. Dasam Granth is the second holy scripture of the Sikhs. 2. In it it is stated that Mahadin deviated from the right path. 99,9% of Sikh scholars say Mahadin is the Holy Prophet (pbuh). 3. This is a direct insult against Islam and Ahl ul Bayt (as) and is considered a crime in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4. Anyone subscribing to Dasam Granth i.e. Sikhs are therefore guilty under Iranian law, in the same way as a person would be guilty of insulting the queen in the UK. 5. Adding to it the fact that they have never revealed this to the authorities they are as a community guilty of conspiracy. If a religious community living in the UK had a holy book that insulted the queen they'd be considered guilty. I find your twisted logic funny: they're the ones commiting the crime but I am the Nazi? When you don't like a country or its culture you simply leave it, you don't lie about your beliefs in order to stay.
  11. Wine? Me? Gave it up ages ago. But if you wish to tell the authorities about it you are most welcome, after you explain to them the passages about Mahadin, the Karni Namah and the Prem Sumarg passages about the Holy Prophet (pbuh). I am sure the few hundred Sikh families in Tehran and Zahedan will appreciate your contribution in getting them kicked out of the country for conspiring against the Islamic Republic and facking their birth certificates in order to evade military service, among other illegal activities... Otherwise eveything here is fine and the ghalyun (hookah) is just great, especially in the sonati cafes on Valiasr street. http://f3.yahoofs.com/blog/4776d552z66c43f...gwDYpIBIDBxr.8y
  12. All fine and dandy but this isn't a definition." within and without the forms" is way too vague.
  13. 1. You admit to not following any rahitnama 2. This implies you make up your own personal rahit 3. The question now is: is this gurmat or shaheediyanmat?
  14. Probably why most of your scholars think Mahadin is the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and why the Prem Sumrag Granth encourages Sikhs to insult the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Your pc version of Sikh tradition is laudable but doesn't fit with the historical and textual facts.
×
×
  • Create New...